1904-07-11

Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved :: -
That item No. 40, House in committee on .Bill (No. 73) to amend the Railway Act of 1903 (Mr. Lennox) be transferred from Public Bills and Orders to Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce (Bill No. 151) respecting the Incorporation of Seed-Growers' Association.
Mr. INGRAM.: What is the purpose of the Bill?


Mr. FISHER.: It is simply to give statutory authority for the incorporation of Seed-Growers' Associations. In consequence of the investigations that have been made by my department into the seed business of the country, certain people have expressed a wish to form themselves into an association for growing seed grain and other agricultural seeds. At present, there is no law under which these people can be incorporated and do their work legally as a corporate body. Some years ago parliament passed a statute for the incorporation of live stock associations, and this Bill is very much in the same form, as applied to seed growers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. EARLE asked :: 1. Is there a vacancy in the collectorship of customs at Victoria, B.C. ?	/[DOT]

2.	How long has the collectorship been vacant ?
3.	Who is performing the duties of collector at present ?
4.	How long has he been performing such duties ?
5.	When is it proposed to fill the vacancy ?
6.	Has the position been offered to Mr. R. L. Drury, M.P.P., or to any other person?


Right Hon.   S@: The collectorship of customs at Victoria, B.C., has been vacant, I believe, since February or March last I have not the exact date, The duties of the office are performed by the sub-collector. As to the fifth question, ' When is it proposed to fill the vacancy ? ' The Minister is not in his seat, and I cannot answer. The position has not been offered to Mr. Drury or to any other person.



DAMAGES BY FLOODS, CHAMBLY CANAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	Who are the parties entitled to receive an indemnity for the damages caused by flooding, and referred to in item 31 of the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1904 ?
2.	By what means have these parties established their claim ?
3.	Are there any other claimants, and if so, what are their names ?
Right Hon. SIR WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: The explanation with regard to this vote will be given when the estimates come up for discussion.



THE MILITIA ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again went into committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada-Sir Frederick Borden.
Hon. SIR FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).: When the second reading of this Bill was under discussion, my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) who preceded me in the department of Militia, asked for some papers with reference to the communications which led up to my attendance at the meeting of the Defence Committee in London. I told the hon. gentleman that I would endeavour to bring these papers down. I have them here. They consist of only two or three cablegrams which I will read. The first was from Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto :-
London, April 20, 1903.
With regard to important amendment contemplated in Militia Act, His Majesty's government earnestly hopes that your responsible advisers will defer action until matter has been fully discussed by Minister of Militia with Secretary of State for War and Commander in Chief. After close of Dominion session of parliament would suggest that Sir Frederick Borden should come to England.
(Sgd.) CHAMBERLAIN.
Ottawa, Nov. 12, 1903.
Referring to Mr. Chamberlain's cypher telegram dated 20th April, Minister of Militia 203
anxious to sail for England about Nov. 28th, so that he may discuss new Militia Act with Secretary of State for War and Commander in Chief, and return to Canada before Christmas. Hope that this arrangement may be a convenient one. Consider mutual discussion important.
(Sgd.) MINTO.
Lord Minto telegraphed later on
Ottawa, 23rd Nov., 1903.
Am anxious for reply to my telegram of Nov. 12th, as Minister of Militia wishes to make his plans accordingly.
(Sgd.) MINTO.
The answer from Mr. Littleton was as follows
London, 24th Nov., 1903.
Referring to your cable of yesterday's date. Date suggested for visit of minister will be quite convenient.
(Sgd.) LYTTLETON.
I have already stated to the House the substance of what took place at that meeting of the Defence Committee. I only wish to add that my understanding of the object of my being invited to attend that meeting was simply and solely to expedite business. The Defence Committee is no longer, as it used to be, a sub-committee of Council, but is now an independent and advisory committee which has been created by the Prime Minister of England for the purpose of advising the Council, and its functions go no further than those of advisers. It is a business committee, and the object of inviting me to attend that committee, was simply7 to bring about, in the shortest possible manner the best results. As a result of my attending that committee, we were able to arrange in a short time-in an hour and a half or so-business that could not have been done in less than weeks, or possibly months, by correspondence.
Since the conymittee last sat, a number of notices of proposed amendments have been given. I have collected all of these amendments, with the exception of one or two, for the convenience of hon. gentlemen who are interested in this discussion, and I shall send two copies of this memorandum to bon. gentlemen opposite. The further amendments will be explained later on. Since the Bill was prepared I have, as already indicated to the House, had an opportunity of studying the new system which has been adopted by the War Office, as the result of ihe report of the committee known as the Esher Committee, which was appointed by Mr. Balfour for the purpose of investigating and reporting on all matters connected with the organization of the War Office, and making a report. The report is known as the Report of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee, and is an exceedingly interesting, able and elaborate document. This report lias been adopted by the British government, and the details of it are now being worked cut. Like any new system it will, of course.



take time to work out all the details, but the main principles have been adopted and, I have been informed, are working very well. In view of the course which has been pursued by the War Office, a course which I may say has resulted from difficulties which were found to exist in working out the complicated system which has obtained in England, and which, to some extent, has been in existence in this country, I have thought it advisable to provide, in the Bill now before parliament, the machinery by which the government of this country may follow the example of the Imperial Government. Without troubling this committee by going into details, I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that it is quite obvious that the system which has been in existence in this country ever since confederation has not worked well. I am not going to animadvert upon or criticise any officers who have been sent out here to assist us in administering the militia of this country. I do not propose to do that, but 1 think that every one will agree that the system has not worked well, and I am prepared to blame the system much more than the individuals who have attempted to work it. I believe it is an impossible system. I believe it is absolutely and entirely impossible to get on with the system which we have attempted to work in this country since confederation. We have had abundant examples, not confined to the administrations of the Liberal party alone, but under previous administrations as well, when It was found unworkable. There are many difficulties which I think act against the public interest in the endeavour to work out this system, difficulties which will be overcome entirely or very largely by the new system. One of these difficulties is that there has been absolute want of continuity under the existing system. Each new General Officer Commanding who comes to this country seems to be possessed with the idea that it is his duty to overturn and change everything done by his predecessor. There are no records to show in detail the reasons for the conclusions which the different General Officers Commanding have reached. Lnder the new system, there will be a Militia Council corresponding to what is in England called the Army Council. That council will be composed of the Minister of Militia, as chairman of the council, with four military men and two additional civilians. Everything that is done at that council will be made a matter of record, or at any rate every conclusion of importance which is reached by that council will be made a matter of record, so that if there be a change of ministers or a change of officers the record will remain there for the guidance of those who may come afterwards, and when changes are suggested, means will be found to compare new proposals with old proposals.


Frederick William Borden: 


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Are those means not available now ?


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware of that being the ease ; they were not found available in the British War Office, and they are very much less likely to be available here.


James Joseph Hughes: You are describing the British system now ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. That is the system which I propose to inaugurate in this country. Of course, the conditions being changed, it was necessary to change some of the provisions with reference to the formation and working out of the system. The Militia Council, as I say, will be composed of seven members, as is the Army Council-four military, three civil. The Minister for the time being will be the chairman ; the principal military officer will be known as the Chief of the General Staff. Then there will be the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of Ordnance. The two additional civilians would be the Deputy Minister and, probably, the Chief Accountant of the Department.


James Joseph Hughes: Why not have the Finance Minister of Canada ?


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend will have an opportunity of criticising these proposals later on.


James Joseph Hughes: Or the Auditor General ?


Frederick William Borden: That might add to the harmony of things. The minister in this way will have the advantage of being surrounded by his officers, by all the leading men representing the leading departments of the militia service. He will be in constant touch with his officers, and will, for the first time, have an opportunity of knowing exactly what is going on. He will have an opportunity of hearing and exchanging opinions with the technical men. which-if he happens to be an inexperienced man when he comes into office, as he is very likely to be-will be a very great advantage to him.


Mr. FOWLER.: As I understand this advisory council, it is to consist of men in the service of the department.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George William Fowler: Are you not iu the position to call on them now ? Would it not be better to have men from the outside ?


Frederick William Borden: I am discussing a change which involves dispensing altogether with the services of
the General Officer Commanding, and the council will be largely in substitution of that office. With reference to the question
63(59

which my hon. friend has Just put, I might answer it by pointing to the experience which I have had, and the correspondence in connection with which I read to this House three or four years ago, over a controversy with the General Officer Commanding. I was under the impression that I had the right to consult any officer in my department, and I was doing so when I discovered that an order had been sent out by the General Officer Commanding to each one of these gentlemen not to come to my office without his permission, and after they had come with his permission and discussed matters with me. they were immediately to go back to him and tell him every word that had taken place.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister kindly name the general ?


Frederick William Borden: I think my hon. friend knows who it was. It was General Hutton.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: You have
heard of him.


Frederick William Borden: 1 may say in addition that I blame the system. These men come here with the idea that they are to command, and that every officer in the Dominion is absolutely under them and them alone, and they are jealous of any interference even by the minister. They) object apparently to the minister, who is responsible to parliament and the people, having any direct communication with the officers under him. That is one of the difficulties of the system. It is a difficulty which was found to prevail in England and rendered the system there unworkable. The same difficulty exists here to a very much greater degree. I do not know that I need go further into the Bill just now, because I think the better way Is to discuss the section as it comes up. In the discussion we bad, many suggestions of importance were made, and I have endeavoured in the new sections to meet these as far as possible. When I introduced the Bill I said we would drop the word ' Defence,' from the old title of ' Militia and Defence.' I have ascertained from the officers of my department that this change is undesirable, because it would render useless large quantities of forms.


George William Fowler: Would not there eventually be a saving in the amount of printing by the omission of this useless word ?


Frederick William Borden: We have a great many forms printed now. I move, therefore, that the title of the Bill be made to read ' An Act respecting the Department of Militia and Defence.'


James Joseph Hughes: Does that mean that we have given up the idea of a navy V


Frederick William Borden: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Or has it been handed over to the Minister of Agriculture V 2031
The hon. minister has just told us that these men come over here with the idea that they are to command, and objects to the minister interfering with the officers under him. Will he give some instances to illustrate that other than General Hutton ?


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to take my statement, which is the result of my experience.


James Joseph Hughes: I think that these gentlemen's reputations are of as much value to them as the minister's is to him. if they have been unfair or unreasonable, we should know, but it is hardly fair to General O'Grady-Haly or Lord Dundonald or any of the others, that a general reflection such as this should be made which might apply to any one of them.


Frederick William Borden: What I said was that I blamed the system and not the individual, and when I mentioned General Hutton in reply to the question put by my hon. friend, I had no intention of being drawn into any personal controversy with reference to any of these General Officers Commanding. I knew that the hon. member for Victoria does not object in the slightest degree to any unpleasant or unfavourable remarks regarding General Hutton, and as the matter affecting that general had come before the House, and was on record, I referred to the correspondence. I have said that the system is unworkable, but that implies no reflection on the officers themselves. They were sent out, as they supposed, to command. Every officer in Canada is under them, every officer of the Headquarters Staff is under them, but under the new system there will be no question of rank affecting this Military Council. That is carefully left out. The men who come in will come in on an equal footing and,their position will be altogether different from that of the General Officer Commanding.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. minister has made a statement in regard to myself that I cannot allow to pass. He said	that he	knew that his hon.
friend, meaning myself, would take no objection to anything unpleasant which he might say regarding General Hutton. I have been fair to General Hutton throughout the length and breadth of the British empire, and what I would object to in General Hutton I would object to in Lord Dundonald. I do object to any commanding officer coming to this country and seeking to arrogate to himself functions that belong to the people of Canada, but we must be just as careful that the minister in charge of the department' does not arrogate to himself functions that do not belong to him. I have been absolutely fair to General Hutton, and I do not think the ,hon. minister has any right to make the statement that I have been unfair to him.


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: What I say is that this is part of the system. The system is to blame. I do not blame any one in particular, but under the system, as it now exists, the commanding officer commands every officer in Canada and nobody knows better than my hon. friend what that means in the matter of discipline. It is a very difficult position to place an officer in to expect him to be entirely satisfied that officers acting in a subordinate capacity under him shall come to the minister as often as they choose, or as often as he may wish to see them, to consult about matters about which he thinks they ought to be consulted. I am not finding any fault. I am sorry if I have been unable to make myself understood. I am not blaming any officer in particular ; I am blaming the system and it is the system we propose to change.


George William Fowler: W'ould the hon. minister kindly state again the officers who are to form a council ?


Frederick William Borden: I will mention them when we get to that clause.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister tells us that he proposes to change the system and adopt that which is recommended in England. Would not the conditions in connection with the militia of England be so Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
different from what they are in Canada that we could hardly apply the same system ?


Frederick William Borden: No doubt the conditions would be different, but not so very different. I am not speaking without the book. I have taken the pains to consult some of the most eminent military authorities in England as well as in this country, and they agree that while there may be some difficulties and that while some alterations may have to be made in applying the system, it can be applied here equally as well as in England.


Andrew B. Ingram: In having read the document the hon. gentleman has referred to, it is a very extensive document and it refers particularly to the system in England. It occurred to me at the time I read it that the conditions were so very different here from those which exist in England as to make it difficult to apply the same system.


Frederick William Borden: I think that so far as the reconstitution of the Headquarters Staff is concerned the conditions are similar to those of the War Office in England, and I cannot see any difficulty at all on that score. All my hon. friends who have written me on the subject and some of the most eminent military authorities agree that there will be no difficulty whatever in applying the system so far as the W nr Office is concerned. When it comes to the question of decentralization it may be that we shall not be able to go as far in this country as they have gone in England. I do not think that policy can be carried out in connection with the militia force as easily as in connection with the regular army.


Andrew B. Ingram: Under the proposed amendment of the Militia Act which has been brought down by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, it is optional whether we have a commanding officer from England or not. I judge from the tone of the hon. gentleman's language to-day that it is not intended to have a Major General from England in the future. Coupling the change in the system which it is proposed to adopt with the language the hon. gentleman has used are we correct in assuming that we are not in the future to have a General Officer Commanding ?


Frederick William Borden: Under the system there will be no General Officer Commanding. There is no Commander in Chief in England to-day and there will be no General Officer Commanding here. There would be a first military officer known as the Chief of the General Staff, the most important military officer in the country as he is to-day the most important military officer in England, except some of the generals commanding in chief in some of the large districts. Under the new system we would have more

important commands than we have to-day. Decentralization would be carried out to some extent, perhaps not to the same extent as in England, so that officers commanding districts would have much greater powers than they have at the present moment, and properly so, because these men, if they are ever to be fit to comamnd, must have experience in times of peace which will enable them to perform the duties which may (be required of them in times of war.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is not that one of the very reasons why we require an experienced man in this country The officers of Canada have not had experience in handling large bodies of men, and for that reason it seems to me that we should have an English officer of experience in this country. You will have four or five of these officers and if so are there in that number any who are capable of handling large bodies of men ?


Frederick William Borden: I believe there are. I believe, however, that if we never make the attempt we never will learn. Our officers must have experience. I believe they can learn if given an opportunity. They have not been given an opportunity. We think that under this system we shall be able to develop our men. especially as we have been able to make an arrangement with the War Office by which two places are to be given each year to Canadian officers to enable them to learn their duties in the Staff College in England. We shall, after this. I hope, always have two of our men at the Staff College in England learning the staff duties.
On section 2, paragraph (f),
' General Orders ' means orders and instructions issued to the militia by the General Officer Commanding, with the approval of the Minister of Militia.


Frederick William Borden: I move to strike out the words ' by the General Officer Commanding.' >


James Joseph Hughes: Does that mean that the minister will issue orders ?


Frederick William Borden: They will be issued by the Council.


George William Fowler: This clause gives power to the minister to issue orders. Suppose the Minister of Agriculture was acting Minister of Militia again ; he got the country into one mess already, and under this he could issue any orders lie likes; perhaps to take the heads of these officers down to Sweets-burg.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend is facetious.


James Joseph Hughes: It is bad enough to have the Minister of Militia given this authority without military advice, but suppose we have another episode similar to
the little conspiracy we exposed the other day where will we land ?


Frederick William Borden: As a matter of fact the Minister of Militia must approve. "


James Joseph Hughes: But suppose the minister choses to act without the consent of his Council he has power under this clause, and we will have a little dictatorship.
I admit the minister must endorse the views of the Council but the Council has not the power to interfere with the views of the minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will let that paragraph stand.


Frederick William Borden: Under section 123, the Governor in Council makes the regulations.


George William Fowler: I do not quite understand the effect of the word ' emergency ' here. In view of the powers given the government under section 77 ; powers by the way which I very strongly object to.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who do you object to ?


George William Fowler: I object to the word ' emergency ' here because of the wide powers given the government in section 77 where the Governor in Council has power to send the militia out of Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Rut only for the defence of Canada.


George William Fowler: You can call almost anything the defence of Canada-you could call sending the militia to any part of the British empire doing it for the defence of Canada. The Governor General in Council should not have power to do that ; that power should remain in the hands of parliament alone.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have had that power for a long time.


George William Fowler: That makes no difference, we are now discussing this Bill which makes changes in many directions and the existing law can be changed as well in this respect. I do not believe in this centralization of power in the Governor in Council. It would seem that every Act passed in this parliament now inclines to give more power to the government of the day. Parliament has no rigiit to divest itself of its inherent powers; we are here as the representatives of the people and we should hold this power in our own hands. Whether for the defence of Canada or not, the militia of Canada should not he sent out of Canada without the authority of parliament. There can be no 'emergency' arise under which parliament cannot be called together ; war does not spring up in a day or a night. ' If the country were in danger of war it would be an easy matter to call parliament and then parliament could decide if it is necessary to

6376'
send our militia outside of Canada. It is a different matter altogether about permitting volunteers to serve in any portion of the empire.


James Joseph Hughes: Under the law in Great Britain, parliament must be called within a certain time after the militia are embodied; ten days I think. Why not insert a similar provision in this Bill. I think the Governor in Council should have authority to call out the militia, but parliament should be assembled within a reasonable time afterwards. I do not want to be too captious with my hon, friend (Mr. Fowler) with whom I agree in almost everything, but I cannot endorse him when he speaks about ' permitting ' Canadians to serve the empire as volunteers.
I maintain that no man requires any permission from any authority in the Dominion of Canada to volunteer to serve the empire in any part of the world. He requires no commission, direct or indirect, from the Governor, the Prime Minister, the Govenor in Council or the parliament of Canada, and the imperial authorities have an absolute right to put their recruiting sergeant in the city of Ottawa to-day, and recruit men without let or hindrance of any authority in Canada, to serve the empire in any part of the world.


Frederick William Borden: I would like to point out to the hon. member for King's N.B. (Mr. Fowler) that the law now in existence gives wider power than the section of this Bill to which he takes exception. Under the present law,
His Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for active service, either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable to do so, by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
Under the proposed law :
The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada for the defence thereof.
This is a decided limitation as compared with the existing law. While I agree with my hon. friend that matters of such importance should be at once submitted to parliament, and parliament should be called, and would be called, nevertheless an emergency might occur when it would be absolutely necessary on the frontier to take advantage of military tactics for the complete defence of Canada. The matter might have to be decided in an hour or a minute.
Mr.SAM. HUGHES. Does not the minister think it would be well to have a clause inserted in this Act similar to that in the English law, providing that parliament should be called say within ten days ?


Frederick William Borden: That might be, but my hon. friend will see that while in England there is a standing army of 200,000


George William Fowler: or 300,000 men, our militia is the only defence we have.


James Joseph Hughes: We have a standing army just as large proportionately.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: What the minister says in regard to the present law is a matter of common knowledge. But we are changing that, and how is the time to make the thing right. The power should be entirely in the hands of parliament. According to. this Act, even if parliament were sitting, the Governor in Council has power to legislate without consulting parliament at all. It seems to me that that is wrong.


Wilfrid Laurier: At the present moment we are simply defining what is an emergency, and I do not think my hon. friend will take exception to the definition. By section 77, to which my hon. friend has alluded, the Governor in Council is given certain powers in case of emergency. Perhaps those powers are too great or are not great enough. That is a question to be discussed when we reach section 77 ; but it seems to me that no exception can be taken by my hon. friend to the definition of emergency, which is the only thing before us at present.
.[DOT] Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not quite understand subsection (f) and there is some information which I shall require when we come to consider it again. When I mentioned my objection, I was referred to section 123, which deals, not with general orders, but with regulations ; and they seem to be two distinct things. Section 123 is relevant to subsection (h) but not to subsection (f). When we come to discuss (f) again, I would like a more definite answer to the question I asked a moment ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: I asked that (f) be allowed to stand, for this reason, because it is understood, according to the views of my hon. friend, that we are to dispense with five services of the General Officer Commanding. The duties now performed by him are to be largely performed by an advisory commission. At present, a' general order means an order issued to the militia by the General Officer Commanding, with the approval of the Minister of Militia. That is to say, there are two authorities, the commanding officer and the minister.
I presume it is the intention of the minister to substitute somebody for the General Officer Commanding, because the regula-lations ought to be approved by somebody else before they are sanctioned by the minister himself. That is the reason I asked that this clause stand.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: They should be
made by somebody and approved by the minister. I would like some further information as to just what the minister means
(by the proposed change of system. I undlar-stood him to say that under the present sys-

tem the minister does not communicate with the subordinate officers directly; but some change is to be made in that regard. Is it to be a general change ? As I understand the present system, if the General Officer wants to communicate orders to the battalion or to subordinate officers, he does so through some person who is near in command to himself.


Frederick William Borden: Through the adjutant-general.


Robert Laird Borden: And the adjutant-general communicates with the district officer commanding, who in turn communicates with the commanding officer of the regiment. Is that the system which it is intended to change ?


Frederick William Borden: No, that system will not be changed ; but instead of the General Officer Commanding, the proposed Militia Board will fix the policy, issue orders, and deal with all questions connected with the administration of the militia.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that there were to be some omissions in the means by which the orders were to be communicated. Is it meant that the proposed council is to communicate, for example, directly with the commanding officer of a regiment ? I am not very clear as to what the change is, and I would like to understand it.


James Joseph Hughes: I think the hon. leader of the opposition does not understand the situation referred to by the Minister of Militia. He did not refer to conditions such as those which have recently been before us, in which the Minister of Agriculture arrogated to himself, either of his own right or as acting Minister of Militia, to meddle with the formation of a regiment. I think the minister himself, if allowed to speak the truth would condemn that. But what the minister referred to was what, according to rumour, happened when General Hutton was here. The minister chose to speak to one of his departmental officers, but General Hutton refused to allow the officer to approach the minister except through him. I think the minister was justified in the course he took; but I think it is also courteous for him to notify the General Officer Commanding of any action he takes. I do not think the hon. leader of the opposition understood that.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I understood it, but I want to know what the system is to be-whether you are to keep up the old form of giving out instructions through a series of officers, or whether you are to have a different system ?


Frederick William Borden: The Minister of Militia will keep the same relative control that he does at this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, what change is to be made with regard to communicating instructions ?


Frederick William Borden: The chief of the General Staff, who is the new officer, will have charge of what are called field operations-charge of preparing an army for the field. The Adjutant-General will have charge of certain branches, many of them the same as now-education, mobilization, &c. The Quartermaster-General will have charge of very much the same things as now-transportation and so on. And the Master-General of Ordnance will have charge of the ordnance, guns and.so on. Each one of these men will be supreme in his own department, subject of course to the decisions of the Militia Council, and these are the men who would compose the Militia Council.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHEiS. The hon. minister does not understand what the leader of the opposition wants to know. Under the new system will it be possible for the Minister of Militia or the Minister of Agriculture, as acting in his place, to have officers appointed, the recommendations of whom does not come through the regular channel ? Will it be possible for the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Militia to interfere directly in the appointment of officers ?


Frederick William Borden: As regards appointments, under the new system there will be a new method. According to the English- system, which I am very much inclined to approve of, that work is all done absolutely independent of headquarters, except that finally, I suppose, the Minister of Militia will have to approve. We cannot very well get around that. This Bill cannot go into force until proper regulations are carefully made, and I could not say at the moment what system will be adopted, but in a general way, greater powers will be given the districts than they have now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is to be the recognized General Officer Commanding 1


Frederick William Borden: The Militia Council.


Andrew B. Ingram: In that case the order passed in October last applying to General Officers Commanding will be entirely wiped out ?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.


George William Fowler: Who will sign these appointments ?


Frederick William Borden: The Militia Council will act very largely in the sphere within which the Commander in Chief now acts in England. The signing of the appointments is a matter of detail.


James Joseph Hughes: I think it is a matter of very great importance. If the chief staff officer is a man of any military quali-

fication, he should assume responsibility from the military point of view.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As a non-combatant, may I offer a suggestion. We have to determine what will be the character of the body which is to replace the General Officer Commanding. Would it not be well to allow this matter to remain in abeyance until we have threshed out that question and determined what will take the place of the General Officer or what body will assume his duties.


James Joseph Hughes: That body will be civil as well as military, but there should be a special committee to deal with til? question of recommendations for commissions on the force from a purely military standpoint, as it is now dealt with by the General Officer Commanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would it not be wiser to discuss all that when we are discussing the organization of the body ?


James Joseph Hughes: I am bringing it up now so that the minister may have it in his mind.
All the paragraphs agreed to accept paragraph (f.)
On section 4,
The commander in chief of the militia is vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative


James Joseph Hughes: In what does this differ from the old clause ?


Frederick William Borden: The word 1 personally ' is left out.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would suggest that this whole section would be dropped. It is absolutely unnecessary and in any event would have to be altered. Section 15 of the British North America Act provides :
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.
That does away with the necessity for this section.


Frederick William Borden: Let the section stand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If it is to stand, I would suggest this modification. Instead of reading. ' The command in chief of thc-militia is vested in the King,' it should read, as in the words of the British North America Act, ' is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King.' Because we are not conferring upon His Majesty authority over the army. That authority is conferred by the constitution.


Mr. BOURASSA.: I beg to make a suggestion to the minister. Clause 4 of the present Bill, which corresponds to clause


James Joseph Hughes: 3 of the existing Act, declares that the command in chief of the militia belongs to the King, and as the Minister of Justice has properly said, we have no power to give any right or power to the King ; section 15 of the British North American Act defines the power of the King, so far as the militia is concerned. But clause 4 of this Bill defines not only the power of the King, but the power of the Governor General. Though the sovereign power, the sovereign command of the militia of any British colony, belongs as does tbe command of the army of England, to' the King, yet the exercise of the command, the organization of the army, belongs exclusively and solely to the parliament of England, as the organization of the militia in any of the self-governing colonies belongs exclusively and solely to the parliament of the colony. And, in the case of a selfgoverning colony, as in the case of England. parliament delegates such power as it pleases to the government. This section should not only be a declaration of tlie sovereign right of the King, which everybody agrees to, but it should declare clearly so that it may be understood that the Canadian parliament is as supreme in the governing of militia matters as in others, and therefore. I think it should contain a provision similar to the present clause of the cld Act, but clearer. I would suggest the wording :
The command in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered and exercised by the Governor General in Council.
That will very clearly and properly define tbe power of the King and leave it untouched, but it will make equally clear that the exercise of the King's command of the militia belongs to the Governor General in Council according to the powers granted by this parliament under this Bill. In fact throughout this Bill in every clause where under the existing Act power is given to the King, or to His Majesty or to the Governor General, it is changed, and the words that appear are :	* Governor General in
Council.' In fact, in about twenty clauses of the Bill now before us the principle of self-government is asserted in this way. Therefore, it seems to me, in defining the powers which are to be exercised by those to whom the exercise of these powers is to be committed, it seems to me that the same form should be used so as to make it clear that the exercise of the sovereign power over the militia belongs to the Governor General in Council, under authority conferred by this parliament.


James Joseph Hughes: I am sure the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) has thrown no new light upon the question. Every one knows that 1 Governor General ' means * Governor General in Council.' So far as the

control of the army In England Is concerned, the King has no authority direct or indirect. And the same is true of Canada. ' The King can do no wrong,' because the King acts upon the advice of his responsible ministers.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, there is no dispute as to that. But if the Minister of Militia and the government think fit to replace the words ' His Majesty,' and ' Governor General ' with the words,
' Governor General in Council.' in other parts of the Bill, it seems to me only reasonable to make this section in harmony with the rest of the Bill not only in spirit but in wording. I admit that it is more a question of wording than a question of policy, but, at the same time, it seems quite proper that the wording should be clear and consistent. I admit that, if all classes of the people of the country, and all of parliament, were imbued with strong principles of nati >nnl self-government, there would be no necessity to put in these words. But as we have heard strange constitutional doctrine in this parliament as well as outside of it, doctrine that, if carried out, would limit or, ignore the self-governing powers of this country, this parliament, and this government in militia matters, I think it is only proper that the principle should be laid down clearly in the early clauses of the Bill as is done throughout the rest of it. What I ask is simply to put the clause now under consideration in harmony with the principles and the wording of the rest of the measure. There is nothing new in what I propose and I certainly am not suggesting anything revolutionary.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I differ from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) who wants to drive a wedge-that is the meaning of it -between Canada and the mother country. Why is he not square and honest ? Everybody knows the constitutional principles that govern this country. Th? King is Commander in Chief here as in England, and here we exercise the prerogative as parliament exercises it in England. He has only to give us under our constitution the right to exercise that prerogative in this parliament the same as exercised in England. The King's prerogative in the government of the militia of this country devolves upon this parliament, and any attempt to carry that prerogative further than it is carried now would be an attempt to drive a wedge between the old country and this country- And I am surprised that the hon. gentleman on all these occasions should exhibit a disposition to tear this country away in every way by legislation from the old country. I do not wish to be offensive to any hon. gentleman in this House, and I will not; but I am bound to be honest and square ; and, in that spirit I say that I am sorry that the hon. member from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) always seems to me to exhibit a desire to establish something in this country hostile to the interests of Canada as a part of the empire. His attempt is simply to set up the prerogative in Canada in opposition to the prerogative of the King.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Frederick William Borden: I move that the words ' and Defence ' be added after ' Minister of Militia.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Seymour Eugene Gourley: How does this section correspond with the present section ?


Frederick William Borden: It is practically the same.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It substitutes the w ord ' may ' for the word ' shall.' This is a mere improvement in the drafting.


James Joseph Hughes: I would not draw attention to this section but for the peculiar doctrine given to the Dominion of Canada by an Order in Council of this government which establishes as a precedent the right of any minister, in his own district, tc have official authority. Does not the Prime Minister agree that that is the meaning of the Order in Council ? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), for instance, has the right to step in and override this in his own district ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) states that the Order in Council lays down the doctrine that a minister has absolute authority in his own district. The Order in Council says nothing of that kind. It says-and I think it will not be questioned by the hon. gentleman himself-that every minister is supposed to look after the interests of his own section.


James Joseph Hughes: In all departments ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this to apply in all senses ?


Wilfrid Laurier: In ail senses, Mr. INGRAM. Well, let us apply that and see where it will end. It is a recognized fact that every minister of the Crown is a political head, and he will naturally do that which he thinks will advance the interests of the political party to which he belongs. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always laid down the principle that there should not be any party politics in connection with military matters in this country. I want to knowT from the Minister of Militia or the Prime Minister how you are going to have military discipline that is to be purely nonpolitical. to have no partisan conduct or action in connection with the militia of this country, if you are going to allow any political head to have anything to do with the internal administration of the militia ? I can quite understand that rule applying in any minister's district where anything was involved that might fairly be viewed as a partisan matter or something to be done ir. the interest of the government from a partisan standpoint, but militia matters should be kept entirely aloof from considerations of this kind. Why ? Because if you want to have discipline in the militia of this country you must certainly not have any interference from the outside. If the minister wants to reorganize a militia battalion he will give his instructions through the proper channels and will receive his information from the usual channel and that channel is not a partisan channel. That is if the statement of the hon. gentleman is a correct statement, namely, that he is not administering) his department in the interest of party. Is it not a fact that even the corporal is jealous of his rights in the matter of discipline ? If you go over a corporal's head in order to give directions to his military inferiors, he at once becomes jealous. You are interfering with the discipline. If you go over the lieutenant to the captain you create a feeling of jealousy. The only way to administer the militia is to administer it through the proper channels. What would be the situation of a lieutenant-colonel of any battalion if he were to communicate direct to the minister instead of communicating through the usual military channel ? Imagine the Minister of Agriculture giving his instructions, imagine his interference in the matter of this kind. And then imagine any hon. gentleman saying that we have no partisanship in the affairs of the militia of this country. I say that it is simply impossible and what I fear to-day and fear in the future, the words :
General Officer Commanding ' being struck out. is that instead of having non-partisan feeling throughout the militia of this country as we have had for many years, we are opening the door wide for the introduction of partisan feeling into the administration of the militia. I regret very much indeed that the hon. minister's language has been changed Mr. INGRAM.
to-day from what it was at the introduction of this Bill. As it was at first, if Canada felt disposed to have an English officer as General Officer Commanding she could have one, and if a Canadian happened to be available for the position, a Canadian could be appointed. The minister has closed the door absolutely to-day against the employment of an English officer. By the argument he has used, this situation is brought about although the Bill does not say so. I. for one protest against the understanding conveyed by the Prime Minister to-day, that any minister of the Crown will have the right to interfere with the appointments made in our militia. I, for one, am a strong believer . in the principle that the Minister of Militia and his deputy and the officers connected with his department should have absolute control of matters of this kind.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. fried (Mr. Ingram) will not persist, I think, in that statement in regard to our giving up entirely the utilization of imperial officers, as the scheme is amplified. I have already referred to the fact that under the British system, which we are adopting, a most important officer, perhaps the most important officer, is the Inspector General. Probably it would be considered wise and desirable that an Imperial officer should be chosen for this position. A most important position will be that of Chief of the General Staff. It might be considered desirable that an imperial officer, for a time, at. least, should occupy that important position. All we want is to have the greatest efficiency possible ; we want to get the best men, whether in Canada or in the imperial army. With reference to what my hon. friend said about political interference, he is confounding two things. I agree with him absolutely in what he says as to promotions. and I challenge him to show that any interference of a political character has taken place in the militia with regard to promotions. I do not believe there has been any such interference worth mentioning ; at any rate I am not aware of it. But when the hon. gentleman comes to the consideration of the organization of a new corps, that is an entirely different thing. When you are organizing a corps de novo, from new material-


George William Fowler: Why ?


Frederick William Borden: Why ? If the hon. gentleman would allow me to complete what I was saying, perhaps he would have an opportunity of answering later on.
I say it is an entirely different thing in the case of an already organized military corps, every man in that corps has his rights, from the corporal up, and no man should be placed over his head without a sufficient reason ; certainly no man should be placed over his head for a political reason. I absolutely approve of that proposition and propose standing by it, but when it comes to

organizing a new corps de novo, from such material as may be found throughout the country, taking absolutely new men and new officers, that is an entirely different proposition. In England, as I stated the other day. the course pursued is that an important political official in each county, in the case of the organization of a new corps of militia or volunteers


James Joseph Hughes: Does the minister mean to say that the lord-lieutenant of a county is a party, political officer ?


Frederick William Borden: He is appointed by the government. [DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: And holds his seat with the government.


Frederick William Borden: He is the man who selects the officers. Why 1 Because he is a prominent man. because he is a well known man, and would my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) say that he himself, as the member for Elgin, if a new corps were to he organized in his county, should not be consulted.


James Joseph Hughes: No.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think he would say that.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, he would.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think there is a man in the House would say that. On the contrary, that has always been the custom in this country. When the militia of this country was organized in 1868 members of parliament in my own county and in every county in Nova Scotia, so far as I know, were utilized to organize the militia at that time, and it was done in this way all through the country. That system has resulted well, no objection has been taken to it as far as I have ever heard.
What I rose to say was that when my friend talks about interference with promotions, he is taking a postion with which we will all agree, but when he talks about its being absolutely improper for a prominent man to assist or to take part in the organizing of a new militia corps, I say he is taking an altogether improper view.


George William Fowler: In the first place my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) did not make such a statement as the hon. minister attributes to him. My hon. friend from Bast Elgin did not say that it was wrong to call in politicians to take an interest in the organization of any militia corps. But what my hon. friend from East Elgin did say was that it was absolutely wrong for any politician to introduce partisan politics into the organization of any corps. I take issue at once with the hon. minister in respect to there being any differ-erence between promotion and the organization of a corps de novo. Why should there be any distinction between the two ? I
shall wait for the hon. minister to give some reason why there should be any distinction between the two. Surely, if a Conservative is worthy of being promoted, a Conservative is worthy of being appointed in the first place. Does the hon. minister propose to lay down the doctrine that when a new corps" is to be organized, none but Liberals need apply ? That would be the case if it happened to be in the district presided over by that very broad-minded politician. the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). None but Liberals need apply ! It would not make a bit of difference whether they were fit for the places or not ; the only qualification necessary would be to subscribe to the Liberal creed, the Liberal doctrine. I am very glad to know that at least this government have thrown off the mask and I wish to congratulate them upon it. They have been publicly pretending before the people of this country that there was no such thing as politics in the administration of the militia and today the right hon. Prime Minister admits that it is quite a proper thing and stands by the Order in Council which he has made to that effect. I know from my own experience that ever since these hon. gentlemen obtained power, they have been grossly partisan in the administration of the militia.
I want to sav to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence that in the letting of contracts for the supplies of the militia camps, because in the town in which I live a militia camp is situated, these contracts have been given In every case to Liberals not because they were the lowest tenderers and given to them in many cases without any tender whatever.


Frederick William Borden: I wish to contradict my hon. friend immediately and promptly. There have been no contracts made without being open to public tender, and in every case they have been let to the lowest tenderer.


George William Fowler: Knowing what I am speaking of I do not propose to take the contradiction of the hon. minister or any other person on the subject.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order. The rule is


George William Fowler: I make this statement and the hon. minister must accept it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Nobody believes it.


George William Fowler: I would not want any such character


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order ; sit down.


Peter Macdonald: When an hon. member denies a statement it is the duty of the member making the statement to accept the denial.


George William Fowler: If any hon. member makes a statement about a matter which

is absolutely within his own knowledge he is not obliged to accept a contradiction from any other member. Let me tell you that. Mr. Chairman, and I am not the kind of man to take back wator.


Frederick William Borden: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give names and dates. [DOT]


George William Fowler: I will give names and dates.


James Joseph Hughes: Were the contracts for the Ottawa camp given by tender ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Joseph Hughes: I am asking the question with the permission of the Speaker.


Peter Macdonald: It is clear there cannot be two members on the floor at once.


James Joseph Hughes: I ask the hon. minister whether the contracts for supplying the camp at Ottawa were made by public tender ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, I cannot disPute the statement of the hon. minister.


Frederick William Borden: And I will prove it.


George William Fowler: Were these tenders to which I refer publicly advertised for '/


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Mr.   I OW LER@: The manner in which the hon. gentleman lets these contracts by public tender is 'by sending to a number of gentleman a list. I can tell the hon. minister of a ease where a certain work was to be done, where a certain building was to be erected


Frederick William Borden: But the hon. gentleman is talking about militia camps. The hon. gentleman has made the statement that contracts for supplies for militia camps have been given to political friends without tender and without advertisement. I contradict that absolutely and I demand the names and dates.


Mr.   I OW LER@: Well, I will give both names and dates. I say that they have been given to political friends notwithstanding that others submitted lower tenders.


Frederick William Borden: I say that is untrue.


George William Fowler: Very well, I will prove it; that ought to be sufficient.


Frederick William Borden: Give us the names and dates.


George William Fowler: I will give the names and dates.


An hon. MEMBER.: Now.


George William Fowler: 


George William Fowler: Do not worry ; I will just choose my own time. I am glad my hon. friend is so amused. I will give the names and dates but I will choose my own time. I say that this thing is being done not only in regard to supplies for the camps but that buildings are being erected by the hon. minister-


Frederick William Borden: The Department of Public Works do that.


George William Fowler: This is not a case of the Department of Public Works. This is only a small matter involving a couple of hundred dollars. These are small things.


Mr. HOLMES.: So are you.


George William Fowler: I am just about as big as any one on the other side of the House, and I want hon. gentlemen opposite to understand that I can maintain my position as wTell as they can either in the Horse or out of it. Do not make any mistake about that. I propose to take that position.


Frederick William Borden: The only case I can remember where a building was constructed at a camp without tender was the case of the Lieutenant-Colonel of the 8th Hussars. Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell, a political supporter of the hon. gentleman, constructed stables at Sussex, and the Department of Militia and Defence paid for the building. That is the only case I can recall.


George William Fowler: It is not a usual thing for the Department of Militia and Defence to pay for stables constructed by the 8th Hussars. They have always had to pay for them themselves. I am glad that the hon. gentleman has made a new departure in that respect. In this case the tender was not sent to a builder but to a grocer and this occurred in the city of St. John. This gentleman was asked to put in a tender ? I will get the name and give it to the hon. minister.


Frederick William Borden: Very well.


Wilfrid Laurier: Carried.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, it is not carried yet.
I want to have a little better explanation than I have had so far from the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence as to what he states about the militia being free from partisan influence. I do not know wThether what he says is true or not. He simply made the statement and we can judge of that statement for ourselves. But, we will take an instance that has created a commotion in this country recently and that is the one which has occurred in the eastern townships. Is it not a fact that the department instructed their officers to reorganize a battalion down there and that the officers carried out their instructions by recommending certain parties to the department ? During all that time, according to the state-

ment made by the bon. Minister of Agriculture, he was writing to citizens asking them to accept certain positions and he tkught he was doing his duty by endeavouring to get them to accept these positions. Was it on account of their military knowledge ? I will not say that it was on account of their partisanship. I do not want to mix party feelings with this question. That is not the question before us. But what I want to point out is that neither the hon. Minister of Agriculture nor any other member of this House who is not delegated with the authority to do so should interfere in a matter in which he has no right to interfere. The persons who were delegated to. reorganize that battalion made certain selections and they reported their selection to the district officer commanding. By him these selections were recommended to the department. That was perfectly proper. It is in the interests of the militia of this country that these selections shall be made without regard to the politics of those who are selected. I care not what their politics are. 1 care not whether they are Conservatives or Reformers.
If your officers are incompetent and are partisans, and will tolerate partisan Tories or Grits solely because they are partisans, then remove your officers. But if your officers are doing what they believe to be in the interests of the Militia, then no member of this House and no minister outside the Minister of Militia has a right to change the names of officers on the list, on account of politics. If we are to understand that members of parliament and ministers of the Crowm have the right to do these things, then I differ from the Minister of Militia and I say that ' under such circumstances you are bound to have a partisan militia and you cannot help it. How on earth can you prevent it, if the foundation of the militia force is based on party lines ? We had the reorganization of a militia battalion in my own city, and I can say that during the time I had the patronage of that county I never interfered in militia matter no more than the man in Halifax. I have always held that it was the duty of the officers to select fit men for the battalions, and if the department is not satisfied, then they should remove the officers. I am zealous" for the success of the battalion in my city, and I am zealous for the welfare of our militia force generally, trusting that they 'will be a credit to Canada, but you can never have that result if you introduce partisanship. I thought the Minister of Militia was," notwithstanding all that had occurred, still in favour of a nonpartisan force, but the statement made by him this morning leaves room for little hope.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: I can say, in endorsation of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram), that in my capacity as a member of parliament I have never in the most remote way interferd w'ith
the militia in my county, because I know my place better than to do anything of the kind. I also endorse the words uttered by the leader of the opposition the other day when he said that politics in connection with the militia was unknown in the province of Nova Scotia. The District Officer Commanding commanding in that province is a prominent Conservative, but I never knew that he allowed his politics to interfere with his duties as commanding the militia in Nova Scotia. Only the other day, I saw that a young officer in the city of Halifax, a young gentleman with whom I am intimately acquainted and who is a prominent Conservative, was promoted. Militia officers should be kept in their positions and promoted, because of their qualifications alone, and if in their positions they begin to interfere with politics, then it is the duty of the government to take notice of it. But, in the formation of a new regiment, the question is not whether a man is a Liberal or Conservative, but w'hether he is the best and the most efficient man in that district to organize that regiment.
Sir' FREDERICK BORDEN. Hear, hear.


William Ross: I should be very sorry to think, and I should regret it very much if there were the least indication that politics would be introduced into the militia. I think my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Ivaulbaeh), who knows more about the militia of late years than I do, will say that it is his experience when he w'as in command of the battalion in his own county, that there were no politics in the militia.


George William Fowler: I heard the Minister of Militia say 'Hear, hear,' when the hon. member (Mr. Ross) gave utterance to sentiments with which we agree on this side of the House, but which were utterly divergent from the sentiments uttered by the minister, wffio said that the case of the formation of a new regiment was entirely different from the question of promotions. The hon. member (Mr. Ross) laid down the same rule both for promotions and for the formation of a new regiment. It is singular that the Minister of Militia cannot understand the plain English used by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross) who said, that politics should not be introduced into the formation of a new regiment, and that the only question wffiich should arise was that of the military qualifications of the men appointed as officers. The Minister of Militia said it was entirely different in the case of a new regiment, but he failed to give any reason except that old woman's reason : ' Because.' Well, we all understand what ' because ' means.


James Joseph Hughes: I may say that when the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross w'as Minister of Militia in the Mackenzie government, there was an attempt made to bring influence on Hon. Alexander Mackenzie to introduce politics into the

formation of a certain regiment, and Alexander Mackenzie's answer was that there must be no political' interference with the militia. I am sorry that rule has' not been rigidly adhered to. I believe that my hon. friend (Mr. Ross) when he was Minister of Militia took the ground that there was to be no political interference, and the same rule was laid down by Sir John Macdonald. As it is now one o'clock and there are a number of gentlemen wlio wish to speak on this question, I think the committee should rise.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
House recumed at Three o'clock.


Mr. DANIEL.: I understand that before the recess some remarks were being made with regard to political interference with the militia. I understand that the hon. minister made the statement that when a new regiment was being formed political interference was considered legitimate.


Frederick William Borden: I made no such statement.	.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then I was misinformed, and I understand that the hon. minister considers that there should not be political interference at any time with regard to the militia. I am very glad indeed to hear him make that statement, because I think it is a course which if pursued will be acceptable to the people of this country, more especially to the militia. But I would like to bring to the hon. minister's notice the fact that'that has not been the case in the past. In my own town, when work has been put up to tender, it has been put up only among those people who are on the patronage list. Now. I hold in my hand a patronage list of the Department of Militia and Defence for the city of St. John, for the year 1902, and I will read it : T. McAvity & Sons, hardware : A. B. McLean, paints, oils, &c.; C. McDonald, paints, oils, &c.; Mooney & Sons, mason ; Win. Melliday, carpenter ; Haley Bros. & Co., carpenter ; G. S. Fisher & Sons, roofing ; John Johnston, painter ; Driscoll Bros., lumber ; P. Campbell & Co., plumber; Jas. Boyle, tinsmith ; C. P. Clarke, drugs ; Canadian Drug Co., drugs ; R. B. Travis, drugs ; R. Leonard, sailmaker ; Godsoe Bros., washing ; O'Brien & Co., stationery ; A. W. Adams, rope ; C. E. Harding & Son, small lumber; A. W. Andrews, repairs, tents, &c.: King & Noble, wood and wood work ; I. E. Smith, wood work and gun platforms ; J. & A. McMillan, stationer. I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that I. E. Smith, who is put down here for wood work and gun platforms, is a retail grocer in the city of St. John, and not a carpenter at all. I know him very well ; he was for some years an alderman of the city. He obtained the contract for doing 'repairs on the drill shed on the west side of the city of St. John.


James Joseph Hughes: 


Frederick William Borden: Might I make a suggestion to my hon. friend ? I really do not see what bearing this has on the Militia Bill. All my estimates are yet to go through, and my hon. friend will have all the opportunity he wants to discuss this matter. It seems to me that we might now deal with the Militia Bill.


John Waterhouse Daniel: My remarks will not be prolonged, and I will not inflict very much pain on the hon. minister.


Frederick William Borden: I do not mind hearing it, but I think it is out of place, that is all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The amount of this contract to which I refer W'as a small one, amounting to only $185. But the point I wish to bring out is this, that this work was not put up for tender in the ordinary way, but was put up just among a certain few, and there is no doubt that was done by authority. The officer commanding the district sent down an order to the commanding officer of the regiment to call for tenders among those who were on the patronage list. The list was sent down, and that was done. If that is not bringing polities into the militia, I for one cannot understand what is meant by the term. I might refer to another case. All of us in this House know the gallant colonel who represents the city and county of St. John. At one time he commanded the 62nd regiment in that city, and at the close of his services there was a request from the regiment that he be made honorary colonel of that corps. That was done. I have no objection to that. I do not think any of us have, but shortly after the officer commanding the 3rd. Regiment of Canadian Artillery completed his team of service, and the officers and members of his corps applied to have Lieutenant-Colonel J. R. Armstrong made an honorary colonel of his corps on retirement ; but it was not done. If the hon. minister has any reason that he could give to this House for not considering that request favourably, other than the political reason, I would like to hear it. I may say that Colonel J. R. Armstrong is a Conservative, and a man well known in military matters. He commanded the Shoe-buryness team, aud I think that was the only time that team brought back anything in the shape of rewards. More than that, he has a son who was so imbued with loyal feelings towards this Dominion and the empire, that after making application for a commission in one of the corps that went to South Africa, and finding that he could not obtain one, he resigned his rank and enlisted as a private trooper, and went to serve in the mounted corps. Fortunately he did not lose his life, but was invalided and lost a limb. This gentleman was well thought of in our town. The corps which Col. Armstrong commanded were very much in favour of his being appointed hono-

rary colonel when he retired from the command, and they were very much disappointed when that was not done. If these things do not show a tendency to run the militia on political lines, I would be very glad indeed to hear from the hou. minister that there was some 'other reason for not acceding to the request that was made.


Peter Macdonald: At this stage 1 would appeal to the committee, in order that we may make some progress, to confine themselves to the clause under discussion.


James Joseph Hughes: This clause is very germane to the question at issue. I will just read the clause :
There shall be a Minister of Militia, who shall be charged with and be responsible for the administration of militia affairs.
Now, we want to know whether the Minister of Militia is going to continue in charge of that department or whether some subordinate person is to come in. The minister has said that there is no difference whatever, in regard to the introduction of politics, between the formation of a new corps and promotion in an old corps. I am certain the House misunderstood the minister this morning.


Frederick William Borden: What 1 said was this, that there was a great difference between a corps already established and the composition of a new corps. I said nothing about the introduction of politics into anything. I said that in the case of a corps already existing, every man in it, from the corporal up, had certain rights which must be respected-rights of promotion, if his behaviour was good ; but in the case of a corps not yet in existence, but to be organized, the conditions were entirely different. Selections had to be made. I see no reason why the best and most influential people-and you have to take these people from both sides of politics-should not be consulted to assist in getting the best men to join it.


James Joseph Hughes: Then the hon. minister condemns the recent interference of the Minister of Agriculture ?


Frederick William Borden: 1 did not say that.


James Joseph Hughes: We may take it for granted that he does, as he says he will not allow any more meddling on the part of that Inferior individual in the affairs of the militia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHEiS.- Relatively inferior.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have heard the Minister of Militia say to-day on two occasions that after a regiment has been organized promotion shall be made regularly from one
rank to another. Distening to the hon. minister one might he led to understand that no violation of that principle has taken place, and I do not wish any such impression to go forth to the country, because, while possibly he may act generally on that principle, we cannot forget that there is one notable exception.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to have a reply from the minister as to whether it is really the policy of this government to ask the general public to tender for supplies required by the Militia Department. I should like also to have a reply as to why the request that Colonel Armstrong be made an honorary colonel was refused.


Frederick William Borden: As regards the first question, it is entirely out of place in this discussion. However, I have no objection to informing the hon. gentleman that in the case of supplies to the amount of a lew hundred dollars it is to-day, and always has been, the custom of the Militia Department, as of all other departments-a custom which I found in existence when I took charge-to invite tenders from a limited number of people. In the case of the camps, it is the invariable rule to offer to public tender all the supplies for all the camps in Canada. With regard to Colonel Armstrong, I endorse everything the hon. gentleman has said about that officer. I have the pleasure of knowing him, and I can assure my hon. friend that, as far as I know, politics had nothing whatever to do with the fact that he was not made an honorary colonel.


Mr. ALCORN.: I understood the hon. Minister of Militia to state pointedly that he always had been, and was still, in favour of what we all believe should be the rule in the administration of the militia affairs, namely, that partisan politics should be rigidly excluded. I understood him to give that principle his most complete assent except in the case of the formation of a new militia corps. He said that exception in such case must be made.


Frederick William Borden: No. I do not know how many times I shall have to correct my hon. friend. I said nothing of the kind. I made no statement that politics should be allowed to influence this government in the formation of a new corps. What I said was that the formation of a new corps is altogether different from promotions in an established corps, and that, in the formation of a new corps, it was proper to consult men of influence, irrespective of politics, and get their assistance.


George Oscar Alcorn: Where is the difference 9 If it be the general rule that politics are to be excluded, why should that rule be departed from in the formation of a new corps '! Are we to allow the formation of a new corps to be based on politics-and that must be the result if the cabinet minister from the

district or members of parliament supporting the government from the district are to dictate what appointments are to be made- I would like the hon. gentleman to explain why, in the formation of a new corps, he should depart from the principle applicable to existing corps? I should also like to know whether the government has, isince this Order in Council was issued, received any information of concurrence or dissent from the imperial government on the subject. I should like to know whether the imperial government are of the opinion that the interests of the country as a whole and the 'interests of the militia will be well guarded by the issuance of the Order in Council, and how the hon. gentleman thinks matters wi'l work out, if, in all matters, including militia, the minister from the district interested is to have a say. What will be the result to the militia if suc-h a course be followed ?


James Joseph Hughes: The Right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) both seem unwilling to answer although the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) put to them plain and fair questions in a respectful manner.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not understand my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) to ask any information from me. I thought he was putting his case in the form of an argument leather than anything else. But, if he puts it in the from of a question I have no objection to tell him that in my opinion there is much wilful confusion in this matter. There is no constitutional principle underlying this-[DOT] none whatever. In England, they do not follow the same method as we do in the organization of their cabinet. In this country, under our federative principle, it is admitted, all parts of the Dominion must be represented ; and, for reasons of common sense if nothing else, whenever a recommendation comes to the Council it is to be presumed and believed that all members of the Council have a right to their opinion, and that, as a matter of fact and. I think as every one will agree as a matter of common sense, the members of the Council will defer to the judgment of the man who represents the district affected by the recommendation. He knows more of the local conditions than anybody else in the Council. That is all that is implied in this doctrine. In regard to the question whether we have received any intimation from the imperial authorities on that point, I would say that we have received none at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know that there is any difference of opinion as to the rights of a cabinet minister. If, for instance, there were before the Council two applications for a contract in connection with military stores in the eastern townships, and the minister representing that district were asked which of two applicants he would rec-Mr. ALCORN.
ommend, one would suppose that he would naturally recommend the one who was his friend and a supporter of the government. We do not object to that or to the recognition of such a principle in matters of patronage of that character. Also he has a right, as a member of the cabinet, while discussing, say a military list, to express his opinion. Nobody questions that right. But when officers of the Department of Militia to whom duties have been delegated make a recommendation, and a member of parliament or a minister of the Crown undertakes, by correspondence, to interfere with the selection of men recommended by that officer, then we say that that member of parliament or that minister is going outside the line of his duty and is doing that which we say is inimical to the interest of the country. As I said before, the moment you lay a political foundation in your militia force you do that which makes an efficient militia impossible, because this spirit of party domination of the militia will extend-you cannot prevent it. We must be practical, and when you regard this matter, from a practical standpoint you see that this is the necessary result of allowing interference by party politicians in the affairs of the militia. The Prime Minister speaks of wilful confusion in this matter. I desire to tell him that I have no wish to introduce any wilful confusion in the discussion of any public matter. The difficulty in the ease before us was that a minister of the Crown was interfering with the acts of an officer to whom certain powers had been delegated-the minister went out of his way as a member of the cabinet, to interfere and that interference was for a political-purpose. And I care not whether the interference is on behalf of Grit or Tory I say that the logical and necessary result of that interference is to make impossible a nonpartisan militia force, I have not, during the time I have been in this House, spoken one word from a partisan standpoint in connection with the Militia Department. Nor have I any wish to do so. There are issues outside of the militia upon which we can fight this government, and. in party warfare, I am willing that those should be the only issues. A Conservative can fight as well as a Grit and I am willing to admit that a Grit can fight as well as a Tory. There is no necessity for the introduction of partisanship into the consideration of our militia, and all we object to is that hon. gentlemen opposite do not show the same willingness to leave partisanship aside when dealing with militia matters.


James Joseph Hughes: The Minister of Militia has stated that political considerations have not entered in the promotions or retirements in the militia. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the statements I am about to give to the House, but I am satisfied that they will be found absolutely correct. It may be only a series of coincidences,

but it is a rather striking series. Take, for the present, the province of the Minister of Militia himself with the facts concerning which he is familiar. I will not touch the others in the meantime. Take the First Canadian Artillery, Halifax, N.S. ;-Lieutenant-Colonel Ox,ley had to retire, his five years of service haring expired. He retired and another officer was appointed ; Lieutenant-Colonel Oxley was a Conservative.


Frederick William Borden: He went out.


James Joseph Hughes: That is what I say -he was not granted an extension.


Frederick William Borden: His tenure of office ended by the effluxion of time.


James Joseph Hughes: But the minister knows that he was eligible for the three year's extension.


Frederick William Borden: But that is only granted under special conditions.


James Joseph Hughes: But I am showing that these special conditions do not seem to exist in the case of the Conservative. Iu the case of the 63rd Battalion, Halifax, Lieutenant-Colonel Crane was retired and was given no extension-no special consideration. 66th Regiment, Halifax, Lieutenant-Colonel Weston, Conservative, retired and no extension was allowed in his case. This convenient clause was not allowed to operate in favour of these gentlemen. In the 6Sth Regiment, King's county, Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman got one year's extension when his time was up. I understand- though I do not say I speak with authority 

that Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman, though a Conservative, is a supporter of the Minister of Militia.


Frederick William Borden: He is not. I manage to get on without him.


James Joseph Hughes: Are not the minister and Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman on the best of terms ?


Frederick William Borden: In my county we are able to be political opponents and still be on good terms.


James Joseph Hughes: And so it is, let me tell the hon. minister in every county in Canada where we meet with gentlemen- just as in this House. The 69th Regiment, Annapolis county, Lieutenant-Colonel Shaff-ner, a Liberal-Conservative, was given no extension. The 78th Royal Regiment, Colchester county, Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence, who retired on 21st May, 1903, was given a year's extension. That year expired last May, and Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence still remains in command though the senior major has been qualified and ready for promotion ever since. I need not say that Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence happens to be a staunch Liberal, and I believe that the major who would succeed to the command is a Liberal-Conservative. The former corn-204
mander of the 75th Regiment, Lunenburg, was Lieutenant-Colonel Kaulbach. When the question arises in this House whether he is a Liberal or Conservative, his name would indicate the answer. When his time was up he was retired. I think we in this House are safe in concluding that he is a Conservative. The 93rd Regiment. Lieutenant-Colonel Oxley was retired as was his predecessor Lieutenant-Colonel Harrison both Liberal-Conservatives-not an hour's extension given in either case. No extension was given except in the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman and Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence, the latter being a strong Liberal, the former a warm friend of the Minister.


Mr. LOGAN.: I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that the successor to Lieutenant-Colonel Oxley is also a Conservative-so there is no politics there.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to hear it. That is the regiment of which my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) is a member. I am glad to know that it is an efficient regiment. The 94th Cape Breton regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Bethune was given a year's extension when bis time expired. He is, and was, at the time of the extension, a Liberal, though formerly a Conservative.


Andrew B. Ingram: He is a non-partisan ; he
is on both sides.
ilr. SAM. HUGHES. I have nothing to do with it myself. This statement is sent up here from Nova Scotia by a gentleman who should know the state of affairs in that province. The minister can hardly, I think, give a satisfactory explanation of why some one or other of all these retiring colonels is refused a year's extension. It is not charged that the officers retired had been long in command ; some of them had only been in command five years ; nor is it alleged that the new officers who were to succeed them were men of long standing in the force or of great prominence. I would not have introduced this subject, but the minister made this statement that politics have never been allowed to enter into the militia.


Frederick William Borden: I will give the hon. gentleman a very much better authority than his correspondent as to whether or not politics have entered into the administration of the militia in Nova Scotia; I quote to him the statement of his leader, who, a few days ago, said that so far as he knew or had heard, he knew nothing of politics entering into the militia of Nova Scotia. I presume that statement is up-to-eate, so that the gentleman who is communicating with my bon. friend must have passed over the gentleman with whom he would naturally have communicated, the leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia, to do as some other people have done -without the very greatest amount of sue cess-select the hon. gentleman as a charn-

pion. I may say two or three words with reference to this statement. In the first place, I criticise it as absolutely unfair; and I say that any insinuation that there has been "any -politics whatever in any one of the cases mentioned is absolutely untrue, so far as the 63rd battalion is concerned. If he will ask his leader, that gentleman will give him some information. As to the 66th, I think he can get information from the same quarter. So far as my own regiment, the 68th, is concerned, Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman had been a colonel for over thirty years. Next to him was a Conservative almost sixty years of age, who wanted an opportunity to get a reward for his twenty or thirty years' of service, and Colonel Chip-man went out and a Tory colonel went in as usual-no very great injury to the Tory party in that case. As to the 69th, the same thing happened. The hon. gentleman might have gone back to the time of Colonel Star-ratt. whose time, I think, may have been extended one year, but a further extension was refused. The next senior officer was a Conservative, and when Colonel Shaffner's time was up it was not extended. Colonel Sliaffner wished his time extended, but could not get it. in order that a good Tory senior major might have an opportunity 10 be colonel of that regiment. So I might go through ail the regiments in Nova Scotia. I believe that my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach), who commanded the '(5th, was not granted an extension of time. I do not know that he wanted it extended but at any rate the command fell into the hands of a good Conservative. The same thing was done in the case of the 93rd and so far as I know, in the case of the 94th-The regulation provides that the term of command of an officer shall be five years. Automatically his command ceases at the end of five years unless something intervenes. What ? In the event of a report being made by the district officer commanding that there is a strong reason, in the interests of the corps and the militia, that there should be an extension of command, an extension may be granted, and nobody knows that better than my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes). I wish to say at once that I am opposed to those extensions of command, i do not believe in them, and I believe we should change the regulations and extinguish the possible three years' further extension of command. If I remain in the position of Minister of Militia this will be one of the first things I shall do.


James Joseph Hughes: I would heartily agree with the minister


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-in not granting this
extension. I may say that when my own time of command was up-I do not know whether the district officer commanding had authority or not, but I presume he had-I was offered au extension of three years. I Sir F. W. BORDEN.
declined to take an hour of it. I thought the officers next under me should have the right. I had done my duty. The minister loses his temper once in a while.


Frederick William Borden: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Possibly it would be as well to keep that business out of this matter. Too many gauntlets had better not be thrown down lest some of them might be picked up before this matter is put through. The minister has referred in rather sarcastic terms to certain matters being entrusted to me. I thiuk he must feel hurt, because the success of the different matters entrusted to me has placed him in a very unenviable light in the Dominion of Canada, and has placed his junior in the War Department, the Minister of Agriculture, in a much more undesirable light than the Minister of Militia. When I undertake to take hold of the Minister of Militia, I think he will find that it is a little more than the reading of a statement sent me by friends in Nova Scotia. The minister has not disputed tlie authenticity of one word of what 1 read. He has not given a very satisfactory convincing explanation of why extensions were granted in some cases and not in others. He has referred to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). The military experience of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, as he stated the other day, was confined to serving his country in the 63rd long years ago. I know the commanding officers in nearly all the regiments to which I referred, and I am not finding fault. I was very careful in the statement to ask the minister for an explanation. He was asking credit for giving an extension in certain cases. I do not think he has satisfied the House. Colonel Chipman was granted a year's extension, although he had been in command for thirty years. I have no objection to Colonel Chipman. I believe his family are loyal, honest citizens, but it strikes me as peculiar that extensions are granted in some cases and not in others. I do not want to introduce politics into the discussion of the militia. I have avoided that ever since the Liberal party came into power and long years before. When we have had an opportunity to criticise the minister rather adversely on some occasions, we have chosen the broad, fair line of appealing to his reason, and trying to get him to realize -the proper position which he, as minister, occupies, and we have tried to keep politics out of it. If he had rigidly adhered to the -line which I believe he tried to adhere to for a long time, and had, at all events, sat upoii the Minister of Agriculture, in regard to the establishment of the 13th Light Dragoons in the eastern townships, if he had brushed that gentleman aside and maintained the line he had long maintained, it would have been better for the House and for the country, and some unfortunate incidents that have arisen would not have arisen.


James Joseph Hughes: This is the clause that opens up the whole business ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Would it be out of
place for the hon. minister to give an ex: planation in detail of the proposal ?


Frederick William Borden: I shall be very glad.


James Joseph Hughes: I received two letters this morning, one from Colonel Ward of East Durham, who is just closing up his camp, and another asking that this important clause may be held over until they are here to-morrow.


Frederick William Borden: No objection.


James Joseph Hughes: I see the hon. gentleman is leaving out any reference to the appointment of General Officer Commanding. *


Frederick William Borden: No.


James Joseph Hughes: You are retaining that ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.
'Section allowed to stand.


Frederick William Borden: We might go back now to section 2, paragraph (f). The hon. leader of the .opposition and other hon. gentlemen took exception to the striking out of the words ' General Officer Commanding ' and suggested that either these words should be left in or that other words should be substituted. Under the new system it may be that there will not always be . a General Officer Commanding so I propose to return to the system which actually now exists under the present law and put in the words :
' General orders ' means orders and instructions issued to the militia by or through the adjutant-general, with the approval of the Minister of Militia.
That is practically the condition now. 1 therefore beg to move that the section be amended by substituting for the words ' the General Officer Commanding ' the words ' or through the adjutant general ' and that after the words ' Minister of Militia ' there shall be added the words ' and Defence.'


James Joseph Hughes: In what section of tad present Act is that provision found ?


Frederick William Borden: Section 119.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is as follows :
All general orders of militia or other militia orders issued through or by the adjutant-general, shall be held sufficiently notified to all persons whom they concern, by their insertion in the ' Canada Gazette.'


Frederick William Borden: As a matter of fact they are all issued by the adjutant-general and have always been.
204J


James Joseph Hughes: That will cover it.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 reconsidered.


James Joseph Hughes: I consulted with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and he thought that in view of the amendment suggested by the hon. Minister of Justice it would be well that the matter should stand. The statement of the hon. Minister of Justice was satisfactory to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as to the qualification that should be embodied in the clause.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand that you want to carry section 4 simply in the form of a repetition of section 15 of the British North America Act ? I think it is most ridiculous that we should in the law simply repeat the disposition of the British North America Act. The British north America Act is very proper as it exists. It would be simply repeating the law to insert that clause in the Bill. If we retain that clause in the Bill it is to define the powers of the Canadian government and not to define the power of the King. The power of the King is defined by the British North America Act which is an. imperial Act of parliament and which we have no right to interpret in any way. Here is the clause in the British North America Act:
The commander in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
That declaration of the power of the* Queen, or at the present time, of the King is the same as the declaration of the power of the sovereign over the executive government. Compare that clause with clause 9 of the British North America Act.
9. The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Why do you not in any Bill in which you define some of the executive powers of the Canadian government or of a department of the Canadian government repeat clause 9 that the excutive power of Canada continues to be vested in the King ? That clause 4 has no value whatever in this Bill unless it is to define the powers of the Canadian government. Therefore I claim that if it is thought proper to repeat the declaration of the sovereign power of the King, which nobody disputes, it should at the same time contain a declaration of the executive power of the Canadian government. It is for that reason that I suggest that the clause should read as follows :
The commander in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King and shall be exercised and administered by the Governor General in Council.

If we have no right to make use of these words then we had no right to pass the present law. The present law says :
The commander in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all military and naval forces, of and in Canada, is vested in the Queen, and shall he exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally or by the Governor General as her representative.
In fact. I think that clause is absurd because it is a declaration that the command is thereby vested in the Queen as if we were granting to Her Majesty the command of our forces. Then it is said that the command shall be exercised by Her Majesty personally or by the Governor General. The whole thing is certainly ridiculous. I think if the clause has any value whatever it is to define the executive power of the Canadian government, and while recognizing the undoubted and indisputable principle that the command of the Canadian militia as well as the defensive forces of all parts of the British empire belongs to the King, it must be remembered that the execution of that power as far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned belongs to the Canadian government, and therefore if we do not assert in this clause the principle of self-government we must drop the whole thing. It is most ridiculous that we should, in a law of our own, repeat entirely the clause of the British North America Act. Only the British parliament has power to amend that Act, and so, I do not see that we should pass legislation here that would simply .hold us up to ridicule. If there is any value in that clause it should contain both the principle of the sovereign power of the King, and of the executive power of the Canadian government. I move in amendment that the clause should read :
The command in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall1 be exercised and administered by the Governor General in Council.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. gentleman says it is nonsensical that the phraseology of this section should follow the BritiPii North America Act


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The present law says that the authority shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally, which would mean that in case of an em-eigency the sovereign would have to come across the ocean and. take up personal command of the army, or, it could be done by the Governor General as representative of the sovereign. I think the old clause was absurd, and the Minister of Justice said tins morning either we should drop the whole thing, which I think would be better, or, that we should repeat the language of the British North America Act. With all due respect to the minister, I think Mr. BOURASSA.
he himself will admit that it would be absurd on our part to repeat the clause of the British North America Act. If there is anything to be added to the clause of the British North America Act. it should he a declaration of the power of the Canadian government, without any infringement upon the right of the King.


George Oscar Alcorn: I always understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) to stand very strongly for responsible government in tins country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


George Oscar Alcorn: Therefore I am surprised that he should now advocate placing the "ilitia under the control of the government, which is but a committee of parliament, rather than under the control of parliament itself. It is highly proper to my mind that the clause should remain practically as suggested by the Minister of Justice. I submit that the clause was very properly construed by the Minister of Justice this morning and that it should stand as he advocates. It is parliament to whom the nation should look ; there is no reason for p'acing the power in the hands of the government. It seems to me that the object of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) is to get control of the militia.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On the contrary, I want the condition to remain exactly as it is now, only I wan! the law to define an actual condition and not an imaginary one. The position now is that the sovereign authority over our militia, is in Che King. I never disputed that.


George Oscar Alcorn: Then why do you object to put it in ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am in favour of the principle and as long as we are a British colony we cannot be in favour of any other principle, but I say the execution of that power belongs to the Canadian government which is responsible to the Canadian people. My hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) wants to make a distinction between the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament.


George Oscar Alcorn: You are doing that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The executive power of the government will be limited by this law, just as the power of the minister of another department is limited by other legislation. There is no infringement of the right of parliament in ghing the power to the Governor General in Council, because parliament has control and can amend the law whenever it likrs.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. gentleman is endeavouring to becloud the issue.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not at all.


George Oscar Alcorn: So far as I can gather from his remarks, his real object is to take

the control of the militia out of the hands of parliament and invest it altogether in the government. We are. not satisfied to do anything of the kind. If that had been done at the time of the South African war the course pursued by Canada would probably be vastly different from what it was. The hon. gentleman says we are merely-repeating a provision of the British North America Act. That is an imperial Act which we cannot affect, and we cannot too often affirm a basic principle or a good proposition of law. Therefore, I think it is highly proper that we should repeat, even word for word the provision of that imperial Act, and declare our assent to the principle that the sovereign is the head of the militia of Canada. I say that we should leave the matter in the hands of parliament, and that being my opinion, I dissent from the proposition of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bour-assa).


Seymour Eugene Gourley: ' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa), states a very curious position. He is opposed to us repeating what is practically the grant of power under which we are legislating, but he goes further and says we should repeat the constitutional principle which is the basis of the government of Canada as well as the government of the empire. The constitutional grant of military powers to this country is in the King ; and the hon. gentleman's amendment would only say that that grant of power should be carried out constitutionally in Canada ; that is upon the advice of his ministers and parliament. The amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) would be absolutely a redundancy. because it only states what is the constitution of the country. The British North America Act gives us a grant of parliamentary and executive power in this country on all fours with t'he executive and parliamentary power of England. There- j fore it is nothing more than courtesy j when we are attempting to frame a militia Bill, to refer to the grant of power under which the militia of this country is organized, and then, from that statement develop our Bill. But it would be absolutely unnecessary ; and therefore I cannot understand the logical sequence that is said to be in the mind of the hon. member for La-belle, when he would object to a very proper restatement of the constitutional law as laid down in the British North America Act. But he would do that which is absolutely absurd-he would say that we should have in this country parliamentary- and constitutional law, which is given us in every line of the British North America Act. Therefore I would oppose the amendment as being utterly illogical from beginning to end, and would maintain the keeping in this clause, which is simply a repetition of the basis of jiower on which we
; propose to amplify our Bill. I was told this morning that the fourth section of the row Bill was a copy of the original section. I find in the old Act that the command of the naval militia and naval forces of Canada are given to the Governor General, but I find no reference to those forces in this Bill. I want to know why this Bill is confined to the militia, while the old Bill embraced the military and naval defences of Canada ?


Frederick William Borden: Because there will be another Bill introduced this session covering the naval defence.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You propose to deal with the two systems separately ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George William Fowler: Before voting upon this amendment, I would like to understand what the hon. mover has in view. As I understand it, the only change he proposes is to add the words 'in Council ' after ' the Governor General.'
Mr. BOt'RASSA. And to strike out the words ' His Majesty ' in the second part.


George William Fowler: I would like the Minister of Justice to explain the difference between the Governor General and the Governor General in Council, because, as I understand it, ' Governor General ' means ' Governor General in Council.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: The constitutional principle which governs the raising and control of the militia is of course the same in this country as it is in England. There cau be no departure with respect to His Majesty's forces in this country from the principle that obtains in England. The principle in England I will state briefly from the books, is that the sovereign has not constitutionally any power to raise a military force without the consent of parliament but when a force is raised with that consent, he can, subject to any 'enactment, regulate it in any manner that appears good. Parliament controls the levying of the force, its equipment, maintenance, distribution, payment and all that ; but the control of the force when raised is in the sovereign as head of the executive. The same constitutional rule applies to the colony ; but in the case of the colonial forces, the consent is given by the colonial legislature instead of by the imperial parliament ; so that our position in that respect is the same as that of the imperial parliament. My view with respect to the old Bill, with all due deference to the draughtsman, is that there was an oversight. Some one drew that Bill who had not a proper regard for the true constitutional doctrine that controls the militia. The section in the old Bill reads :
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all military andi naval forces, of and in Canada, is vested in the Queen,

and shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally or by the Governor General as her representative.
It is quite apparent that that section was merely intended to be declaratory of the law ; because we had no power to depart
from the constitutional principle laid down in section 15 of the British North America Act. Therefore a proper form to have adopted would have been : ' The command in chief shall continue to be vested ; ' because we had no power to vest anything in the sovereign, and the doctrine laid down in section 15 of the British North America Act is the old law established after the restoration in a statute of Charles the Second, that tlie control* of the army is vested in the King. That is my first criticism of that section. My next critism is as to the words added. My hon. friend and I differ in this respect. I hold that no word should be put into a statute that can be avoided. If you can avoid the use of unnecessary words, you will confer a blessing on humanity. Words are intended, as a Frenchman once said, to conceal our thoughts rather than to make them clear, which my experience has proved to be true. In this section, after the words,
' vested in the Queen,' where it ought to stop, it says. ' and shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally.' The use of these words is a constitutional heresy. Her Majesty or His Majesty personally has no control oveT the army.
Mr, GOUIU.EY. But in reading the words one would subordinate them to their constitutionality.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would prefer not to have to go through the mental act of subordination. 1 would rather eliminate the words. Then we have these other-words :	'or by the Governor General as
Her representative.' I should like to say that the Governor General means the Governor General in Council, but I cannot, because I have before me the Interpretation Act staring me in the face, and I find that paragraph 7 of section 7 defines the ex-pressison ' Governor General ' to mean ' the Governor General for the time being of Canada, or other the chief executive officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever title he is designated ; ' and the next paragraph, paragraph S of section 7, defines the Governor General in Council as meaning the Governor General of Canada, or person administering the government of Canada for the time being, acting by and with the advice of, or by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with, the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.' So that if you are going to add the words, ' and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General in Council,' you are adding words that are of no value, because His Majesty means


Charles Fitzpatrick: necessarily His Majesty acting under the advice of his ministers. ' His Majesty ' has no other meaning under our constitution. There is always of course the personal prerogative of the sovereign with respect to the control of the army, but it is one of those which has been encroached upon to such an extent by modern parliaments that now practically it is never exercised, except under the control of parliament. Otherwise the doctrine the King can do no wrong would not prevail. If Her Majesty had been personally responsible for the conduct of the Boer war, criticism would have been directed against her, but it is always the impersonal person known as Her Majesty who acts through the council.


James Joseph Hughes: And in the case of the abolition of purchase in the army.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister read the clause as he suggests ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 1 would suggest that it read as in the British North America Act :
The command in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King.
To this my hon. colleague adds the following words : ' and shall be exercised and administered by the Governor General as his1 representative.'


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think that the opinion just given by the Minister of Justice confirms what I have said. He has pointed out the absurdity of the clause in the old Bill. At the same time he pointed out the danger of putting useless words into any legislation. The danger is that they may be used for other purposes than what they were intended for. I may remind the House that although we may have no doubts as to the powers of the Governor General, although we may have no doubt that he cannot exercise them except upon the advice of his cabinet, at the same time I do not see why we should not take the precaution of asserting that principle, if we are to have a clause of the kind proposed at all. I have no doubt that my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) will uphold me in this view because only a moment ago he was very jealous of the rights of parliament. As the Minister of Justice has shown, when the term ' Governor General ' stands alone, that does not mean Governor General in Council, but His Excellency personally. This reminds me that at the time of the Boer war, a celebration took place in Montreal at which an address was presented to His Excellency, and in making the presentation, a lawyer, who has a high position in the Canadian bar, Mr. McMaster, gave utterance to the opinion that the Governor General had the power, under our law. to take hold of the militia, without consulting his advisers or parliament, and send them anywhere in Canada or outside. My hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowlerl was very anxious that the Canadian government. which is responsible to parliament. should not be given the power to send the militia out of Canada. Well, what would he think of confiding that power to the Governor General ? And according to a leading light of the Montreal bar the Governor General has that power in his hands without control by anybody. And His Excellency accepted the speech and thanked Mr. McMaster for his good advice.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Did the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) say that he Would have a clause in this Bill to prevent the militia of Canada from being sent abroad?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly he did, and I was rather scandalized at that exhibition
of little Canadianism. While I agree with the hon. member for King's on the general principle, I do not think we should frame a law so narrow that the Canadian government should not be free to send our militia beyond the borders of Canada for the defence of Canada. But if the hon. member for King's is afraid to leave in the hands of the Canadian government the power to do what they like with the Canadian militia, he should all the more object to a clause which, though in practice it may be inopera-ative, lays down the doctrine that the Governor General personally shall have control of our militia-the same doctrine as was expounded to His Excellency by Mr. McMaster, and which His Excellency evidently accepted. If the Minister of Justice were free to act, he would either leave this clause out altogether or frame it so that it assert the principle of self-government in Canada as regards our militia.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is there.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, it is not. He has-destroyed that argument by reading the clause in the Interpretation Act, which shows that when the term ' Governor General ' is used, that means the Governor General himself personally, and that when we want to make a difference we use the words ' Governor General in Council.' The clause itself is not necessary. As the Minister of Justice has properly said, we cannot change the powers of the King or the law that determines the relations between the British government and this country. That is all settled in the British North America Act. amd there is no need to repeat it in any clause of this Bill. But if you want to repeat clause 15 of the British North America Act and add anything to it, we cannot add anything else than a declaration of the selfgovernment of Canada in militia matters as well as in others. But to put in a clause in an Act respecting the militia of Canada declaring that the command of our militia is in the hands of the Governor General personally, would show lack of dignity on our part.
Of course it may be said that it was contained in the old Act. But, as the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) has vert' properly said-and I agree with him-we are making a new legislation, and we are trying to improve upon the old. Therefore we ought to consider any section that is proposed to the committee upon its own merits. And surely if my hon. friend from King's, or my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) would express their own opinions they would agree with me. Perhaps the hon. member for King's would be embarrassed, on account of his friendship and neighbourship with some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side by admitting that he agreed with me, and even though he agrees with me would not

like to say so before parliament or elsewhere. But that is not the question. The question before this committee is not whether the member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) proposes an amendment or not, but the question is whether we are going to declare that the executive power in Canada, so far as the militia is concerned, belongs to the Governor General personally or to the Canadian government. There is no way out of it. Of course, you may get out of it by a side argument or by a vote, but that does not affect the truth of my position. I stand by the amendment and surely, when the question is put squarely before the people of Canada, they will say that they want the militia to be dealt with by the Canadian parliament. I hope that the sentiment of self-government, the pride in our institutions, those institutions that have been granted to us by the British people, will cause us to maintain our rights without diminution. I admit that, in practice, it may make no change. But I think it would be improper, even though it may be ineffective, for this parliament to declare in the text of a statute that we are ashamed of our right of self-government and do not wish to proclaim. I repeat there is only one of two things to be done-either to drop this altogether and leave it as it was, or make it a declaration of self-government on our part.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) says that the object of his remarks is to preserve the principle of selfgovernment in Canada. Let me draw his attention to the phraseology of this section, and I think he will agree with me that that is exactly what we are doing. This section declares that this power is to be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.
As His representative.' That is as the representative of the King. That means that the command of the militia in this country shall be exercised by His Majesty's representative as that power is exercised by His Majesty where he is his own representative. In other words, we are preserving self-government in Canada by providing that the Governor General is to act in regard to the militia as the King acts in regard to the army.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alcorn) prepared to state before the parliament of Canada that what he desires for Canada is the exercise of executive powers by the Governor General without the advice of his cabinet ?


George Oscar Alcorn: That is not contained in this section.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is just what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) states -that where the words ' Governor General ' appear it means the Governor Genera! personally, but where the Governor General with his cabinet is meant, the Mr. BOURASSA.
words used, are ' Governor General in Council. '


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not so understand the Minister of Justice. I think his argument is clear and fair. I do not think the hon. minister would say that the use of the closing words of this section would mean that the Governor General could act independently of this parliament. The language is not exactly proper to the section, but. still, any lawyer, reading the section would hold that the words ' Governor General as his representative ' would refer to. and be governed by the foregoing words. I agree with the Minister of Justice, therefore, that the latter words of this section are redundant. Under the general patent, by which the powers of the Governor General are conferred in this country, as of any other self-governing colony, it is set out plainly that the Governor General is the representative, in this country, of a constitutional government, as the King is the representative of a constitutional government in England. So, these words need not be there. I learn, from the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Rourassa) that the hon. Minister of Justice has said, that the words were offensive. I would be sorry to know that the Minister of Justice has said anything of the kind. I think he would respect too much the men who made the constitution. This legislation, fixing the powers of this parliament, and governing the distribution of executive powers, is legislation of a very high class. And. if the draftsmen of that time used redundant words, there was more excuse for them than there would be for us. We have had thirty-seven years of the work of the courts in interpreting the meaning of these words, and the definition of the powers of the executive, and we ought to be able to express our laws in clearer words than did these men at the inception of confederation. And I can easily understand, that the words were put in there for greater caution. The power of the Governor General was given by special commission and instruction-our general patent was not settled for years after. Therefore, I can readily understand that these draughtsmen would say : We will not let instructions or commission interfere with the administration of the militia, but we will introduce words that will settle the matter. We have much more light than they had. I think that the suggestion of the Minister of Justice is a very proper one-that we should leave it out. I see that the words in this section 9 of the British North America Act are very clear and very terse. See the few words in which these men establislmd constitutional government In this country :
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
We have always had constitutional government ; they wanted to say that this was

to be continued, and this they have done. The latter words of this section are the very words suggested by the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether he borrowed them from this section, but I say they are very happy words, and we might well adopt them, in the case, declaring that the command of the militia is to continue and be vested in the King. These are very proper, and apt words. Now, with regard to the Governor General's name being mentioned. I do not think it is necessary, in any Act, to refer to the Governor General. He is the King, and there is no necessity to repeat it. The Governor General is not a separate entity,-lie is King, and he is here for the purpose of administering the government for the King. If the King were here, he would exercise the power himself and the Governor General would disappear. I hope the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) will make his position clear, as it would be most unfortunate for us who sit on this side of the House to have among us a gentleman entertaining opinions such as those ascribed to him. I hope it will be always clear that the militia of Canada will be ready to serve in the most distant part of the empire. If a contrary sentiment is to be heard anywhere, it should be heard only in the county of Labelle. In every other part of Canada I hope there will be a distinct repudiation of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has said. I wish to say to the hon. member for Labelle that, if lie wishes to improve the feeling in this House-and I would like to esteem him highly, he should cease wounding the feelings of every Anglo-Saxon in Canada, as he has been constantly doing. I do not wish to say anything offensive, but it certainly does not promote amity in this House, or elsewhere, for us to have our most sacred feelings raked over by the hon. member for Labelle. I wish the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) to rise and dissociate himself from that hon. gentleman.
I want to say here and I will undertake to give my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) this information that although he had a million tongues in Canada, whenever the militia and in fact every man in Canada is required in India or the farthest isles of the sea. we will be there ; we will spend every dollar of money of Canada for that purpose, and the sooner the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) finds that out the better. If there was a government in Canada hostile to that idea we would hang them in twenty-four hours.


George William Fowler: I would refer the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) to ' Hansard ' of to-morrow, for the remarks I made, and I am sure he will be perfectly satisfied when he reads these remarks. I would not like him to take his authority for them from the hon. member for Labelle. With respect to the proposed amendment I understood, as I said, that the British North
America Act provides, exactly as the Min- [DOT] ister of Justice has stated, That this authority is in the hands of the government. Therefore I fail to understand what good a declaration of it would be which would not be effective. Supposing we adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) what advantage do we derive ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I told the committee very frankly that I did not see the use of any of these declarations, that it would be just as well to drop the whole thing out altogether. I may reply to my hon. friend's question by asking another. What is the advantage of declaring there that the supreme command belongs to the King when that declaration is already in the British North America Act 'i


George William Fowler: You are making a declaration according to law, but if you make the other declaration it is a declaration not according to law.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend claims that it is against the law to state that the exercise of the command of the militia belongs to the Canadian parliament 1 am greatly surprised. I would not have it declared in this Canadian parliament that we have not that right.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It is provided in the constitution, in Section VI of the British North America Act :
It shall be lawful for the Queen by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislature of the provinces.
And in the list of subjects reserved to the Dominion parliament we have :
Militia, military and naval service and defence.
We have a constitutional grant of power to manage the militia in every respect.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is right.


Mr. FOW  LER@: And that power when the law is passed, is exercised as a constitutional right hv the King, advised by this his Privy Council for Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: I think it would disfigure an Act of parliament to put in a clause saying that the government of this country is to" be administered by the King with the advice of his cabinet ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: It would be an absurdity.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is exactly what I said.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will take the section as I understand it, we are all agreed that the section will read :

The command in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and he vested in the King.
We are all agreed up to that point. Then the only dispute is as respects the other words that are here. My view is that even stopping the paragraph at the word ' King,' that applies to the control which vests in the sovereign, acting on the advice of the Canadian government. The other words, it seems to me, ought to be struck out for good drafting, but if we mean to leave them in I take issue with my hon. friehd for I.ahello (Mr. Bourassa) when he says that the clause will then mean that the parliament of Canada are willing to declare that the administration of the militia affairs will be in the hands of the Governor General personally. That is his point. I take issue with him on that point and while I say that the drafting might be very much improved, still, as it is, it means that this power shall be in the hands of the executive, because while the words 'Governor General ' taken alone, mean the person who may till the position of Governor General and the ' Governor General in Council ' has a different meaning we. must take all the words that are here.
The command in chief .... shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty.
Now, if you stop there, what would be the meaning ? His Majesty, acting as the head of the executive of course. Now to what extent do the following words amplify that ?
Or by the Governor General as his representative.
That would be ' or by the Governor General as the. representative of His Majesty ' acting as the head of the executive. That would be the result and as I said before, we are putting in a lot of words to no purpose.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It is tautology.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not wish to criticise the minister who has had the responsibility of this Bill and all the trouble connected with its preparation, and who is much more familiar with it than I can be, but I must admit that if you put the word ' Governor in Council ' there the result would be to make it more clear than it is now. But the effect would be the same. I cannot see that it would in law produce any different effect.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not going to carry this discussion any further, but I_will take the declaration the minister made now and the one that he made a little earlier. He told us that it was a bad thing to put in useless words. Now, he tells us that if we stop after these words :
The command in chief of the militia is vested in the King,
Then the exercise of that power shall come back to the Canadian government. He Mr. FITZPATRICK.
says also that if we leave the other words about the exercise of power by His Majesty, the position will not be changed ; and even if we leave it to the Governor General, there is no change again. For one purpose we are here making three declarations. If ever there was an example of three lines needlessly used, it is in this case. Therefore I say that so far as the use of unnecessary words is concerned, this clause is a striking example.
I never said that by reason of the exercise of that power being vested in the Governor General, we were expressing the view that the Governor General could become the personal head of the army. I simply say that after the definition by the Minister of Justice of the Governor General personally and the Governor General in Council, it is an absurdity on the part of the Canadian government to declare that the exercise of this power is in the hands of the Governor General personally. I have said over and over again, agreeing with the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), that we cannot change the constitutional law of this country. At the same time I have said that it is not a proper thing to allow words in a law that can be interpreted falsely, especially in view of the interpretation that was taken up and accepted by the Governor General four years ago. I have at the time quoted to the House-and it cannot be contradicted-an article saying that on the-31st of October, 1899, at a concert in Montreal, Mr. Donald MacMaster told the Governor General personally, ini the presence of a large meeting, that according to the constitution of Canada the Governor General had the power to take the whole militia of Canada and send them where he pleased without the consent of Council, and His Excellency did not contradict that statement.


An hon. MEMBER.: Mr. McMaster was clearly wrong.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. McMaster was clearly wrong, but at the same time I say it is a dangerous thing when one Governor General would allow that to be said in his presence without correcting the statement, and explaining it. He permitted that to be said in his presence before a thousand people. It was published in all the newspapers in Canada that the Governor General could take hold of the militia of Canada and do with it as he pleased. I think it is only proper that we should make our law so clear that no future Governor could make that mistake. I think that we in Canada should make our constitution so clear that a Governor General could not make such a mistake and that no future governor should permit any such breaches of what we might call constitutional etiquette in their presence as the Governor Genera] did some four years ago, because

*probably he did not know the real meaning of the law.
The text of the law allowed him to accept that interpretation and if we leave the text of the law as it is there in the future the Governor General may adopt that interpretation. As the hon. minister has made it perfectly clear that interpretation has not been contradicted and although he opposes my amendment now he is at the same time obliged to admit that the words ' Governor General ' mean the Governor General personally, and that the words 'Governor General in Council' mean the Governor General assisted by his Council. If we admit that and everybody admits it, this clause must be interpreted as giving to the Governor the powers of execution that this parliament will give to him concerning our militia. I will agree with everybody that this clause is useless, but if it were left in would we have a word of truth in it ?
I say that it is the contrary of the truth. We put words into this Bill that will allow this or any Governor General in the future to adopt such a false interpretation of the law as was repeated in the presence of Lord Minto and accepted by him some four years ago.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have no doubt that Lord Minto did not accept it. There is one thing that an Englishman is trained in and that is in very good manners and it would not be very polite for Lord Minto to get up in a public meeting and contradict Mr. McMas-ter. It was simply a question of good manners on Lord Minto's part to allow the thing to go by.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Undoubtedly His Excellency will be very thankful to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) for having constituted himself his defender.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think it is very offensive for the hon. member for Labelle to attribute to the Governor General what would be clearly a usurpation of power in this country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: * am attributing nothing to His Excellency. I am simply stating that in the presence of the Governor General a leading lawyer of Canada declared publicly that the Govenor General, under our present law-as far as that law is concerned it is not changed by this Bill-had the right to take hold of the militia and send them wherever he liked for whatever purpose he liked without overstepping his functions. That was stated publicly and not contradicted.


George Oscar Alcorn: Mr. Chairman. I rise to a point of order. The only object which the hon. member for Labelle can have in making this statement and reiterating it several times as he has is to criticise His Excellency the Governor General and no member of parliament has a right to do so in this House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is no part of my desire to criticise the action of the Governor General. If I desired to do so I would criticise the action of the government but I am simply stating a public fact repeated throughout the press of Canada to show what the result of a miswording of the law might be. I have no desire to show any lack of respect to His Excellency the Governor General. I do not think there has been anything in my words which expresses disrespect of the Governor General.


George Oscar Alcorn: Whatever the hon. gentleman's intention is, certainly that is the effect of his words.


Peter Macdonald: I understand the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) to say that when His Excellency the Governor General was present on this occasion Mr. McMaster made a statement in regard to his interpretation of the law. I understand that what the hon. gentleman said was that on a certain occasion Mr. McMaster stated his interpretation of the Act as to the power of the Governor General to call out the militia and that His Excellency made no reply. There was no reflection on His Excellency in that.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes there was.


Andrew B. Ingram: The point is this : Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) in order or is he not ?


Peter Macdonald: This hon. gentleman is quite in order unless he has been guilty of the accusation made by the hon. member (Mr. Alcorn) who took the point of order.


George William Fowler: Has he ?


Peter Macdonald: I do not think he has. There is no reflection on the Governor General in that.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Mr. Chairman, I


Peter Macdonald: Order. The chairman has been called upon to give his decision and it is that in stating that the Governor General in the presence of Mr. McMaster did not express an opinion as to whether he had the power or not. the hon. member for Labelle was casting no reflection upon the Governor General and therefore the point or order of the hon. member for Prince Edward is not well taken.


George Oscar Alcorn: The point of order I took was that under the rules of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not want to be lacking in respect for my hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) who is a gentleman, but the point of order has been settled.


George Oscar Alcorn: I suppose I have the right to discuss it.


Peter Macdonald: Order. The point of order has been settled.


James Joseph Hughes: No it has not.


Peter Macdonald: The point of order raised by my hon. friend for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) has been settled. If there is another point of order raised I will rule upon it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If hon. gentlemen opposite had not interrupted me at the time I would have shown them very clearly that I did not in my remarks show any disrespect to His Excellency. On the contrary I have stated and I repeat that on account of the respect we have for Governors General, for this one, for those who have come before and I hope for all those who wili come in the future, we should make the law so clear that there can be no mistake on their part as to its interpretation. The point I was making was that at a public meeting to which the Governor General was invited a gentleman made the statement there, based upon the British North America Act and upon his interpretation of section 3 of the Militia Act, that the Governor General personally could do whatever he liked with the militia, that he could raise militia corps and send them inside or outside of Canada wherever he pleased without the advice of the government. The Governor General did not express any contradiction of that statement. My boh. friend (Mr. Gourley). upon that rose to make a plea in favour of the Governor General by suggesting that he did not do so upon the ground of etiquette. I am not discussing that point at all. I am not saying that the Governor General should have corrected Mr. MeMaster's opinion or should not have corrected Mr. McMaster's opinion ; I simply say that the Governor General was there and that he did not contradict the statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: And you are finding fault because he did not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not finding fault from that point of view. On that occasion the Governor General was not present as the head of the government. He was received personally. The principle was settled in this House six or seven years ago by the speaker that when we speak of the Governor General's Act personally as apart from the government we have a right to consider his speeches and actions, and surely all Governors General if they express an opinion or assume an attitude that may lead the people to believe'that they have functions to exercise as the representative of the British government outside of their functions as the head of the Canadian government we have a right to criticise them. In fact in the Empire of Germany, where I do not think there is more freedom than there is here, the speeches of the emperor are criticised in parliament. Whenever the emperor thinks it proper to make political speeches these speeches are criticised. The next day after that speech was made Mr. McMas- ' Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.
ter's opinion was printed in all the newspapers of Canada, it was accepted by several leading newspapers and the fact that the Governor General was present gave rise to a misinterpretation especially at a time of popular excitement that we should avoid in' the future. I say therefore that if we take it from a purely legal point of view there should be no definition of powers because we have no right to define these powers. These powers are defined by the British North America Act. Then, if we take it from the point of view of propriety of policy, or of the interpretation of the law or of the powers which the Canadian government have, we should then make it clear that the Canadian government have the power of execution or we should declare nothing at all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think very much follows from this reference to Mr. MeMaSter's opinion.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor before the hon. gentleman.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As I am an older man, perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. jabel Robinson) will give way to me. I do not think very much follows from the little in eideut that occurred in Montreal. His Ex cellency, being a layman, possibly did not like to contradict Mr. McMaster, who is a very eminent lawyer, and that His Exee-lency did not agree with Mr. McMaster is quite apparent, because he did not act on his advice. The word upon which Mr. McMaster relied to give his opinion was possibly the word ' personally ' in the old law, That word is omitted from this Bill, and therefore the same difficulty cannot occur again, and we ma.f pass on to something else.


James Joseph Hughes: (Let us take the minister's suggestion.


Jabel Robinson: The question raised by the member for Labelle more than an hour ago is just a quibble on words, and if the Minister of Justice had expressed his opinion at the time he would not have discussed it further. The member for Da-belle lias been on his feet six times, and when I rose once I was put down, but I won't be put down now. The British North America Act is supreme in this country until the British government thinks proper to change it, -and it would be ridiculous for us to seek to change it by legislation in this parliament. All this waste of time is not worth the money we are expending on it.
I suppose the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was in his right, but at all events every time he gets an opportunity he avails of it to pitch into the British government and the Rritish North America Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Even though I shoull hurt the feelings of my hon. friend (Mr

label Robinson), I shall speak for the seventh time. In reply to the Minister of Justice, let me say that though it may not matter much legally speaking, yet it is in time of peace that we should make the law so clear that no difficulty shall arise about it in time of trouble. The Governor General seems to have accepted tacitly the argument of Mr. McMaster. Mr. McMaster's opinion, was not based upon the word * personally ' as referring to the Sovereign, but it had reference to the personal powers of the Governor General that according to the law he could take hold of the militia.	The
word ' personally ' in the old Act applied to the Queen, and Mr. McMaster did not suggest that the Queen should eome over in person to command the militia. Mr. McMaster said that according to the law the Governor General personally had the right to do whatever he liked with the militia. The words referring to the Governor General, which Mr. McMaster based his opinion on, are left in the new Bill. That is what I object to. We should not leave words in the law that may give rise, in time of excitement, to misinterpretation, either by the government or by anybody else who would see fit to advise the Governor General outside of his legal advisers.


Jabel Robinson: Who is Mr. McMaster; is his opinion supreme ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He announced it lace in the morning, I hear.


Jabel Robinson: We have the Supreme Court, which is a higher authority than Mr. McMaster. I do not know who he is ; I never heard of him before, but I have heard of the member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), and I notice that he can discover all these little things that occur in connection with such questions. The member for Labelle may be right sometimes, but if so, he is generally right at the wrong time.


James Joseph Hughes: I may say that at the luncheon hour I took the liberty of suggesting to the leader of the opposition the proposition made by the Minister of Justice, and it met with his hearty approval.


Andrew B. Ingram: This BUI omits any reference whatever to the naval militia and the naval forces of and in Canada. We were told recently by the First Minister that the government would bring down a naval Bill


Frederick William Borden: Of one clause only, and that clause was to continue in force the old law so far as it refers to the naval militia.


Andrew B. Ingram: And not only does the Marine Department take away some of the powers of the Department of Public Works, hut it is to take the naval forces out of the control of the Minister of Militia.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps mv lion, friend was not in the House when I
stated that the Colonial Defence Committee and the naval authorities in England strongly urged that any work in the direction of organizing a naval militia in Canada should be placed under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department, because there is already there the nucleus, in a small way, of course, of a naval militia.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Marine refused to state to the House the policy of the government on this important question, and now that the naval force is to be taken out of the control of the Minister of Militia, to whom are we to look for information ? In the estimates the government has asked for a vote of $7,500 for this naval force. Is that all the government proposes to do in regard to it ? Let us have some understanding as to what the policy of the government is.


Wilfrid Laurier: Within two or three days at most the hon. gentleman (Mr Ingram) will have a full explanation of the policy of the government on this subject.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
On section 7-minister to have control of military buildings, &c.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN'. That is the old law.


George William Fowler: Does that include the building of drill sheds ?


Frederick William Borden: No. that is assigned to the Public Works Department.
ilr. INGRAM. Is it intended that the Militia Department shall take over the construction of armouries 7	1 understand that
was recommended.


Frederick William Borden: I think it might be convenient to have an arrangement by which buildings up to a certain cost, say $10,000, should be placed in the hands of the Militia Department.


James Joseph Hughes: Why should not the Minister of Militia have control of all the works in his department ?


Frederick William Borden: When it comes to the construction of buildings costing half a milliion of dollars, the Public Works Department is better equipped for the work.


George William Fowler: Do you not have your own architect who designs all these buildings ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On sectiou 8-Certain works for defence declared public works.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: How are the powers of expropriation exercised ? Are they exercised directly by the department ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are exercised through the Department of Justice and the

proceedings take place in the Exchequer Court in the usual way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 be struck out.
Mr. 'SAM. HUGHES. These provisions are all covered by the Criminal Code ?
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 13-conversion of property on emergency.
Frederick William Borden: I propose to strike out the words ' General Officer Commanding.' and insert in their place,
Officer Commanding the Militia.' in order to make the clause read in harmony with the rest of the Bill.


James Joseph Hughes: In case of the new pi opositiou being carried out, would not the officer commanding the militia be the Inspector General ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN, In time of emergency there would be immediately a Commanding Officer appointed, it might be in a district, to exercise the powers under this clause.


James Joseph Hughes: I think some word as ' general ' should be there ; otherwise, [DOT] what officer would it mean '! It might mean half a dozen different officers in a locality.


George William Fowler: I do not see any objection to the expression ' general officer commanding ' even if you change the law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would suggest the words. ' officer commanding the militia.'


Frederick William Borden: In time of war an imperial officer commands, and you could scarcely call him an Officer Commanding the Militia.


James Joseph Hughes: He would be commanding the militia here. I think the intention is that every officer commanding a division should have this authority.


Frederick William Borden: We might want to use this power instantly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How would it do to say, ' the officer commanding the militia in the locality ' ?


George Oscar Alcorn: How would it do to use these words :	' Whenever an emergency
exists the officer commanding the militia of Canada or an officer commanding a unit of militia.' ?


Frederick William Borden: I think that ' Officer Commanding the Militia ' will answer the purpose, because he can delegate his power.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


James Joseph Hughes: But we have none under the new provision. In a case of war, ot course we would have an officer commanding, but an emergency might mean a riot or insurrection, when there would be no officer commanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There would have
to be somebody.


James Joseph Hughes: The Minister of Justice suggests the words 'in the locality.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, 'the officer commanding the militia in the locality ' would do. I move that the clause be amended so that it will read :
But when an emergency exists, the officer commanding the militia in the locality, or any officer duly authorized, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 13 (b.) compensation for land taken.
George William Fowler: Should not the officer responsible give the party entitled to compensation some voucher ?


James Joseph Hughes: When this was up before 1 suggested that some clause should be put In, ordering the officer Who commandeered anything, to give some receipt or acknowledgment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that in the section 1 wardens and keepers of all public prisons and lunatic asylums ' the word 1 officers ' be substituted for ' keepers.'
Motion agreed to.
George William Fowler: Why do you exempt professors of colleges ?


Frederick William Borden: Because we do not think it wise to interrupt the education of the young, and in this we are following the old Act.


George William Fowler: I do not see why the professors or teachers should be exempt any more than the business men.


Frederick William Borden: They can volunteer.


George William Fowler: But they should be under as much compulsion as any other.


Frederick William Borden: It is not desirable to break up a public institution. Such an institution is different from the store or office of a business man.


George William Fowler: It is certainly a great hardship to have a man's business destroyed, quite as great as to have a man taken from his^ position as teacher.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But the hardship in the case of the teacher or professor would be not to the man himself, but to the pupils.


George William Fowler: But it is not an injury that cannot be remedied. It only means an interruption, whereas the drafting of a business man means the destruction of his business. It seems to me, that the argument is all the other way so far as the teachers are concerned.


George Oscar Alcorn: It would mean [DOT] that in the case of a lev6e en masse, the pupils will be taken and the teachers will be left.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hon. gentlemen will see, by referring to section 14, that there are two things involved. The section provides first, that all the male inhabitants of Canada of the age of eighteen years and upwards and under sixty, and not exempt or disqualified shall be liable to serve in the militia. That is one thing. But it also provides that the Governor General
may require all male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a lev&e en masse. In this latter case there is no exemption.


George William Fowler: In the case of a levge en masse, would you call out the clergy ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 21 of the .Act provides that certain persons shall be exempt from enrolment and from active service, and among these are the clergy. But under section 14 of this Bill in the case of a levee en masse there is no exemption.


Jabel Robinson: What is meant by a levee en massse ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It means that all the inhabitants able to bear arms must go to the front.


Jabel Robinson: Who is to take care of the women and children ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a matter at the discretion of the executive. Perhaps the women and children might be brought along with the others.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to move an amendment to section 15. As at present drafted, members of the Senate, and House of Commons, are exempted from service in the militia. I cannot imagine why this body which ought to set an example to the country, should desire exemption. I would take it as an insult to have such words appear in the statute. I would be in a very bad position in my counti'y, to ask other people to rise and defend the country, if I were exempt myself.


James Joseph Hughes: While the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) is exempt, there is nothing to prevent his volunteering.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, this is invidious, very invidious. The members of the House of Commons should be like others under the law. Then, they will be able to go into the country, and exercise their influence, under proper conditions. It would be a most amazing thing, if the very leaders and directors of public opinion in Canada should be sulking while they asked the ordinary citizen to take up arms in the defence of the country. I regard this as a stigma. Why should we, sitting here as legislators, skulk behind a provision of the law ? We ought to make our position clear, and, I think the judges, who are also exempt under this section, should unite in protest against it. Why should a judge be exempt ? In the case of a conscription,, the judiciary would not be very much affected-only three or four of them would be chosen in the whole of Canada. The wheels of justice would be but little interfered with by such a conscription, and, so far as the House of Commons in concerned, it would mean that only ten or fifteen of our members would be called. And, in order to

ovoid that, it is proposed that we should adopt this section, which would be not in accord with the highest feelings of the people. This is a serious matter. It seems to affect the morale of the country, that the Senate and the House of Commons having the power of legislation should exempt themselves. I really feel like calling upon the self-respect and dignity of the House to eliminate this section. I leave the Senate to look after their own diguity, but I would move that the section be amended so as to remove this exemption of the House of Commons. I find that this exemption is not in the old Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have the old Act here and I cannot find it. The people of the time when this old Act was passed would not stultify themselves so far as to provide for such an exemption.


Frederick William Borden: I think we had better strike it out. It was not in the old Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Was it not ?


Frederick William Borden: No. Strike it out.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) wants to make the thing complete and be sure that there will be no possible exemption of the House of Commons, I would suggest to him to strike out from the fifteenth line the words * persons disabled by bodily or mental infirmity.'


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not pretend to be very strong mentally. I am only here as an honest citizen.


Mr. PUTTEE.: I would like to know whether I understood the Minister of Justice correctly. Does he hold that as it stands now there are no exemptions in case of a * levee en masse ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Arthur W. Puttee: It seems to me that is hardly a proper way to have it. The country needs people to serve it in all branches.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The Minister of Militia regulates that when he calls out the levee.


Arthur W. Puttee: Even if that is done 1 can hardly see that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) is a good one.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) is right there. Of course I do not want to throw cold water on the patriotism of anybody, but we must have some common sense besides patriotism. Suppose that in the case of a levee eti masse we keep no person to look after the jails.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: In that case the prisoners would go to the front too.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But at the same time what will you do with the wardens and officers of lunatic asylumns ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That will be the responsibility of the executive.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: We must have common sense in these things. If the minister tells us that the Governor General may make some exemptions in a levee en masse all right, but if the law is to read as it is now according to clause 14, the Governor General cannot make any exemptions and every one in the country may be called out. It may create an awkward position.


George William Fowler: If every one was called only a few would be selected. The Gospel says that 1 many are called but few are chosen.' The Governor General in Council under this law has the right to call every one, but in the administration of that right the department would make such exceptions as might be necessary.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In case of national emergency you cannot have any exceptions; you have to trust to the good sense of the administration of the day.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would like to know, not by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley), if the Governor General in Council or the Governor General will have any right to discriminate in case of a levee en masse.


James Joseph Hughes: It is done by a military officer not by the Governor General. In that connection


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Iam not speaking to myt hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). If he will excuse me I have the floor and I am putting a question politely to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick).


James Joseph Hughes: I am going to ask a question, and I do not think that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), with all his nerve, has the right to say when 1 shall or shall not speak. If he will be good enough to look after the disruptive elements of the empire it will keep him busy. Under the amendments no member of parliament can claim exemption. It should be clear that any militia man who is a member of this House should be free to use what language he chooses in conformity with the institutions of this House and of this country, and that no enactment here should possibly bring him under the control of any militia force which would prevent us having a free parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My answer t0 the last difficult conundrum propounded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is that there is no exemption in

favour of a member of parliament. He would be obliged, with every one else, when called upon, to take service, but a summons to parliament would supersede the call to arms and he would be entitled to answer his summons to parliament. I am not familiar with the subject of the lev6e en masse, except in so far as my general reading applies, and I take it that a levee en masse refers to cases of national peril, national danger, when the people of the country capable of bearing arms must go to the assistance of the country.	Of course it would be a matter for the exercise of discretion to see to it that the national peril was not increased by allowing the lunatics and criminals to escape, and leaving the women and children unprovided for. That would be adding to the national burden and it will be assumed that those in charge will see that all these interests are provided for.


George William Fowler: This same amendment should be made to apply to the provincial legislatures.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that if one goes out the other should go out.


Frederick William Borden: Provincial legislators go out.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand that the amendment of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) is accepted ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think it is proper. It is simply giving way


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, if the time should come when it would be necessary for any one to go to the front, I think I would be there before many people who talk war all the time in this House. But I think it is perfectly ridiculous to give way to an appeal to prejudice of that kind. I think it is necessary for parliament to keep itself going, just as necessary as the other public services, and therefore, if we are prepared to exempt the judges, the deputy ministers, the professors of colleges and universities, it would be just as proper to keep the members of parliament, both federal and provincial, in the list of exemptions. I think it is giving way to a small appeal to militarism which is not going to appeal to many sensible people outside of this House.


Peter Macdonald: Sir Frederick Borden moves to insert the following subclause :
Members of the naval -militia, members of the police force and fire brigade in incorporated cities, towns and villages-


George William Fowler: In many cases ' fire brigade ' would cover the whole male population.


Frederick William Borden: I think not.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Oh, yes.


George William Fowler: I know that in my own town practically the whole male population belongs to the fire brigade. I think it is true of every small town.


Frederick William Borden: We might say * cities.'


James Joseph Hughes: How would it do to say ' permanently employed.'


Frederick William Borden: Very well, that was the idea I had.
Firemen permanently employed in incorporated cities, towns and villages.


James Joseph Hughes: By the police force I meant the officers and men permanently employed in the police force.


Jabel Robinson: If you take every man away what is the use of leaving the police force at home ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I object to the amendment proposed. That proposed by the minister was ail right, that the police forces and fire brigades should be exempted. If you make it read in that way it will give exemption only to the fire brigades and police forces of the large towns and cities where policemen and firemen are employed all the year round, and you will place policemen and firemen in the smaller villages In an awkward position. They have very small fire 'brigades and only three or four policemen in these small villages, and they have to do something else to earn their living. If you force them into the militia you impose a hardship upon them. I do not see why you should pass legislation for the large cities and not for the small villages. T understood that an amendment was proposed to cover, not only the large cities, but the small villages as well, but you strike out the small villages and towns from the benefit of that provision. I know that in my own province in many places the fire brigades and police forces are not permanently employed. They are supposed to give their services alternately. They have fire brigades in several of the towns and villages in Quebec in which one man will give his services for so many days in the month. They organize voluntary fire brigades of eight or ten men, who look after the safety of the village from fire, and at the same time earn their living.


Peter Macdonald: It is proposed to amend the clause by adding the following paragraph :
Members of the naval militia and members of police force and fire brigade permanently employed in incorporated cities, towns and villages.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. minister may remember that I gave him notice of a



proposed amendment, that people who have religious objections to taking up arms shall be required to furnish a substitute or bear any expense in providing the substitute incurred by the government. I do not believe in interfering with peoples' religious doctrines or forcing them to fight, but I think that any person who enjoys the protection of the government and of the militia should be required to provide a substitute.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is simply a re-enactment of the law as we have it. Paragraph 3 provides that persons of different forms of religious belief-
Shall be exempt from such service when balloted in time of peace or war, upon such conditions and under such regulations as the Governor in Council from, time - to time prescribes.


James Joseph Hughes: Then you can make regulations to cover the case of a substitute.


Frederick William Borden: The exemption shall be provided for by regulation.


Mr. BOYD.: What is the necessity for putting this in at all ? I do not see why you should publish it to the world that people having a certain religious belief may come here and be exempt. I think it is sufficient to deal with the emergency when it arises. We have thousands of people in Manitoba who will not take up arms, and I think this provision could be left out and the matter dealt with when the emergency arises.


Frederick William Borden: They came into the country knowing that this provision was in our militia law, and I think it is only fair that we should continue the provision, which is to 'be under the control and subject to regulations to be .issued by the Governor General in Council.


Andrew B. Ingram: Apart from that, I understand that the Mennonites came in some years ago with the understanding that they "would not be asked to take up arms.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under the Militia Act every person bearing a certificate from the Society of Quakers, Mennonites or Tunkers, is exempt under such conditions and under such regulations as the Governor in Council prescribes.


Frederick William Borden: If you will look at section 2, you will see that ' prescribed ', means prescribed by this Act or by regulations.


Peter Macdonald: Well, then, you need not amend that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is all right.


James Joseph Hughes: What I want to impress upon the hon. minister is that in his regulations provision shall be made for that point. These regulations, I presume, will be submitted to parliament.


James Joseph Hughes: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes ; under the law they are obliged to be submitted to parliament.


James Joseph Hughes: I hope that point will be covered.


Frederick William Borden: The regulations will be made before the Act goes into force.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before this clause is carried, I would like to point out to the hon. minister that persons who claim exemption have, under paragraph 3 of section 15, to give their notice at least one month before they claim their exemption, and that by section 16 they have to give proof of the ground upon which they ask exemption. Does that mean that in case of the organization of a corps in any district persons who may be exempted or who may be called are, if they have not filed their exemption one month before, bound to serve for the time for which they are called, and that the exemption will only ajjply when they are called the second time ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The service is not compulsory.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is a clause in the Bill which allows the Governor in Council to call people up for enrolment in any district of the country in order to fill the ranks when there are not sufficient volunteers. Therefore, it is useless to say enrolment is voluntary. It is voluntary as long as there are people enough willing to engage. Suppose the Governor General in Council decides to organize a regiment in a district of the country in which the people do not come forward to enlist, you have all the powers here necessary to enforce them to come in within their classes. You call the first class, then the second class, then the third class and then the fourth class, and then they are enrolled by ballot. Suppose a man is called by ballot and is enrolled, should he have filed his claim for exemption at least one month before his enrolment ? He has not filed his exemption because nobody thinks of filing this exemption and if he does not desire to serve voluntarily what would be his position ? Will they be. subject to the enrolment, and will their proof be useless if they have not given notice one month before they are called.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think so.


Mr. MONET.: If that is the case, as 1 understand the Minister of Justice to say it is, it would be very hard indeed on certain persons. While the general principle prevails that every citizen is supposed to know the law, yet it" would be rather an extreme view to * take of ' it, that every citizen should know that the clauses of this Bill oblige him to give notice one month before even he may suppose that he may be called. I believe this provision should be stricken out of the Bill.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Or else, there should be a provision that when a man is called upon to be enrolled by ballot, he should have a certain delay to prove exemption.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That "would be covered by section 33 of the Bill which gives the Governor General in Council power to make regulations.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But suppose they do not make regulations. This Bill will provide for one month's notice and you incorporate that in the Act, and do not leave it to regulations.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may be necessary to enroll the militia at any time without thirty days' notice. There is something to be said on both sides, and I think this matter can be left to the regulations.


Dominique Monet: We ought to be informed that there is some great pressing necessity for such a clause as this.


Frederick William Borden: This law has been .on the statute-book for forty or fifty years and no hardship has ever resulted from it. The suggestion of the -Minister of Justice is the correct one, namely, that this matter will be dealt with by regulation.	'


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
Section 18 stricken out.
On section 19,
Cadets or cadet corps shall not be liable to service in the militia in any emergency save only in the case of a ' lev£e on masse.'
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved to strike out the words ' cadets or.'
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES, is there any definition of what a cadet corps is.


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


James Joseph Hughes: The reason I ask is that a great many public schools are wishing to form a cadet force corps.


George William Fowler: Why should you strike out the word ' cadets ? '


Frederick William Borden: It is unnecessary ; * cadets corps ' covers the whole thing and later on the Act deals with the organization of the cadet corps.
Section as amended agreed to.
At Six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
On section 20-classes of militiamen.


Frederick William Borden: That is exactly the same as the present law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-division of militia into active and reserve.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-Practically no change.
Section agreed to.
On section 22-period of service.
Dominique Monet: Many young men who enlist for three years' service drop out after one year. It is perfectly useless for a young man to go to camp for only one year. I think the terms of the engagement should be strictly enforced.


Frederick William Borden: I agree with my hon. friend that it is desirable that young men should continue in the service for the full term ; but I do not agree with him that it does not do a young man good to go for only one year.


James Joseph Hughes: I think the increase in the pay will induce them to continue for the full term. You cannot force men out.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: If you force a young man to go to camp when he perhaps loses a good job for doing so, you will be unable to get another young man from the same neighbourhood to go to camp afterwards. I think the increased pay will have the desired effect.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-present corps continued.
Frederick William Borden: Practically the same as the old law.


James Joseph Hughes: This is applicable to the permanent corps, I presume ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-compulsory and voluntary retirement.
James Joseph Hughes: There is nothing there about dismissing an officer.


Frederick William Borden: 
James Joseph Hughes: It is perfectly right to provide that a man be permitted to retire on giving his commanding officer six months' notice. Of course, the Governor in Council always has authority to dismiss 'a man for cause, and I do not know that it is necessary to provide for it in the law. Of course, it is understood that it is to be for cause ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-discharge on completion of service.
Frederick William Borden: That is new.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I would like to ask the minister exactly what that means. When the term of enlistment expires, is a man ipso facto discharged from the service, or must he make application for his discharge.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He goes as a matter of course.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
James Joseph Hughes: At the present time he has to purchase his discharge. Under this clause he would require only to give six months' notice.


Frederick William Borden: I move that this clause, paragraph ' a ' shall not apply to the permanent corps.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On clause 26-military districts and subdivisions.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved to strike out this clause and insert the following in its stead :
The Governor in Council may direct that any portion of Canada shall be a military district for the purposes of this Act and may cause two or more districts to be grouped together for the purposes of command and administration, and may divide any military district into such sub-districts, brigade, regimental or company divisions as may appear expedient.
Motion agreed to.
On section 27-constitution of active militia.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg to move that the following section be inserted between sections 27 and 28 :
That the total peace establishment of the active militia shall not exceed fifty thousand men.
Under the old Act there was no limit. There was no limitation provided. But in the clause providing for the training of men, clause 58, there was .a limitation of the number to 45,000 active militia men. It limited the power of the government to order the training of more than 45,000. This clause is omitted in the present Bill, so that in the Bill which is before us there is no limit whatever to the number of corps that may be organized by the minister, and there is no limitation whatever to the peace or war establishment of the militia, no limitation to the number of men that may be drilled every year. I think it is about time that we should pause a little and reflect on the proposed increase of our militia, and the expenditure connected with it. I admit that we have been passing through a period of military enthusiasm, which has been kept up in this House by a few military gentlemen like the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), and a few laymen like my hon.


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: The statute now existing to which my hon. friend refers provides that 40,000 is the minimum number that should be trained ; it is not at all a limitation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is what I said. I said there was no limitation at present except as regards the number to be trained.


Frederick William Borden: I understood him to say there was a limitation to the number that could be trained. I have taken the trouble to look up the old debates, and to read a speech made by Sir Geo. Cartier in 1868 in introducing his Bill, which was modified in later years by Sir Adolphe Caron. I And that Sir Geo. Cartier made this remark :
He expected under the provisions of this Bill to provide that the number of trained men within the Dominion should not be less than 40,000.
So he was providing for the compulsory training of 40,000 men. Sir Adolphe Caron, in introducing his amendments in 1883, said:
I have taken the number of men as laid down in the original Bill.
He introduced a provision by which the number of 45,000 might be drilled by authority of Order in Council. Now it seems to me that a limitation of this section is undesirable. I think it is undesirable that any particular number of men should be named in the Bill as necessary to be drilled. That is a matter that should be left to parliament and to the government to regulate from time to time as the government may deem expedient. My hon. friend knows quite as well as I do that no training can be done, no drilling can' be done, without the authority of parliament. That is an expensive operation, that requires money, and each year we have to come to parliament and make a statement of the number of men we propose to train and we ask for money for that purpose. We are absolutely tied up and limited to the amount of money which parliament sees fit to vote us. I think it is undesirable that any limitation of this kind should he placed in this Bill. In a clause which will come later, I have placed a limitation to the number of the active militia. The active militia, as my hon. friend has shown, at the present time, is somewhere about
45,000	officers and men, about the number named in the present Bill ; and I propose to give to the Governor in Council power, under a clause which we will come to later on, to call out the whole of the active militia, subject of course, as it always must be, to the vote of parliament.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am glad to concur in the view taken by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). I am glad that there are many subjects on wrhich members of parliament can agree, affecting the genera] interests of the country. I concur in the proposition of the Minister of Militia and will go further. I see that a malicious effort is being made to persuade the people that because we desire to get into a state of preparation for defence we are introducing militarism. I do not know what militarism means ; I cannot give it an intellectual meaning as applied to this country. I know what it means in the old world, but in regard to many countries where they have been overridden by militarism I am bound to say, as a student, that I believe it has proved a benefit. I believe that the great and unprecedented advance that Germany has made in commercial progress in the past twenty-five or thirty years, has been due, in a large measure, to her system of conscription. And I would not be averse, while glorying in freedom, while believing that every man in this country should be free, to the establishment of some measure of conscription. I believe that the German government has given to that nation great power and virility given it great creative power, by taking young men at the age of fourteen, when perhaps they would be idle about the streets and putting them for four years in the army. In that way they are not only given military drill but are given a splendid mechanical education and after they leave the army they are ready to enter factories. Why lias Germany become a great manufacturing country in twenty-five years ? Because these men are trained in the army to habits of industry and discipline and are given a good mechanical training so that when they leave the army they are fit, with very little training, to go into a factory and become producers. If Germany has risen in twenty-five years from a weak commercial state into a powerful commercial state that result is due to militarism.


Dominique Monet: What about the progress
that has been made by the United States ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Some hon. gentlemen go about the country thinking evidently that the people of Canada are under-educated and under-bred. I tell the hon. gentlemen opposite that in the county which I have the honour to represent there is not one man who possesses less intelligence than any man in the House of Commons of Cana la, and if I should undertake to indulge in clap-trap of that kind, in talk of militarism I would have a dozen men asking me : What do you mean by mi-

litarism ? I would ask these lion, gentlemen or any hon. gentleman in this House : What (lo you mean by militarism ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Does the hon. gentleman want a definition 1


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would not expect it.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I think I might suggest one.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You cannot possibly un-Oierstand what militarism means, bu(t I would be most happy to hear your definition.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I think it is rather more than adequate military protection.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That may be your meaning of it and I must say that I would attach to it a somewhat similar meaning. But that meaning is not the meaning, attached to it by these gentlemen who use it for claptrap political purposes. I was surprised that Sir William Mulock, ordinarily an intelligent and a very sensible man should have gone to Toronto some months ago and made a speech in which he talked about militarism. It was done evidently to appeal to the vulgar passions of the people. He must have fancied that the people of Ontario were absolutely uneducated and untrained in mental processes. He should have been called down by one half his audience because it was clearly not an appeal to the intelligence of the country but to its prejudices. Sir William Mulock and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) do not use the word militarism in the sense in which Col-lonel Thompson uses it. The meaning they attempt to convey by it is (hat if you vote any sums to the militia of this country you are going to be ground down by the heel of a military tyranny which you cannot control, you are going to be put under the control of an autocrat. This is militarism in the odious sense and it is in that sense that these gentlemen seek to have the word understood in this country. Where parliament controls the expenditure of the militia every year and can alter the militia laws every twenty-four hours, it is worse than idle to talk of militarism. I want to see every man in Canada prepared ; if war comes we wish to be on top. What was Japan fifteen or twenty years ago, before they became a military people ? Unheard of, almost, and despised when heard of. To-day, if they win out in this war, they will occupy the proudest position among the nations of the earth because they are a military people, a people trained in the defence of their country against all odds. I want Canada to be in a similar position. I do not want war, but if war is thrust upon us I want this country to win glory in the way that Japan is winning it in her fight with Russia. But, Sir, if men like the hon. member for La-Mr. GOURLEY.
belle (Mr. Bouiassa) were to have their way we would be like the poor Chinese, the object of contempt the world over. They abhor militarism and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and those gentlemen who think as he does would have us pursue a course which in a few years would reduce us to the state of the despised and despicable Chinese, and we would be properly despised as they are.
I want my boys as soon as they become old enough to go into the militia for physical training, for training in habits of discipline, because they will get it in the militia better than in any other way. I glory in the military institution of the country. It gives back-bone and discipline and education to the people, and I say that money, no matter how much, if wisely spent upon the militia of this country, is money spent in the education of the youth of this country, in training them for the high duties of citizenship. Good military training is next to good university training,1 and the two should go together. While the mind is trained the body should be trained also.
It should be made active and disciplined, ready to respond to the highest impulses of human life. Therefore, I support the minister in his proposal ; I hope the militia of this country will finally embrace every man in it, and I hope that the age of admission will be reduced from eighteen years to fourteen years so that a boy at the age when he is likely to be learning to smoke cigarettes and to be idle about the streets may be taken into camp and trained to habits of discipline. I venture to say that if that system prevails the people of Nova Scotia and of Canada when they leave the militia will be better able to discharge the duties of citizenship than in any other way. I hope the force will be enlarged until It embraces all the able-bodied men in the country.


James Joseph Hughes: If the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is not going to reply to the castigation he has received, I have a few imperfect remarks which 1 should like to make. I am at a loss to un derstand the tactics of that hon. gentleman. We all know that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has no thought of his cwn outside of some of his directors to pop up and express these peculiar sentiments from time to time. He has enunciated the policy here to-night that there should be
50,000	volunteer soildiers in Canada-. I cannot understand what his meaning may be. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. isifton) not long since, in a public address in the city of Ottawa, advocated that the rifle should be placed in the hands of 1,000,000 men in Canada.


Dominique Monet: That is the very reason why we want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle.

ji


James Joseph Hughes: Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monet) will have the opportunity of taking his own liege lord, the right hon. Prime Minister, to task, because, upon a very recent date, when he was anxious to stand well before the public and make himself a little more loyal, more British and more patriotic than his actions were supposed to lead the public to believe him to he, he came out and stated that he wanted those militia companies in every city, town, village, hamlet and rural district in the Dominion of Canada. He endorsed the statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior. Then, we have two members of the government in favour of having from a million or a million and a quarter of trained men in the Dominion of Canada. I stand here to say I heartily endorse that proposition. Let every young lad of the age from 12 to 14 years receive his training in militia drill. It has the physical advantage of making young fellows keep their heads up, march well and understand how to control themselves and how to control others judiciously. These are all advantages from the view point of citizenship. Then, look at the ranks of criminals in Canada. To the credit of the militia force be it said that, although they are exposed in camps and in times of jubilation to go to extremes, the records of criminality in Canada show that members of the militia force of this country are conspicuous toy their absence from the ranks of criminals. All these are arguments in favour of the militia force. Now, the hon. member for Labelle, with the bee in his bonnet, which has been buzzing there for a long time, is endeavouring to impress upon the people of the province of Quebec that there is danger of an inundation of militarism. He is preparing for the elections, so that he may be able to go around and tell the people how he has been anxious to keep down the military spirit which is being forced upon us by these military foreigners and by people from other provinces in the Dominion of Canada. The militia system is the antithesis of militarism. The policy of the Liberal party at one time-I do not know whether it was under the regime of my hon. friend from Victoria, Nova Scotia (Mr. Ross) or not-was to do away with the militia force of this country, and to establish instead a standing army of from 4,000 to 5,000 men. We know that a number of men who were in parliament at that time on the Liberal side advocated it very strongly. It even received serious consideration at the hands of the government, but the better element prevailed, and those who opposed it saw that a standing army in a young country like this was the beginning of a spirit of militarism, but a proper spirit triumphed and the militia system was continued. I am very glad to know that two members at least'of the government within very recent times have expressed themselves as being in favour of placing from 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 militiamen on duty in
the Dominion of Canada. It may involve a somewhat heavy bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Prime Minister figured it up. They talk of the suppressed report involving an expenditure of $12,000,000 or, as some say, $35,000,000; but, even though the policy of the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of the Interior were to involve an expenditure of, say, even $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 for placing rifles in the hands of the volunteers, I maintain that it will be money well expended, provided our young men are trained to handle these rifles and understand manoeuvring sufficiently well to make them a mobile force in the field.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not able to accept all the explanations which have been given by the hon. Minister of Militia, to say nothing of the opinions which have been expressed toy the two hon. gentlemen who have last spoken. But, as far as this amendment is concerned, it does not propose to interfere with the policy of the government. If I understand the policy of the government so far, it is that they want to induce a greater number of people to engage in target practice. I understand that the right lion. Prime Minister, at the reception that was given to him in the camp at Ottawa, wanted a greater number of young men in our villages and hamlets to know how to shoot. I am in favour of that idea. I am ready to support the clause which the hon. Minister of Militia is going to bring n to deal with rifle clubs ; in fact, I do not think I am guilty of any breach of confidence in saying that some months ago when this Bill was introduced I told the hon. minister privately that I entirely approved of his idea of organizing rifle clubs, and that I would be happy to extend help to him, in so far as the province of Quebec was concerned, to induce young men to engage in shooting practice in their villages. But what I am opposed to is the government organizing a greater number of regiments of regular militia. I do not think 50,000 or 25,000 more men are of any use to this country from a defensive point of view. I think it is perfectly absurd to contend that we should organize this country on a war footing to resist an attack presently from the United States of America. I think it is perfectly absurd to say that we have that possible occurrence in view when we discuss our militia matters. What [DOT] I think perfectly legitimate and proper is to keep up in our population a proper spirit as to their duties in regard to the defence of the country, and to endeavour to induce a greater number of cur young men, without drawing them from their peaceful avocations, to take up rifle practice. I think that is the foundation principle of our defence. To go to a heavy military expenditure, to increase the number of our militiamen, to buy a larger number of cannon or rifles for the militia. I think is time and money lost. I admit that a

greater number of militiamen could be organized under the present law and that the militia can show a great number of Cue fellows, but there is no doubt that while the militia has among it a great number of fine people, there is also a great number of good-for-nothings and loafers. There is no doubt that a number of young men are drawn into the militia because of the uniform and the camp, and certainly some of these men are not useful to the country. I do not think it is a proper policy to try to instil the idea into the minds of young people that they are more useful to their country, that there is more glory to them, that they can despise the farming community, as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has been doing ali this afternoon by insulting the hon. Minister of Agriculture, that they are going to improve their position, that they are going to render greater service to their country, that they are going to gather more glory for themselves by entering the militia, by putting a plume on their head, by carrying a sword and by going to camp at the country's expense for from twelve to thirty days. I think that is not sound doctrine. Of course, 1 will admit that there must be a certain number of militiamen, but I think there should be a limitation to that policy. "When it comes to the organization of rifle clubs, I am ready to join hands with the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and to try and organize them as rapidly as we can throughout the whole Dominion.
As far as the cadet corps is concerned, I am also of the same mind. Of course, I would have opposed strongly the clause of this Bill referring to cadet corps as it came forward in the first draft imposing ar obligation to serve in the militia. But since the minister has withdrawn that provision, and the cadet organization is perfectly voluntary, I have no objection.
I differ from the Minister of Militia with regard to the control of parliament. Time and again for the eight years I have been here, I have heard members of this House declare that it was absurd to increase our expenditure on militia, but nevertheless, they voted for increased expenditure when the government proposed It. If I were in the English parliament I might rely upon file independence of the House to revolt against what might be proposed by a minister of the Crown, but that is not so under the conditions in Canada. Without flattery to the present Minister of Militia, 1 may say that I have reason to rely on his common sense and judgment. I believe that between two sessions of parliament he would not create a number of militia battalions, and then come back to parliament and ask for ratifications of his act. But, we are not passing legislation here for one minister or for one government; we are passing (legislation for all ministers and all governments in time to come. If Mr. BOURASSA.
in years from now-years far off I hope for the peace and happiness of Canada- the Conservatives Should come to power, and a great military man like the member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) should become Minister of Militia, what might be expected if the law placed such power in his hands ? There is no limitation in the law, and if we had to rely only on the common sense of such a minister, it might be a dangerous thing for Canada. We should look to the future when we are passing such legislation as this. We have not always had sensible men as ministers, and no doubt if the opposition should come to power, the member for North Victoria would make a strenuous pull for the portfolio of Militia and Defence.


Hance James Logan: And the member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley).


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The member for Colchester would probably be his outside adviser or general inspector. If such a man were minister, he might under the authority of this Act, create ten or twenty new battalions during the recess of parliament, and then come here asking parliament to foot the bill. I do not think wre can infer from past experience that the majority in parliament would reject the proposition of the minister and would force the government out of power rather than ratify the expenditure. I am not prepared to say that this great faithfulness of the majority to the government is wrong ; I am not prepared to say that our party system is worse than the English system, but the conditions here being such as they are, it is not sufficient precaution to say that because parliament has to ratify an expenditure it provides a sufficient safeguard. I admit that when Sir George Cartier proposed the present militia lawf he did not impose any limitation on the total number of the militia, but in those days the spirit of the country was different. There wras then no danger of a military craze in Canada. To-day there is no use denying that certain of our public men and certain of our newspapers, Conservative and Liberal, have for ten years been working up a military spirit in this country. The fact that only this afternoon the Minister of Militia allowed himself to be guided by the members for Victoria and Colchester, and accepted amendments from them is a proof that even a strong Liberal government is apt to give way to pressure from high Tory and strong military sources. We should, embody the necessary safeguards to the people in this law and not leave it to chance. It may be that the farming community or the business community of this country is an inferior class ; it may be that the military men are the only independent, sensible, and patriotic citizens ; but after all, the business people and the farmers have a right to be heard

ir>
this parliament. I am ready to give my' vote and lend my influence in my country and my province to secure end irsation for any sensible proposition of the Minister of Militia towards maintaining the defences of this country, but when I hear that we should be prepared so that on declaration of war by the United States we can rush at once to the defence of the country the proposition is absurd. No sensible man in Canada will say that the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada should incur the expenditure necessary to place Canada on a war footing, so as to render her able to cope with the United States. What we have to do is to rely as long as we can on fihe good common sense of the Canadian people, the British people, and the American people. That is our strongest defence for the time being. We ought to vote as much money as we can afford for the purpose of increasing the population of this country and developing its resources, before we commence to spend money on rifles and cannons for a great miltary force. If we are to keep up the proper spirit amongst the people, let us teach our young men how to shoot, which I suppose is one of the first requisites of defence, but let us not bring our young men off their farms and from fiheir useful occupations to enter military camps. It may be that military organizations will increase the standard of education as we are told, but from what I have heard and seen In this parliament-I will make exceptions to the general rule-it does not seem to me, that the fact that a man belongs to the militia necessarily shows that he is a man of superior judgment, great common sense, ; or even good education. We have militiamen in this House ; some of them are sensible-some of them I shall not qualify. We 4iave farmers and business men in this House and many of them are sensible and some of them are not. I am not going to j classify myself. I might even be ready to accept the definition given by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) as to my mental and patriotic qualifications, but as to that I will lely on the judgment of the good people who have sent me here, and they are no less sensible and no less patriotic than the electors who have returned the members of Victoria and Colchester to seats in this parliament. I will go further aind I will say that there are a great many members of this House- well perhaps not a great many-but there are several members of this House, not French Canadians, but English ; not from the province of Quebec but from Ontario and elsewhere, who at the bottom of their hearts lcnory that it is a foolish military policy we have been indulging in for the past few years. Were it not for that peculiar sentiment of party allegiance and party fidelity which exists in this parliament, these members would say so frankly and sincerely and the time will come when they
will be obliged to speak out because the more the people of Canada know of this question the wider their eyes are open to it. The entire Liberal party in the province of Quebec has been denouncing military expenditure. In the elections of 1896 one of the strongest war cries in the province of Quebec was that the Conservative party were betraying the interests of Canada because they wanted to buy one million dollars worth of rifles and cannons.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It was a very false cry.
Mr. BOURA8SA. I am not now dealing with my hon. fri m3 (Mr. Gourley) ; I am dealing with my friends on this side of the House, and I say that the Liberal party in 1896. pi'eviously, not only in the province of Quebec but in other provinces, have stood as a party of peace, progress, and development. We have reproached the Conservative party for spending so much money upon armament. We have said it was a useless expenditure, and it wms foolish for this nation to arm in fine hope of contending against a neighbouring nation of
89,000	000 peopli. Therefore it is that I say we have no right to give way to a few noisy Conservatives who may stand up in this House and upbraid th* Liberals with the cry of treason. We have successfully withstood such tactics f >r many years, and we can withstand them longer. These gentlemen tell us now of the great loyalty, of Alexander Mackenzie, but the old Grits in this House must remember that time and again Alexander Mackenzie was charged with disloyalty and treason. But Alexander Mackenzie withstood it, and the Liberals have w ithstood it, and they can continue to withstand it. It is therefore a mistake on the part of the Liberal government and the Liberal party to go back on their footsteps, especially with regard to this question, and to be dictated to from Tory and jingo quarters as to what then- policy should be.
I think it is not an exhibition of Liberal independence to accept amendments at the hands of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) or the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley). Outside perhaps of those two counties, I do not think it would be considered a piece of great judgment on the part of the government to accept their military policy from those two gentlemen. In some small quarters of this country those hon. gentlemen 1 may be considered to be great lights in par-1 liament and the proper men to consult in regard to the military policy of this government ; but as a general rule I think it will be considered that the Liberal party, by sticking to their principles and their pledges to the people, will do more to get the support not only of Liberals but of common-sense Canadians, than by taking the advice of the hon. member for Victoria and

the hon. member for Colchester, and delighting the military party by adopting their jingo policy. As the years go by, I believe it will be acknowledged that I am no worse Canadian or British subject than any member of this House who talks more about his loyalty. It is as a Canadian and a true British subject that I oppose an increased military expenditure in this country. The worst service we can give to the Canadian people and to the British empire is to launch the country upon a policy of militarism that will lead the American people to reply. If we boast that we are going to organize more regiments and build a navy for this country-that we are going to organize ourselves so as to be able to stand a fight against the United States-can we be surprised if any of the border states of New York, Michigan, Minnesota or Dakota, shall wish to expend as much on naval and military organization as we do ? Instead of rendering a service to Great Britain bv launching on a policy of this kind, rather than pursuing a peaceful policy, we shall be sowing the germs of greater embarrassment for Great Britain and the British government. My hon. friends who talk so much about their loyalty made a good deal of noise last year at the time of the Alaskan boundary award. If the majority of this House or the majority of- the people of this country had been of the mind of the hon. member* for Colchester, it would not have taken a week to have launched the whole empire into a war with the United States. By being peaceful and dignified, by pursuing a Canadian policy in our military affairs as well as in other affairs, we shall certainly render a greater service to the British empire than we shall do by continually boasting about our loyalty, and trying to provoke animosity on the part of foreign nations, the United States especially. Therefore, without interfering at all with the plans of the hon. Minister of Militia. I think the amendment I now propose should commend itself to every sensible man in this House who wants to see a peaceful policy predominate in this country instead of that kind of warlike and noisy policy which we have been unfortunately following in the last few years.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: As I understand the law at present existing, it is that we are under obligation to train 40,000 militiamen in Canada every year. It was in the year 1868, some thirty-six years ago, that that was considered the least force upon which Canada c-ould rely for the preservation of order within her boundaries and the protection of her territory from foreign invasion ; and now the hon. member for Labelle, by the amendment he proposes, wishes to limit our forces to 50,000 men.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On a peace establishment.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: That is what I am speaking of. As a matter of fact, we do not propose to re-enact the old law, compelling us to drill 40,000 men per year. If the law suggested by the Minister of Militia carries, we may drill very much fewer than 40,000. We may drill only 10,000 or 15,000 per year if we see fit, or we may drill more, if we see fit. To my mind this whole question is one of the power of the purse, and that is still under the control of the House of Commons. I know something of the militiamen of this country and their spirit; but I will say this, and it is no disgrace to them, that you will not find them turning out to drill in tens of thousands unless you pay them ; so that we have the say whether they will turn out or not. I was surprised at the inconsistency of some of the statements of the hon. member for La-belle. I was delighted to hear him say that he was in favour of the establishment of rifle clubs far and near throughout Canada, and that in his own section of the country he would encourage the learning of the art of rifle shooting. But I was more than surprised to hear him say that he set his face against any further expenditure for the purchase of arms. I ask the hon. member* what would it avail if we taught the young men how to shoot, and then sent them to do their shooting with pitchforks ? That is what it would amount to if, after training them to the use of arms, we had only 40,000 stand of arms in Canada, which is our present supply. This Bill is not making very rapid progress, and it is not my intention to prolong the debate ; but I thought it necessary to make these observations, and one more. I w7as disappointed when the hon. member for Labelle-I trust carried awray by his own eloquence, and not appreciating the meaning of the words he used-said that wre must admit that the militia draws to itself a great number of loafers. Sir, I resent that. For seventeen years I have been closely associated with the militia of Canada ; I was for a number of years in a city regiment, and I have been for a number of years in a country regiment; I have never missed a camp of instruction in fourteen years ; I have been in the Niagara camp many times ; and I can say that that is a most unjust reflection on the militia of Canada. In so large a force there may be a few7 loafers some of the sheep may be black, or with a slight south-down tinge about them ; but the assertion that it attracts a large number of loafers I deny emphatically, from that long experience and close attention w'hich I have given to the subject.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Labelle. like myself, is not a military man, and he finds fault with those on this side of the House who offer, as he says, Tory and jingo suggestions. Well, I have listened to

military men on the government side of the House ; 1 have listened to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat state that even after our expenditure of millions or money on the militia force of the country, we had only the shadow of a skeleton of a force. If any hon. gentleman on this side of the House has offered a suggestion, it is for the purpose of bettering the militia force of this country, and I believe we are all .willing to incur a reasonable expenditure for that purpose. I have never heard any one on this side agitate for the establishment of an unreasonable army or to go into unreasonable expenditure for an extravagantly large force. But I have heard the policy advocated of having a number of men drilled, what you would call skeleton corps, who could be used for the purpose of instructing others who had not their advantage. Such a suggestion as that has been offered from this side. So far as the rifles are concerned, the hon. member for Labelle must admit that if we have not sufficient rifles to-day, we will have to spend money to buy more. If he is in favour of our young men being trained to shoot, he must admit that we shall have to purchase more rifles. On this side we are in favour of encouraging shooting among our young men and of developing the militia in every reasonable way, and I do not see that there is any jingoism in taking that stand. Before I take my seat. I wish to condemn the methods taken in 1896 of denouncing the iate government for the expenditure of a certain sum on the purchase of rifles. If the hon. member for Labelle took part in that agitation. I do' not think that he was acting in the interests of this country or that he was doing anything of which he ought to feel proud as a Canadian.


James Joseph Hughes: I shall not take up much time in discussing the subject which the hon. member for Labelle has brought before the House, because no one takes that hon. gentleman seriously. It must have been very galling to him this afternoon to find that the amendment which he proposed, and which he supported by a very eloquent speech, had no one to vote for it but himself. Not even our good friend from Na-pierville (Mr. Monet) would give my hon. friend his support. We can easily understand how ruffled must have-been his feelings. He has endeavoured to show that it is the terrible Tory party which is responsible for all the ills the militia is heir to in connection with this Bill. It was the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) and myself who led the House this afternoon and licked the Minister of Justice into line as well as the gallant colonel from Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) the Minister of Militia, and even that little war lord, who has been dictating to the Militia Department so
effectively of late. Our hon. friend from Labelle is deserted by his own party. They dare not take sides with him and there is not any respectable riding in Ontario or elsewhere in the Dominion which would listen with patience to the views he advocates. The hon. member has said that a good many men in the ranks of the Canadian militia are loafers. Well, probably the militiamen might have an equally unflattering opinion of the hon. gentleman. But I may tell the hon. gentleman that a Presbyterian clergymen, who objected to young men joining the regiment I had the honour to command, on the ground that he thought volunteering was not a good thing for our Canadian youth, experienced a radical change of view when he became better acquainted with the militia. I thought it would do him no harm to join the ranks and induced him to enter the regiment, and he became one of the best chaplains we ever had in the militia, and one of the most enthusiastic volunteers in the Dominion. I do not know whether my good friend from Labelle would care to sit on the soft side of a sand bank with his legs crossed and eat his meals off his knees like a Turk, but he might possibly join as provisional lieutenant or quartermaster-sergeant. If he would only come to a camp and associate with the boys, he would And that the militiamen of his own county are not the loafers he says they are and would have a better opinion of the lads who wear the jacket and are ready to give up their lives for the good of their country. I am glad that the right hon. the First Minister is here now, because I think I might appeal to him. Recently, when he was endeavouring to appeal to the patriotic sentiments of the people, he spoke in favour of having militia corps, not rifle corps, but volunteer corps, in every section of the Dominion. Well, the arming of those men and everything else would cost upwards of $50,000,000. I was proud to hear the First Minister use that language, and I trust that our Minister of Militia will be able to boast of still larger expenditures on the Department of Militia. There is no money expended in the Dominion which finds its way back so readily and so quickly to the cities and other distributing centres. There is no money which so quickly comes back to the people as the money spent on annual drill, and there is no money so widely distributed. We are training our people in the art of drilling themselves, in the art of being ready to defend their country, and money spent in that way finds its way back to the people more readily than money spent in Grand Trunk Pacific contracts and other extravagant schemes which do the people no good but drain them of their wealth.


Mr. OSLER.: I had not the pleasure of hearing the first part of the speech of tne hon. member for Labelle (Mi'. Bourassa), no doubt he spoke with his usual elo-

queuee ; but I should hope sincerely that there are very few men from the Atlantic to the Pacific who would echo the sentiments which he expressed in the last part of his address. He said in effect that Canada cannot be defended, that it is not worth while defending it. Let us become the humble hewers of wood and drawers of water and take the kicks of any nation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand the hon. member to say that I made use of any such language ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I say you did in effect.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman said that we cannot defend ourselves, that if the United States should attack us, we would have to succumb, and therefore it was useless our trying to provoke them by spending money on military affairs.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, what I said is that to organize at present in Canada on a military footing with the idea of making a fight against the United States is a foolish policy. I never said that we should not make any defence whatever, but that the idea of organizing defence against the United States was a foolish one. The best defence we could have and the best way to organize ourselves is to increase our population as rapidly as possible.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman has aflirtned what I stated, and I should be sorry to think that there was another man from the Atlantic to the Pacific who holds the views to which he has given expression. If this land fs not worth fighting for-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Absurd.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman stated that this land is not worth fighting for, that if the United States choose to attack us, we would have to be down like whipped curs a.id take our medicine. He said we had no defence, but he omitted to say that we had England at our back.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As in the Alaska business.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But probably he does not intend that we shall have Edgland to defend us long.


William Ross: What about Scotland and Ireland ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: They will defend us as long as we stand by the old flag. They will defend us even if there are men in this country like the hon. member for Labelle.


William Ross: Then you should not speak about England alone. *


Edmund Boyd Osler: I apologize to the Scotch.
I know that the men who come from the Mr. OSLER.
north think that they are the greater and include the less.


James Joseph Hughes: That is where you come from.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I come from the south.


Mr. SAM. HLTGHES.: I thought you were a Scotchman.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I come as far away from Scotland as it is possible in the sister isles. I come from Cornwall. I have no fear that if we get into trouble with any nation, England, Scotland and Ireland, or Scotland, Ireland and England-the latter will perhaps satisfy my hon. friend better- would come to our defence, but only on condition that we help ourselves, and I say that we cannot spend money better than by supplying our young men with rifles and teaching them how to shoot. I say again that I hope the hon. member for Labelle is alone in holding the sentiments he has expressed in this House.


Arthur W. Puttee: It is only right that we should judge this amendment by its own terms and not by the extravagant meanings that have been ascribed to it. It appears that the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has got himself into this position, that if he found it necessary to read the Ten Commandments to this Housei, there are a number of hon. gentlemen here who would get up at once and denounce them as disloyal, traitorous and anti-British. Now, Mr. Chairman, clause 27 that we-have just passed, in its first two lines, plainly gives the Governor General in Council power to organize as many regiments as he pleases. That means that when at any time the public mind Is inflamed, whether in regard to internal or external politics, some Minister of Militia who may be holding that office might take it into his head to organize to a tremendous extent ; and every man knows that when a responsible minister has done a thing and afterwards comes to parliament and asks for its endorsement, the party supporting the governmentt of which he is a minister will not turn him down. We know that in such a case tho House of Commons would sanction an act of which it would have disapproved if it could have voluntarily pronounced upon it in the beginning. Now, the member for Labelle moves an amendment that the peace establishment of the active militia shall be limited to 50,000. At the present time we have not got 50,000 on the peace establishment ; therefore, he is not asking the minister to reduce the number, he is still leaving a margin up to which any ministei may recruit before lie is obliged to come to parliament. If then there is any necessity fof it, parliament can increase the number beyond 50,000. I say, with all due respect to those who have put forward alarmist notions this afternoon, that the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle should only be

considered on its own merits and not in view of the meanings that have been ascribed to it, merely because it comes from a ei rtain source. Now, there is no doubt that the people are getting alarmed at the growth of our militia expenditure. I think we have seen this afternoon that it is almost impossible at the present time for some hon. gentlemen in this House to discuss militia matters in a sane and reasonable manner. It seems to me that an amendment of this kind, and perhaps other amendments limiting the power of the Minister of Militia during the recess of parliament, are right and proper, and should be adopted by this committee.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
On section 28, with the form of oath as follows :
X	swear that I will well and
truly serve Our Sovereign Lord the King, his
heirs and successors in the	tor
the term of	years or until lawfully
discharged, dismissed or removed, and that I will resist His Majesty's enemies and cause His Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained. and that I will in all matters appertaining to my service faithfully discharge my duty according to law. So help me God.


Frederick William Borden: I propose to strike that form of oath out, and insert the following in lieu thereof :
I, A B,. do solemnly promise and swear (or solemnly declare) that I will he faithful and true, and bear true allegiance to His Majesty.
Mr. FOW'LER. This is a very excellent change, and simplifies the oath. But the minister has left out the term of years in this section.


Frederick William Borden: This is actually the old oath.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 29 :
The permanent force shall consist of such permanently embodied corps, not exceeding two thousand men, as are, from time to time, authorized by the Governor in Council


Frederick William Borden: I propose to strike out that clause and replace it by the following :
The permanent force shall consist of such permanently embodied corps, not exceeding 2,000 men, enrolled for continuous service, as are from time to time authorized by the Governor in Council.
This amendment is found necessary. We have added an Engineer Corps, an Ordinance Corps and an Army Service Corps ; and we are adding to depots, one to be located at Montreal, with probably 200 men, and one somewhere in the Northwest Territories, with probably 100 mounted men. Later on there will be a depot in British Columbia.
Mr. FOWLER, Is there a permanent corps in Nova Scotia ?


Frederick William Borden: No ; but we have a depot and permanent corps in New Brunswick, which answers every purpose. Once a year the artillery is brought to Halifax from the country districts for instruction with the regulars.


James Joseph Hughes: Where do the officers get their certificates for training ?


Frederick William Borden: At Fredericton.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the permanent corps that is to be organized in the Northwest permit of the Mounted Police being moved further on ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, there will probably be a small detachment. As the country settles up. the militia will gradually supply the place of the Northwest Mounted Police! and the police will go [DOT] further north to more remote districts.
Mr. FOWLER, These will be mounted ?


Frederick William Borden: It will be a cavalry corps or mounted infantry.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How many constitute a corps for a district ?


Frederick William Borden: That depends on what arm it is. About 100. The mounted infantry is about SS or 89 and the infantry from 100 to 125. There are 100 in a company.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How many are there at London, for instance ?


Frederick William Borden: One hundred.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think I will ask you to add a couple of hundred more. Two hundred at Truro would be a great education for us.


Frederick William Borden: Two thousand, I think, will supply the number.
Sections 35 to 44 allowed to stand.
On section 45-appointment of district officers.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the following be inserted as subsection (a) :
The pay and allowances to officers of the General Staff, Head-Quarters Staff and District Staff, not provided for by this Act, shall be fixed by the Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: What is the present salary of the General Officer Commanding ?


Frederick William Borden: 

Mr. FOWLER, These will not exceed that amount ?


Frederick William Borden: 
James Joseph Hughes: I do not know whether it is worth while bringing it up now but I think a great many officers throughout the country would like to know what the hon. minister's intention is in regard to officers. The pay of the men is fairly satisfactory. If the hon. minister is not ready to give an expression to-night I will not press it.


Frederick William Borden: I cannot to-night but I think before we get through with the estimates I may be able to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 46-commissioned, warranted, and non-commissioned officers.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Why not use the term ' Governor in Council ' instead of ' His Majesty'? It is only a matter of form. The change has been made in all the other clauses of the Bill.
' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. There has always been some fiction of this kind in reference to His Majesty and we thought we would leave it.


Dominique Monet: Why not have the reality and say by the Governor in Council ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The fiction has been left aside and the reality taken up by the hon. minister in sixteen other clauses. I do not see why the fiction should' remain in this clause.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: It is sixteen to one.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In clauses 45 and 44 you provide that the appointment shall be made by the Governor in Council.


Frederick William Borden: Since we have done so well, perhaps my hon. friend will allow that to stand.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Why ? If there is a reason given I have no objection but it seems to me we might as well be logical. It is only a matter of form.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. The hon. gentleman has never seen a commission.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have seen a commission. I have seen the commission of my grandfather and of my great grandfather granted when they served in the militia.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad the hon. gentleman has ancestors who have served in the militia.


Frederick William Borden: Let this clause stand and I will make inquiries about it.


James Joseph Hughes: The commissions are signed by the Governor General.


Frederick William Borden: And signed by the minister also. There is something in Sir F. W. BORDEN.
section 47 about the commission being signed by the Governor General.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The commissions are granted by the Governor General and you canuot change that.


Frederick William Borden: That settles it then.
On section 47-Governor's signature to commissions.


James Joseph Hughes: I think this is the same as the old law and although it would have been a very great job to have these all signed I know the officers of the militia would think much more of their commissions if they were all signed.
On section 50-rank of officers in time of peace.


George William Fowler: As soon as the brigadier-general is out of office will he go back to the rank of colonel ?


Frederick William Borden: That is only temporary. That is the rule in England. He only takes the rank of Brigadier-General during the time he is in charge of the brigade camp.
On section 51-rank of officers when called out.


George William Fowler: Will this be only temporary ?


Frederick William Borden: No, I think not.


George William Fowler: The term ' emergency ' has a very broad range.


Frederick William Borden: Section 51 applies to qualified officers. It would not apply to any one who was not a qualified officer.


George William Fowler: Suppose there was a riot in Toronto or Montreal and an officer \vas sent down to deal with it. He might dispose of it in a couple of hours and he would be a major general.


Frederick William Borden: We would have to take our chances on that.


George William Fowler: Why not confine this to active service in time of war ?


Frederick William Borden: It would be done under regulation anyway.
On section 52-Honorary rank on retirement.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Why confine that to officers of the Headquarters Staff ? We know of some officers who have given their time throughout long and useful lives to the militia force, some in command of districts now whose names occur to me. I do not care to mention any. It seems to me that it should not be made to apply to the headquarters alone.


Frederick William Borden: I have no objection.


James Joseph Hughes: I drew the hon. minister's attention to that when it was up before.


Frederick William Borden: Yes; I know.


James Joseph Hughes: It also contains the words ' or in the department.' What does that mean ?


Frederick William Borden: In the Militia Department, I suppose.


James Joseph Hughes: It provides that the civil servants in the Militia Department are eligible.


Frederick William Borden: Why not leave it at the word ' appointments ' and strike out all the rest except the words 'for valuable services rendered to the country.' I beg to move the words ' on the Headquarters Staff or in the Department ' be struck out.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister interpret an executive officer to mean the District Officer Commanding ?


Frederick William Borden: No question about it. I move to insert the word ' staff ' instead of the word ' executive.'


James Joseph Hughes: I think it is better.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 53 stricken out.
Section 54 agreed to without discussion.
On section 55,
Officers of His Majesty's regular army serving in Canada may be granted a temporary commission in the militia of rank equivalent to their army rank and antedated to have the same date as that of their imperial commission.


George William Fowler: That is a proper thing to do.


Frederick William Borden: We have officers serving here temporarily and I think we should only give them the rank they have as imperial officers.


George William Fowler: I am very strongly in favour of that. I do not believe in giving these regular army officers superior rank to our Canadian officers.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear, you are a good Canadian.


George William Fowler: I am a good Canadian and a gwd Britisher ; you're right I am.


James Joseph Hughes: This will not prevent giving them senior rank if you choose to.


Frederick William Borden: No.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 56-uniform and equipment of officers.
Officers of the militia shall provide their own uniform and equipment, with the exception of mounted corps, to whom saddlery may be issued as prescribed


Frederick William Borden: I move that the word ' officers ' be substituted for the word ' corps.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George William Fowler: Officers' uniforms are too expensive in this country and the result is that in many cases you cannot get first class men to take commissions.


Frederick William Borden: No doubt.


George William Fowler: For instance, it is perfectly absurd to have these Hussar uniforms in this country.


Frederick William Borden: I agree with the hon. gentleman.


George William Fowler: The best men to officer cavalry regiments are men brought up on the farm and used	to	riding
horses. You must as a rule draw your rank and file from the country districts. If you officer a regiment from the rural districts with the sons of rich men from the city the result is not Satisfactory. Many of these city officers put on so much side and style that the men do not like them. It is very important that the department should simplify the uniform and render it less expensive.


Frederick William Borden: I agree with the hon. gentleman, and I hope the time will soon come when we will be able to adopt some sensible, simple aud useful uniform, which will be of a Canadian type. I do not know why in the world we should stick to these old uniforms, which of course have a history in England, which they wish to preserve, but which so far as we are concerned are useless importations. I believe we should adopt a system of our own.


Dominique Monet: I endorse what has been said by the Minister of Militia. I have been to the Laprairie camp recently and it is absurd to see our soldiers exposed to the heat of the sun wearing small caps that did not cover the half of the head. A straw hat would not cost any more and would be much more serviceable. Let us have a good Canadian uniform which will be far better suited to our needs than these imported things from over the sea.


James Joseph Hughes: I am in favour of a common sense Canadian uniform which will suit not only in Canada but anywhere in the world.


Dominique Monet: You need not go out of Canada to And common sense.


James Joseph Hughes: The men in charge of the Laprairie camp did not know their

business, because if they had asked they could have had straw hats issued instead of the caps. Our corps have been using straw hats in camp for years.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Or light helmets.


James Joseph Hughes: It was neglect on the part of the officers that the men did not have straw hats. I agree with my good friend (Mr. Fowler) with regard to officers' uniforms, and I think the government should meet the cost to a certain extent. In England, volunteer officers get an appropriation in lieu of uniform, and I am satisfied that every officer in Canada would prefer an allowance for uniform to the beggarly pittance he now receives. The minister has today seen the influence which the member for I.abelle (Mr. Bourassa) has in the House, and if he provides a common sense uniform to be supplied to the militia officers, he will be endorsed heartily by the people of Canada.


George William Fowler: If the department provides that the officers' uniform shall be simple, useful and economical, the officers would purchase it themselves. It takes from $800 to $1,000 to fully equip an hussar officer with uniform and accoutrements, and that is perfectly absurd.


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


James Joseph Hughes: I c'o not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) knows anything about militia matters now or not, but we have it on the authority of the great minister of war who meddled in the eastern townships regiment, that the cost of a uniform, is $55, sword and all. I do not think an officer should be called upon to expend even $55 on his uniform. It is true, some officers in those swell corps go to an expenditure that is quite uncalled for. There is no regulation in force in Canada that requires any officer in a city or other corps to purchase an expensive uniform. That was settled in the House in favour of the less expensive uniform ; so that no man now need get an expensive uniform unless he wants to become a dandy, and I think there are few of the officers foolish enough for that.


George William Fowler: I have seen my hon. friend from North Victoria dressed out in full uniform, and will guarantee that it costs more than $55, and no man would wish to appear shabby in a regiment beside my hon. friend from Victoria. The cost of tile uniform should be the same for all officers, so that there would not be any possibilily of a man going beyond his means in order to provide himse f with as good a uniform as that of 'his neighbour.


Andrew B. Ingram: Hate any complaints come from soldiers who have purchased their uniforms, and have had to wait for Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
months to get their money from the department ?


Frederick William Borden: I have not heard of any.


Andrew B. Ingram: Take the staff sergeants, for instance. The government allows them $44, or something like that, for their clothing, and it costs them about $60, and I think they have had to wait for some time to get their money. Have there not been complaints of that kind ?
Sir FREDERIC^ BORDEN. I have not heard of any, but I will inquire.
On section 57-importation of saddlery free of duty.


George William Fowler: Is it not a new departure to supply saddles to the militia ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister give us an idea what it costs for saddlery ?


Frederick William Borden: About $40, I think:


Andrew B. Ingram: Do the men get the same as the officers ?


Frederick William Borden: I think they do.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who inspects the saddles ?


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend will wait until we come to the estimates, I shall be very glad to give him all the information. It is a mcst extraordinary thing to mix militia stores up with the Militia Bill. The inspector of saddlery in this city is Lieutenant-Colonel Brown.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is he a practical saddler ?


Frederick William Borden: I believe he is. At any rate, he is the commanding officer of the cavalry corps here. He has done the work for a long time, and done it satisfactorily. He did it for the imperial government for a year or two, while saddles were being shipped to the old country, and I believe he gave entire satisfaction. The inspector in Toronto is an old English sergeant of the name of Woodcock. Lieutenant-Colonel Graveiey is in charge of the stores there. These are all I can remember at the present moment.
Section 57-Importation free of duty- struck out.
On section 58-responsibility for damages-


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: With regard to deficiency in equipment, I do not care how careful an officer commanding a regiment or company may be, there are bound to be some shortages, some lcsses,,in every camp of instruction, after the articles have been
<5461

in use for a few years ; and it has struck me as a hardship-and it has impressed the men in the force in the same way-that after some article has been in use for four of five years, and is perhaps more than half worn out,' it should be charged up against the commanding officer at its first cost price. It seems to me some regulation might be made by which a certain reasonable life would be assigned to every article. For instance, in the old days it would be easy to ascertain the life of a haversack or a knapsack, and write off each year a certain amount ; so that when an article was lost, the officer would be charged with its value at the time of the loss. When the new rifles were given out in place of the old Sniders, some of the old rifles were lost, and the proposition was to charge them up at $25 each, the original cost of the rifle, when at that very time the same rifle was selling at Eaton's and Simpson's in Toronto as a curiosity at $1 and $1.25 each. I call the attention of the minister to this in the hope that something will be done in making a regulation along the line I have indicated.


James Joseph Hughes: On the first draft of the Bill I drew the minister's attention to this very thing, and he promised to attend to it in the regulations.


Frederick William Borden: That is in the hands of the officers now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 59 agreed to.
On section 60-when only men may appear in uniform
Frederick William Borden: This is an old law.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some of the soldiers object to being compelled to wear uniform, when others are allowed to go in civilian clothing. I have a complaint on that subject which it may be worth while to read :
Formerly non-commissioned officers and men as above were occasionally allowed the privilege when on leave of wearing plain clothes, and it was much appreciated by those who had the good fortune to obtain such leave. Now, however, fall is changed and militia order 225 (4J of 1903 was issued cancelling such privileges. Now, Sir, a recruit of about three months' service can get an employed job as a servant to an officer, do his chores, and blacken his boots, and empty the slops, result, he can walk out in plain clothes because he is an officer's servant. Also, he does no duty, does no guard or fatigues, just merely attends to his master alone. Is he of high born degree that such a most unfair regulation should be made in his case as allowing him to wear plain clothes ? The cook in the officer's mess and the assistant cook, grooms, and the pantry waiters in the officer's mess are all privileged to wear plain clothes when off duty to walk out in^ but a well conducted soldier, or a non-commissioned 206
officer of over fifteen years' service are refused this privilege. Why ?
Officers as a general rule only wear their uniform about four hours a day when one can run across them down town in ' mufti ' almost daily. Why should not non-commissioned officers be allowed it ? Policemen are, postmen are, asylum employees are, jail-keepers are, but Tommy Atkins of the permanent force is the worst of all, and he, poor fellow, must wear the uniform night and day. To add to the discomfort1 the hottest days in summer he must tramp to church in a heavy cloth tunic flannel-lined, heavy leather waist belt tightly fastened around waist (if it is a. little loose, you are reprimanded on paro'le for slovenliness) and a big helmet and everything imaginable to add to the discomfort of a soldier in July and August,
It is not necessary that I should go or. with a lot of this stuff.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all necessary


Andrew B. Ingram: But if there are such privileges granted, they should be open to every well-conducted soldier. No one will pretend that on a day like this, a lined tunic, a big heavy helmet and a belt tied tightly around the waist, would add to a man's comfort.


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware of the circumstances, but will make inquiry.


James Joseph Hughes: This clause only covers the ordinary active militia, and not the permanent corps.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose regulations will be made to cover the cases of the permanent corps.
On section 63-annual drill.


Frederick William Borden: I move that the clause be amended so that it will read as follows :
The Governor in Council may order the active militia, or any portion thereof, to drill or train for a period of not more than thirty days in each year.


George William Fowler: Why do you strike out the minimum ?


Frederick William Borden: We might want to drill a certain corps for only four or five days, and we do not want to be tied up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 64,
Officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the permanent force shall be entitled to daily pay and allowances at rates to be prescribed.
2. The Governor in Council may, from time to time, fix the sums to be paid to privates of the permanent force, regard being had to length of service, good conduct and efficiency ; but the ordinary pay shall not exceed the amounts following, that is to say :-
[Stage Direction]


Cents.
For privates per diem	75
For buglers under 18 years of age, per diem	40
Frederick William Borden: 
Mr. GILMOUR.: Is the pay of a private increased from 40 cents a day ?


Frederick William Borden: It will begin now at 50 cents and increase according to length of service and good conduct to 75 cents.


James Gilmour: You intend to increase the minimum figure under this clause ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George William Fowler: What is the meaning of the word ' ordinary pay ' ?
. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. That is inserted because special corps, labourers, &c., are given special pay, not the ordinary pay.


James Joseph Hughes: Are they not sworn in as members of the permanent corps V


Frederick William Borden: They are.


James Joseph Hughes: Would 'permanent corps ' not be the correct words to use here ? A man in the stores department gets $1.25 a day, but he wears his uniform and is sworn in. Is he not a member of the permanent force ?


Frederick William Borden: He is not in barracks.


James Joseph Hughes: Where does the minister get authority to pay a man in the stores department $1.25 a day ?


Frederick William Borden: He gets it from a special vote for pay and allowances.


James Joseph Hughes: Would not this clause keep him from getting it 1


Frederick William Borden: I think that would be a matter of regulation.


James Joseph Hughes: You cannot override an Act of parliament by a regulation. If the law says you shall not pay him more than 75 cents a day there may be difficulty in paying the man $1.25. I am only pointing it out for the safety of the men.


Frederick William Borden: I think the interpretation was that the expression * ordinary pay ' overcame that difficulty.


James Gilmour: Is it the intention to increase also the pay of the officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers as well as of the privates ?


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Gilmour) will see that the pay of non-commissioned officers is based upon that of the privates ; it is so much more than that of the privates.


James Gilmour: How much V


Frederick William Borden: A sergeant-major gets $1.50, a warrant officer gets $1.25 and $1, but there will be an increase.
On section 65-pay of active militia.


Frederick William Borden: I have an amendment to be substituted for section 65b. It was arranged in the Committee of the Whole some time ago. It is as follows :
For privates at the rate of 50 cents a day, which rate may be increased as may be prescribed, but not to exceed a maximum of $1 a day.
I have also an addition to be inserted as section 65c which is as follows :
An allowance of $1 per diem or such other rate as is prescribed shall be paid to each officer and man for every horse necessarily used by him on active service, during the period of active drill, or when otherwise on duty as aforesaid.
We omitted in the Bill to make any provision to pay for horses. This simply is restoring the clause which is in the present law.


James Joseph Hughes: This is not intended as a slap at the new war lord for hiring his horse ?


Frederick William Borden: You must riot be so vindictive.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Frederick Borden, House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Tuesday, July 12, 1904.