1904-03-22

ANTI-CIGARETTE LEGISLATION.

Mr.  W. S.@: MACLAREN (Huntingdon) moved that on Tuesday next the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution :-
That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
Motion allowed to stand.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE moved :: That the first report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of the House during the present session be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Clarke-asked : '
1.	Has a site for the mint been selected ?
2.	If so, what Is the location ?
3.	Have tenders been asked for the erection of the building ?
4.	If not, why not ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: 


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works).: The matter has not been finally settled.


TRENT VALLEY CANAL.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1 What is the date of the first. appropriation for the Trent Valley canal ?
2.	What is the date of the actual commencement of the work ?	n
3	What are the sums annually expended on the said canal ?
4	What is the total estimated expenditure required to complete the work (a) via Port Hope ; (b) via Trenton ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Rah' ways and Canals) :: 
James Sutherland: 
QUEBEC BRIDGE PAYMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Ml'. MORIN asked :
si*' Mas the government paid any amount, for *nthe lst July, 1903, on the million voted 2 Jl® Quebec bridge ?
"Whom1161 amounts were thus paid, and to m* aild on what dates ?	,
H°n. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister o'f Railways and Canals):
lOo'a N° amount lias been paid since 1st July, beo\"n tlle $1,000,000 voted for the Que-b bridge.
bfiniber^t answ'ei' *° number one answers
1.	Have the Valleyfield municipal authorities paid to the government of Canada the sum demanded for the services of the militia who were called out on the occasion of a strike in Valleyfield ?
2.	When was the sum paid over ?
3.	What was the amount demanded by the government ; and what was the amount paid
by the municipality ?
Mr.  W. S.@: 
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL - ALIENS ON SURVEYS.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 
Don II R.: 
received from the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineering for,British Columbia, Manitoba and Northwest Territories, respecting the employment of aliens on the surveys being made in connection with the proposed National Transcontinental Railway. The protest was received on the 16th of March, 1904.


FARM DELEGATES TO GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1.	Who were the farm delegates sent by the
government from Canada to Great Britain and Ireland during the year 1904 ?	*
2.	What amount was paid each delegate by way of salary and expenses ?
3.	What was the nature of the duties performed by each delegate, and in what part of the United Kingdom were such duties performed ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior):: 1 A P. Stewart-, John A. McPherson. James Dale, A. G. Hawkes, O. B. Fysh and Ben Chubb.
2.	An advance of $100 on account of expenses each was made to Messrs. James Dale, A. P. Stewart and 0. B. Fysh, but nothing has been paid for salary to any of the delegates as yet.
3.	As the delegates have only recently left for the old country, their duties have only commenced, but their instructions, generally, are to promote immigration to Canada by means of lectures andi personal interviews, in such localities as might be assigned to them' after consultation with the Canadian Commissioner of Emigration in London.


FOREIGN MONEY ORDERS-POSTMASTER AT SYDNEY. N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Does the postmaster at Sydney, N.S., receive any remuneration or salary from the government of Newfoundland for or in connection with his postal work ?
2.	Has the government of Canada made any representations to the government of Newfoundland requesting that government to pay any portion of the salary of the postmaster at Sydney, or otherwise, with respect to the remuneration or salary of the said postmaster ?
James Sutherland: In the absence of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I beg to read the statement prepared by the department in answer to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Taylor's) question :
The postmaster at Sydney receives $50 a year from the Newfoundland government for acting as intermediary for and agent of that government in the transaction of its money order business between the United States and Newfoundland.
The postmaster acts in the same capacity for the Newfoundland government In its money order relations between Canada Hon. Mr. EMMERSON.
and Newfoundland, but Canada bears the expense of the service thus rendered.
The government of Canada made no representations to the government of Newfoundland requesting that government to pay any portion of the salary of the postmaster of Sydney. When the arrangement under which the postmaster at Sydney became the agent of the Newfoundland government in the payment of orders drawn in Canada, proved itself a success, the Newfoundland government desired the postmaster at Sydney to act in the same capacity for the payment of orders drawn in thei United States upon Newfoundland, and in. asking Canada's consent to this arrangement, expressed its willingness to pay the postmaster at, Sydney the sum mentioned-This department communicated with the postmaster at Sydney and on receiving his consent to act for Newfoundland, on the terms mentioned, communicated the factl to the Newfoundland government, which pays i the postmaster directly.


EXPORT GRAIN TO HALIFAX VIA INTERCOLONIAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
1.	How many bushels of grain have been hauled by the Intercolonial Railway during the six months preceding March 1st, 1904, for delivery at Halifax for export ?
2.	What was the proportion delivered in each month ?
3.	What lake ports was it shipped from ?
4.	W'hat was the rate per bushel from such lake ports to Halifax ?
5.	What was the mileage of each railway over which it was hauled ?
6.	What was the earnings per bushel of each railway ?
7.	What was , the estimated cost per bushel for the service the Intercolonial Railway Pl'r' formed ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister °£ Railways and Canals).: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: The question stands 1
Hon-. Mr. EMMERSON. Yes.


COLLECTOR OF CANAL TOLLS, CARDINAL ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Who Is collector of canal tolls at Cardinal, Ontario ?	.
2.	What salary is paid him, and what is tb
total cost of maintaining said	office ?	m
3.	What were the receipts last year from
said office ?	_
4.	Is it the intention of keeping an officer ® collector where no canal tolls are now ben'' collected ?
5.	Who Is the sub-collector of customs Cardinal ?
6.	What is the salary palcf him ?
at
Hon.   II@: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime ' ^oved the adjournment of the
'Mr. fiay ri<n,vV HORDEN. I would like to ask taken m l1011, friend what business will be UP to-mowow ?
lfiten<w„kFRID LAURIER. To-morrow we SisPoisi,,„ ta„ke UP the Militia Bill, and after bn- - uf
. -Ppiy H .ot- AHe Militia Bill we will go into + 6 Ami;/ ai,u informed that the report of ^-htor,./1' General will be laid on the table ilt. low morning.
irieQd11' HORDE
fio,
-„u -wii, 

~'N. I hope my right hon.
^fifiienta llo£ lorget to bring down the
_ govo,.;,/lll(l Owi correspondence between h,a**ivay , and the Grand Trunk Pacific f0 Oompany respecting the a mend -
agreement.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I expect to be in a position to lay that correspondence on the table of the House at a very early date. Then I would like to make an arrangement with my hon. friend .to take up the Gi'and Trunk Pacific Bill on a date to be agreed upon by the two sides of the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: That would be quite satisfactory, except that I would like to have a day or two to consider the correspondence after it is brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I would ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to introduce a Bill in regard to Sabbath observance ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government have been approached by the Sunday Observance Association and asked to introduce a Bill upon that subject. There is a much involved question as to the jurisdiction of this parliament which may come into conflict with the jurisdiction of the provinces. This matter has been referred to the law officers of the Crown for their advice, and until we get their advice I am not able to answer the question of my hon.' friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 22, 1904.

Mr. SPEAKER.: The Clerk of the House informs me that a petition was pi^esented from James E. Taylor, applying for a divorce, and that there is no name of a member of the House attached to the petition, i would remind hon. gentlemen that it is the rule of the House that a petition shall bear the name of an hon. member, because some member should assume the responsibility for each petition presented. I would ask the hon. gentleman who presented this petition to give his name to the Clerk.



REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Award of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal. -Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister).
Report of the Auditor General for the year ended June 30, 1903.-Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance).
Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the year ended October 31. 1903. Hon. Sydney Fisher (Minister of Agriculture).
[Stage Direction]
25$

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Before proceeding with the consideration of this Bill, might I ask the hon. the Minister of Militia if it is intended to take this stage to-day .' I he hon. gentleman very kindly said he would supply the members of the House with sufficient copies of the Bill to enable them to meet the demands of their constituents for the Bill. So far we have not received these copies, and have not been able to supply the demands which have been made upon us. Until we have heard from those who,are
interested in this measure, we are not in
position to pronounce upon it. lhe Uin was only brought down on Thursday, I think.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I thought we were merely going to take up the resolutions to-dav I did not suppose we were going on with the Bill itself. For myself I have not been able to read the Bill even.


Frederick William Borden: I think we might make some progress with the Bill today ; but we will let any clauses stand that hon. gentlemen wish to see stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We do not know what clauses may be objected to.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be arranged in this way : There are several sections of the Bill which are exactly in the same form as the law stands at present; there may be others as to which there can be no possible question. There will no doubt be a third class which will elicit some controversy. Possibly we might go on with those sections that belong to the first two classes, and leave the others to stand until communication can be had with gentlemen throughout the country who are interested in this measure, and until hon. gentlemen on this side have had some opportunity of studying the provisions of the Bill.


Frederick William Borden: Exactly, and in addition, the Bill will remain in committee, so that it will be quite possible to make changes at a subsequent meeting.


David Tisdale: I think it would facilitate matters very much if the minister would point out the changes in the Bill. For us to find them Ourselves would entail considerable labour. In public and government Bills it is usually for the mover or the minister to point out the changes. If the hon. minister could do that without too much trouble, it would certainly lessen the labour of those who are not conversant with these changes.


Frederick William Borden: I am ready, as I proceed, to Indicate the changes, and I have sent to the leader of the opposition


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: a carefully prepared statement. If it lS necessary, of course these could all be reprinted, but I think it is scarcely necessary to do that.


Mr McCREARY.: What is the increased expenditure per year entailed upon the people of Canada by reason of this Bill goni* into force ? What will it cost per year mor than it costs at present to maintain tb militia ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Mr. McCREARY.: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to make any further statement except as it might be necessary to make explanations upon the individual sections of the Bill. The statement which I made the other day, although it was very brief, I thought covered very fairly the salient points of the Bill and pointed out the differences between the law as it now exists and the Bill which I have introduced. So far as the opportunity, for studying the Bill is concerned, I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) and the committee that I have taken every opportunity possible that I could conceive of, of possessing myself of the views of the leading military men throughout the country. I may say to my hon. friend that every district officer commanding in Canada has been asked to give his views in reference to the proposed draft which we prepared over a year ago.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Have those who are not of the permanent corps been consulted ?


Frederick William Borden: Many of the district officers commanding are only theoretically members of the permanent corps. In addition to that I may tell my hon. friend that I brought to Ottawa such officers as Colonel Otter


Edward Frederick Clarke: A good man.



HU VISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN -to assist and also sued men as Colonel Henry Smith.
Mr. TAYLOR.: Another good man.


Frederick William Borden: A former district officer commanding, and I think one of the ablest authorities on a matter of that kind in the Dominion of Canada. These men were members of a committee composed of six or seven officers which for days, and I may say, weeks, had the subject under consideration, and the Bill which I now propose is very largely the result of the consultation which these gentlemen held. Of course, I have had the opinion of the general officer commanding and I have had the opinion of certain members of the headquarters staff whose opinions I thought would be of value. I merely mention this to show that this is no slip-shod measure, but that it is a well digested measure to which, I think, we all, the members of the headquarters staff and the officers generally of the militia, have given our very best attention. Now, I am very anxious indeed that! it should be considered by the leading military men throughout the country, but at the same time I think it could better go on pari passu with our discussion here. I accept the suggestion of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, that this Bill should remain in committee. The discussion of it will be reported to the public, the Bill will be distributed and we will not complete its consideration. It will remain in committee and it will be open to any one to go back over the sections which have been considered and make suggestions before the Bill reaches the third stage. I do not persist at all in this view, but it seems to me that there is no reason why we should adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke), but that on the contrary, there is every good reason why some progress should be made at this'sitting of the committee.


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: I think we all fully agree with the object which my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has in view and which no doubt is that the greatest possible amount of accurate information in respect to this Bill should be given to the general public-


Edward Frederick Clarke: And to militia officers in particular.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, but I think my hon. friend's object would be more easily attained if we were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, myself and the hon. leader of the opposition have very carefully prepared briefs in our possession in which the clauses in the law as It stands now are set forth as well as the changes suggested and the reasons for these changes. If my hon. friend will


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
David Tisdale: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


David Tisdale: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: I agree with the spirit of the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) hut if the suggestion of the leader of tne opposition is adopted, the object the hon. gentleman has in view will be best served. I may explain further, that a number of errors have occurred in the printing of this Bill. There are clauses which are not necessary, and there are other clauses which it is proposed to change, so that the Bill as printed does not correctly convey the intention of the department. If we go on with the discussion, I shall be able to tell the House, and through the House the country, exactly what the position of this Bill is up to date. My object is to get this matter before the country, and I quite agree that those interested in the militia force should have a couple of weeks' opportunity to consider the provisions of the Bill. They will best secure that opportunity by proceeding with the discussion now.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the object of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) would be very fully served if the Minister of Militia would put upon ' Hansard ' the brief which is in his hands. We can discuss the Bill, and we need not pass any clauses at all, but the discussion being upon ' Hansard,' showing the differences between the Bill and the law as it stands, will afford the country the information which it desires.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I presume that provision could be made to distribute extra copies of ' Hansard ' to those who are interested in the Bill throughout the country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: If that be done, then those who take an interest in the measure will understand it better than they possibly can at present.


Frederick William Borden: I quite accede to that proposal.


Mr. INGRAM.: Some of us are not ourselves military meu, but we represent constituents who are, and I know that when the minister returned from England, the four prominent points in connection with this Bin were published in the newspapers. But statements in the newspapers are not always reliable and for that reason probably the militiamen did not take them into serious consideration. In order that I may be relieved of any charge of being negligent with regard to this Bill, I enter a solemn protest against such a measure being proceeded with before our constituents have an opportunity of perusing it. If the minister proceeds, I have no objection, but he must take the responsibility of proceeding without giving our militiamen an opportunity of understanding the Bill.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) need scarcely have taken

26*
the trouble of making the observation, in view of what his leader has said. I do not believe that there is any one in the country who suspects me of being capable of doing anything that is derogatory to the militia.
I am prepared to go on in the way that is suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Andrew B. Ingram: It does not become the Minister of Militia to be quite so touchy at the remarks I have made. I have a responsibility to my constituents and in discharging that responsibility I did not reflect upon the character or aims of the minister. When I have anything to say with respect to the minister and his department, I am manly enough to say it in good plain English;
I will not do it by insinuations.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman did not intend to say that there were insiuuations


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly not.


Frederick William Borden: Then we understand each other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Since the discussion commenced I have been favoured with an extra number of copies of the Bill, and I shall place them in the hands of my constituents with the least possible delay. If it is the desire pf the minister to go ahead, I trust that he will make his explanations on this important Bill as fully as possible, so that our constituents may have an opportunity of ascertaining what the Bill contains.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it you are not going to pass any of the clauses at all ; the minister will simply place upon the pages of ' Hansard ' a distinct statement as to any clause which differs either by omission or by addition from the law as it is at present. Having done that we shall be a little better informed than at present as to the object and scope of the Bill, but shall not have made any progress in the passage of the Bill.
* Mr. McCREARY. The right is reserved of discussing any part of the Bill on the third reading.


Mr.  R. L.@: iiORDEN. The Bill will remain in committee and not a single clause is to be passed.


Frederick William Borden: That is all. We are simply following the suggestion of the hon. member for Toronto, Mr. Clarke, at the outset, namely, that I should give a little further information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad we are going to have an opportunity of hearing more as to the provisions of this Bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The understanding is then that we shall have a discussion on each section of the Bill, but that the section shall be allowed to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: On section 1.-Short title.


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: The ^ remark would apply to section 3.
este"
tiofl
ol
On section 4.

Command in chief v' in His Majesty.


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: ^
Is the same ns section 9 of the old some modifications.
2(55
%

What are the modi-


Frederick William Borden: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Slr FREDERICK BORDEN.: 
Samuel Hughes: Why not put in bandsmen as well ?


Frederick William Borden: I will make a note of that.
Section 15 is practically the same as section 21 of the present law, providing what persons shall be exempt from service. It extends the exemptions to members of the Privy Council, members of the Senate and House of Commons, members of the executive councils of provinces, members of the provincial legislatures, and deputy ministers of federal and provincial governments. There is also a new clause, subsection 3, added, which reads as follows :
No person shall be entitled to exemption unless he has, at least one month before he claims such exemption, filed with the commanding officer within the limits whereof he resides, his affidavit, made before some justice of the peace, of the facts on which he rests his claim.


David Tisdale: Do I understand that there is no important difference in this respect between the old law and this Bill ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The exemptions are extended by this Bill to members of the Privy Council, Senate and House of Commons, &c.


Samuel Hughes: These are only exempt in the case of a ballot.


Frederick William Borden: They have tin right to serve If they choose.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are not incapacitated, but are exempt.


Frederick William Borden: Section 16, which provides for proof of exemption, is the same as section 21, subsection 5, of the present law. Section 17 is the same as section 21, subsection 6, of the old law. It provides that exemption shall not prevent any person from serving in the militia if he desires to serve and is not disabled by bodily or mental infirmity. The only difference is that mental infirmity is not provided for by the present law. Section 18, which provides for the constitution of cadet corps, p. taken from the Commonwealth Defence Act.


David Tisdale: This Is new.


Frederick William Borden: Yes. Section 19, which provides that cadets shall
*

not be liable to service in tbe militia in any emergency, save only in the case of a levee en masse, is adopted from the Commonwealth Defence Bill.


Samuel Hughes: This principle was advocated in Canada long before the Commonwealth Bill was ever printed. The Commonwealth Defence Bill is copied from Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Very likely. Just as the Commonwealth, I believe, copied our Ballot Act, which goes now by the name of the Australian Act, although it is really the Canadian Act.
Section 20 is practically the same as section 11 of the present law. It divides the militiamen into four classes. Section 21 is the same as section 12 of the present law. It provides that the militia shall be divided into active and reserve militia, and that the reserve militia shall be raised and maintained under regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council. Section 22 is the same as section 13 of the present law.


Robert Laird Borden: In the Interpretation Act, the militia of Canada is said to mean all the military forces in Canada, while section 21 says that the militia shall be divided into active and reserve militia, and that the active shall consist of corps raised by voluntary enlistment and of corps raised by ballot, and the reserve militia shall be raised and maintained under regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council. Is it understood that the active militia includes the permanent force ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Mr.   I@: Then certain language a little further on is perhaps not very appropriate. I refer to clause 30, in which reference is made to the permanent force as if it were not part of the militia at all. It says that the permanent force shall furnish schools of instruction for the militia and provide instructors therefor. Ir might be better to use language which would do away with an apparent contradiction.


Samuel Hughes: There is another clause in which it is provided that the active militia shall drill not less than 12 or more than 30 days, but no provision is made anywhere for the existence of the permanent force during the 365 days of the year. There is no provision that the permanent force shall be continuous. I presume that is an omission.


Frederick William Borden: I think I have a clause to propose with reference to that. Section 22 is the same as section 13 of the present law with additions. It provides that the period of service in time of peace shall be for the active militia three years and for the reserve militia such period as is prescribed. The time for which the reserve might be en-


Robert Laird Borden: 
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Does the section the old Act say ' Governor in Council ? '


Frederick William Borden: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Frederick William Borden: I will c00' sider that suggestion.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Samuel Hughes: 
John Graham Haggart: I stand corrected ^ the overpowering authority of the bobber for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes.)


Frederick William Borden: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Samuel Hughes: There is a little change in the oath. Will the minister explain what the object in making that may be.


Frederick William Borden: To make it more


Edward Frederick Clarke: To make it more binding ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not think it can be that. Would the minister be good enough to read the two.


Frederick William Borden: The present law provides :
Every active militiaman shall sign a service roll in which the conditions of his service shall be stated ; and every officer of militia, on appointment, and every man on enlistment, or re-enlistment, shall take an oath in the form following, that is to say :-
1 I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear (or solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear, true allegiance to Her Majesty.'
Which oath or declaration may he administered by the commanding officer of the troop, battery, company or battalion, as the case may he, who has taken the same oath before a justice of the peace.
And the change proposed, so far as the oath is concerned is :
X	swear that I will well
and truly serve Our Sovereign Lord the King,
his heirs and successors in the	
for 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.
That is copied, I think, from the English oath. Is there any objection to that form ?


Samuel Hughes: The only objection is that whereas the old oath was simply a promise to bear true allegiance to the Sovereign, which is plain, practical and democratic, this oath reads to ' Serve our Sovereign Lord the King.' Perhaps the hon. minister's trips across the water have put these notions in his head. Where did he get the phraseology ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the King our war lord under the constitution '!


Frederick William Borden: I will look into that ? Section 29 refers to the permanent force, and replaces section 28 of the present law, subsection 1. It is re-drafted, and simply increases the force from 1,000 to 2,000. Section 30 replaces subsection 2 of section 28 of the present law. Sections 26 and 27 of the present law are left out-there is no need of them, as the power they confer is given elsewhere. Subsection 3 of section 28 of the present law is omitted.


Robert Laird Borden: What does that subsection provide ?


Samuel Hughes: I would point out here, as I did before that there is no pro-

vision for continuous service during the year. The hon. minister has made no provision for the existence of the permanent corps beyond a period of thirty days.


Frederick William Borden: Section 26 of the old Act is as follows :
Her Majesty may accept the services of corps of volunteers, under such regulations as are made from time to time.
Section 27,
Any volunteer corps may enter into articles of engagement and make regulations not inconsistent with this Act.
That is provided for. Section 3 is the one to which my hon. friend 'refers. ' Officers, non-commissioned officers and men of such corps'-that refers to the continuous service of the permanent force, and the hon. gentleman is quite right. A clause is being prepared now which will be in accordance with the language of the new Bill, and which will practically embody the provisions contained in that subsection.
iMr. CDARKE. Was it the headquarters staff who prepared this Bill ?


Frederick William Borden: They assisted in it. A section is proposed to be substituted in place of the one printed in the Bill.
Clause 31 reads :
The Governor in Council shall, from time to time, make all regulations necessary for the enrolment of men liable for military service, and of persons liable to drill and training as cadets and for all procedure in connection therewith, as well as for determining, subject to the provisions of this Act, the order in which the persons in the classes fixed by this Act shall serve and such regulations shall have the same force and effect as if they formed part of this Act.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Before proceeding further, I Would ask the minister what standing have the cadets * of the first and second class who have passed through the military schools ? What standing will they have in the military service ? Will they go into the ranks as full privates, or will they be entitled to get positions as officers of the militia ? Will they have any privilege at all ? They have devoted their time and labour to acquiring a knowledge of military law, they have passed their examinations and have received certificates-very nice some of them are on parchment-giving them the title of passed cadets of the military school, in the first class or the second class. Will these certificates give them a rank in the militia service ?


Frederick William Borden: There is a provision in this Bill by which they may be attached to the active militia.
Mr. DaRIVIERE. What if they are drafted and forced to serve ? Have they any privilege at all in the ranks ?


Samuel Hughes: 


Frederick William Borden: Of course-if they are drafted, there is no question at all that the officers commanding men of that kind will select the best men, and then certificates will at once bring them to the notice of the officers. There will be regal'8' tions issued.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Would there be anf' thing in the law giving them that priW lege ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: Is the minister l'K ferring to the Royal Military College cadets*
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I mean cadets of ordi8' ary military schools.


Samuel Hughes: I think they shou^ take their place as well as anybody else 1 the ranks and work their way up.


Frederick William Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the meaning of this section ? He has no discretion except to call out the permanent force. I think it is a matter that should be very seriously considered. I should like to have an opportunity of discussing that question further.


Frederick William Borden: There will be lots of opportunities.


Samuel Hughes: The bon. Minister of Militia and Defence lias given utterance to the verv point that struck me when I spoke on that matter a day or two ago ; that is the permanent corps are to be the force that are to be utilized in cities and towns, but that in rural districts the militia have to bear the discredit of turning out and suppressing riots. It is for that reason that when the matter comes up for discussion 1 propose fighting the whole business from start to finish.


David Tisdale: It seems to me that the whole section, to be of any practical use, will have to be more definite. What I mean by more definite is as to who controls the permanent force, who controls the active yiilitia and where the distinction is as to which shall he called upon. I think this is very important. I happened on one occasion in particular to be placed in a position where I had to act myself and it is a serious responsibility for any one to take upon himself to call out the force. You do not know what your powers are and it is necessary that they should be clearly defined so that prompt action can be taken in case of a riot suddenly breaking out. From reading that clause myself I could not advise ns to where the power rests, or as to which force should be called out except in one .case and that is where the permanent force is available. It is quite clear then because the machinery is simple.
I think there should be some more definite description to help the civil officers who have the responsibility of starting the ma-ohinery in motion. When they once start it the military officers of the force must bring out. the force for which they are responsible. You say that in a particular case the permanent force would be called out. but how are you going to determine as to whether the permanent force is available. Are you going to take into consideration the question of distance and other surrounding circumstances ? I cannot read this section so as to be sure that the civil (V- military authority would be right in acting except in one case and that is where (lie permanent force is available.


Frederick William Borden: I understand my hon. friend to say that he wants a more definite statement in regard to tne occasions upon which the permanent force shall be availed of and ns to the occasions upon which the active militia shalllmiitili zed. It seems to me that the wording or the Rill is clear enough. Ret ns suppose that

m
a riot occurs in the city of Toronto ; there is no question whatever that under this Bill the permanent force would be called upon. But, if a riot occurred at Ottawa, hundreds of miles away from the permanent force, it seems to me that there can be no doubt in the minds of the civic authorities that they would call upon the active militia, or rather that the district officer in command would immediately utilize the active militia at Ottawa. I do not know how you could make the Bill more definite than thati, because it might turn our, for instance in Toronto, for some reason or other, particularly during the time of the camp, that the permanent force would be absent and it would be absolutely necessary to call upon the active militia. If it were provided in the Bill that certain places such as Toronto, London, &c., should only be served in this matter by the permanent force, it might put these cities in a very awkward dilemma if the permanent force were absent.


David Tisdale: There is no difficulty in the two cities the hon. minister speaks of, but suppose you take the case of a country town intermediate between these two places, it might be a question as to whether the permanent corps or the militia force should act, and yet the permanent corps might not be as near to the scene of the disturbance as the militia force. There are two difficulties which have to be met. You will find that the volunteer force will be very reluctant to perform this duty. I think something should be put into the section to make it clear that when the militia are ordered to turn out they must turn out ; otherwise, you are going to have the same condition as exists in the United States. The question, when a riot occurs there, is as to whether the United States troops should go or whether the state militia should go, and the consequence is that the riot and bloodshed have taken place before the troops get there, because there is a reluctance to order the state militia out. The present law, whatever objections there may be in any other respect, is definite enough now. The magistrates have authority to order out any force necessary for supressing a riot.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no change in that respect.


David Tisdale: In this clause you say that if the permanent force is available the militia force shall not be called upon. Under the present law you can order out either one of them. What I am looking to is the safety of the people because I agree with my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that it is a very unpleasant duty for the militia to perform. The active militia is composed of volunteers, but, at the same time, one of the strongest reasons for the maintenance of an efficient militia Sir F. W BORDEN.
force is that it is available for assisting the civil power in maintaining order when it is necessary, and there should be no shirking in the performance of this duty. While it is an unpleasant duty I want it well understood that when the members of this force are called upon they must go out. They should understand that it is no insult or disgrace to them. One of the most difficult duties that any class of soldiery can undertake is that of deal' mg with riots. It is a mighty poor soldier who will not fight, but when he has to g0' out and control himself under very aggravating circumstances, it calls for the exercise of great sel^ restraint; yet, this is a duty that the volunteer must perform. I* is a duty that he owes to the people amongst whom he is sent to restore order and who more particularly will be injured by disorderly acts if the disturbance is not quickly suppressed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: A perfect farce.


Samuel Hughes: Because a few boys were responsible for hooraying on the street, the troops were called in and the city of Toronto was saddled with great expense.
I believe that the whole row in Montreal last year could have been settled by one level-headed fellow in ten minutes and the Valleyfield riots could have been put a stop to without any trouble at all. These municipalities should appoint special constables under such circumstances and then there would be less calling out of the militia to. be used as a sort of police force and to be spat upon and brought into discredit. When a militiaman is standing on duty in the time of riot, any pup of a boy can walk up and spit on him, and he cannot resent it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


Samuel Hughes: Yes ; that has been done and I have seen our men insulted and they dare not move. If the militiaman were a constable he could arrest that person, but being on duty and in the uniform of Ills Majesty he cannot punish those who insult him. I object to having the militia force of this country called out for anything short of an insurrection or something of a very serious nature.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know any better way of guarding against an unnecessary calling out of the militia, than by making the parties who are responsible for it pay the bill.


Samuel Hughes: I agree in that.


Frederick William Borden: That is the law, and I propose to continue it, and if the permanent force is called out in any city the bill will have to be paid. I shall read, later on, a section which will make that clearer than it is in the printed Bill. I agree that it is exceedingly undesirable to call out the militia force on such occasions, but we must not forget that such a provision existed in the Militia Acts of tho different provinces before confederation, and I do not think we can now say that the militia shall not be called out to maintain the civil power. That being so, where are you going to draw the line ? To whom shall we give the authority to invoke the militia? Surely, we must give it to the municipality where the riot is said to exist ?


Robert Laird Borden: At present you can have the militia called out by three justices of the peace who may not in any way be concerned with the government of a municipality. I think there should be some amendment made in that regard. There seems td be a good deal of force in the argument^ that if the municipality have to pay for the services of the force, they should have a voice in saying whether the militia shall

be called out or not. That is not the law at present.	.
Notwithstanding what has been said by the Minister of Justice, it does seem to me that there may be some confusion under this statute. For example, you have a permanent force in the province of New Brunswick, and riots should take place in the city of St. John and a requisition were made on the senior officer in that city, is he to call out the permanent force from E redericton or the force under his command at St. John . The Minister of Justice says that the statute means the district officer commanding, or in case of his absence the senior officer of the active militia present. It does not quite saj that. It says :	.
The district officer commanding or the senior officer of the active militia present at any locality.
Now, to whom is the requisition to^ be addressed ? I know that practical difficulties have arisen under this statute because I was professionally engaged in a suit in connection with the calling out of the militia, and I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), should give his attention to this section, and also to one subsequent section. A very serious question arises under the provisions of the statute which enables a suit to be brought by the commanding officer. In one case the commanding officer happened to die after the suit was brought. Finally a divided court held that his administrator could maintain the action, but there was a great deal of difference of opinion and two very able judges dissented. Then supposing the commanding officer should die before the suit was brought, a difficulty would be presented which I do not think would be covered by that decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. After all the suit is brought on behalf of the government, as is shown by the fact that there is a provision that the government may advance the pay and allowances pending the litigation. Would it not be better that these suits should be brought in the name of the Crown, or that some provision should be made whereby difficulties such as these should not be raised in the courts when these payments are demanded. It would also seem to me that we might very well guard against an unwise use of this statute by providing a form which must be signed by the persons who call out the militia. The order calling out the militia is prepared by three justices of the peace or by the mayor, warden or other municipal officers. They use their own language in the requisition and great difficulty has arisen in more than one case as to whether or not the terms of the requisition so drawn were in compliance with the terms of the statute. It would seem to me desirable to provide by statute a form which would acquaint those who sign it that they are undertaking a matter of serious Import. No Mr. BORIDBN (Halifax).
question could afterwards be raised as to the legality of a form so signed. There are a few matters of this kind which I think mi"ht well be taken into the consideration of1:he department, pending the full discussion of the principle of the Bill which 1 shall not touch upon now.


Mr. TARTE.: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Mr.   R.@: l. BORDEN. Would the minister ?ot think also that the municipality should aye some voice in the calling out of men when they are responsible for their payment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Mr.   R.@: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. minister consider the suggestion that some discretion should be left with the district officer commanding in case the permanent corps or militia should be called out ? Should he not satisfy himself first that the municipal authorities have exhausted every means at their disposal ? Very often what is called a riot is but. a trifling affair which could he quelled by a couple of dozen constables ; but when the militia is available and there is the probability of the municipal authorities not having to pay, two justices of the peace, may, on their own responsibility, take the initiative and ignore the municipal authorities and the facts of the situation. Some stop should be put to abuses of this kind. Should the permanent corps be called out, I presume the municipality would not have to pay, as the pay of the men always runs on and they would not he given double pay.


Frederick William Borden: There is a special provision to make the municipality pay the expense.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There ought to be some cast-iron provision so that the municipalty could not escape responsibility. This power of calling out the troops has been abused in the past. Neither the permanent nor the active militia should be called out unless the commanding officer is reasonably satisfied that the occasion demands their interference. I do not think that the decision should rest entirely with two justices of the peace. Should not some power be vested in the district officer commanding ? Should he not have something to say before the troops are called out?


Frederick William Borden: I shall consider all the suggestions made, but I would like to point out that the machinery which we have continued is the same as has existed for half a century.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We want to improve the machinery.


Frederick William Borden: There are some old things that cannot be improved.


Joseph Israël Tarte: This law can be.


Frederick William Borden: If there had been any means of improving this section, it seems to me it would have been hil upon during all these fifty years.


Mr. GALLIHEE.: The suggestion of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) if carried out, might result in a conflict of authority. Suppose the mayor of a municipality ancf another justice of the peace should deem it necessary to call out the militia nnd the district officer commanding should have a contrary opinion, you would have a conflict of authority at once. In that case, who would decide ?


David Tisdale: You cannot hold the military man responsible. He has to obey

[DOT]orders. But you might require that a higher civil authority than a magistrate or two justices of the peace should have the calling out of the troops. You might require, for instance, a requisition from a judge of the superior court. But it is essential that the civil authority, and not the military authority, should he responsible.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the hon. gentleman speaks of civil authority, I presume Lie means me authority of the municipalities ?


David Tisdale: No, the administration [DOT]of justice.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What I contend is that the municipal authorities should have something to say. Now practically they have nothing. The militia can be called out by two justices of the peace, not responsible to anybody in particular, and without consulting the municipal authorities.


Frederick William Borden: In most *cases, it is the mayors of the municipalities who call for military aid. At Valley-field, Montreal, Toronto, London, Sault Ste. Marie the requisition was made by the mayors.
The next section. 37, is the same as the present law. Section 38 is the same as section 34, subsection 4 of the present law. Section 39 is the same as section 34, subsection 5 of the present law, except that the rates of pay and allowance are increased.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has Increased the pay per horse, but he has left the pay of the men 'at fifty cents per day. He is giving the horses .$1.50 per day, thus increasing their pay fifty cents, but does not increase the pay of the men. 1 would like to see that in the case of these riots, the officers and men should get five dollars a day and each horse as high as you want to pay him.


Frederick William Borden: In order to be able to secure horses quickly, it was thought desirable to make this special provision.


Samuel Hughes: The men are much more difficult to obtain. Lots of these young men lose from two to four dollars a day by being called out.


Frederick William Borden: The men *arc enlisted and obliged to go, but the horses are not.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hen. minister to return to section 30 ? I think that the Minister of Justice will agree with me that some revision of that -clause will be necessary. Look at the first two or three lines.
The district officer commanding or the senior *officer of the active militia present at any locality shall call out the same or any portion theroof as he considers necessary for the pur-


David Tisdale: pose of preventing or supressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, when thereunto required in writing by the chairman or custodian of the Quarter Sessions of the Peace or by any three justices of the peace, or by any two justices of the peace, and the warden, mayor or any other head of the municipality or county in which such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, provided always that the permanent force is not available and not in sufficient numbers for the purpose.
The first portion of this section is not intended to apply to the permanent force at all. The minister has proposed an amendment which says the permanent force shall be employed, but he has not provided any machinery for calling them out. If that is to be workable, it must be amended in some way.


Frederick William Borden: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then a soldier could act as a constable under the old law ?	'


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: 
David Tisdale: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the municipal authorities, then, to be the judges as to whether or not a state of riot exists, and when that state of riot ceases ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the military have nothing to do with it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: So that men who have had no experience in handling men or putting down mobs have nothing to say under the circumstances, but the justices of the peace who invoked,the aid of the militia can say when the time has come to dispense with the services of the militia ? The officer commanding has nothing to say as to when the troops should be withdrawn ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Clearly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely that is not satisfactory ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The militia only come to the aid ofi the civil authorities, and they have nothing to do with it except support the civil authority. My hon. friend (Mi. Clarke) should take one horn of the dilemma or the other. A little while ago he desired that the civil authorities should have control, that the mayor should determine when the militia are to be called out. If we wished to put the burden on the mayor, surely the mayor should have power to say when the militia should be .removed. For my part I am not disposed to agree that this power should be left absolutely to the municipality. I think there are occasions when large public interests may be jeopardized, and it may be important in the public interest, without regard to the municipality and without regard to the mayor, that the militia should be called out. It may be that the mayor, for his own purposes, may not be anxious to call on the militia authorities. For instance, it may be that he does not wish to burden the municipality, and so may hesitate to act. There is no reason why three justices pf the pence should not act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Fitzpatrick would not wish to misrepresent anything I said here. I was rnther chary about the right of the civil authority-these two justices of the peace -to call out the permanent force without the district officer commanding the permanent force having some discretion. *


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Mr CLARKE.: That is the position I took, and I maintain it still. I say that in case of riot, if the aid of the military authorities is invoked, those authorities should have something to say as to when the services of the troops should be dispensed with. I think it is anomalous^ that persons who have bad no experience in these matters should have the right, to call out the troops whether their services are really required or not, and that the same person should have the right to say that the troops are no longer required perhaps because these civil authorities have had an opportunity to consult the opinion of their constituents and have found it averse to continuing the services of the militia. If more discretion were given the commanding officer of the troops in calling them out or withdrawing them, there would be less likelihood of the local or municipal authority being led away by the sentiments which might prevail among the majority of the people at the time. I agree with the Minister of Justice that there are occasions when, no matter what the local opinion may be, the services of troops may be required to protect the public interests. But I think in the condition of the law at present there is too much power given, on the one hand to the civil authority, and too little power given to the military authority. It is because of those anomalies that I have drawn the attention of the minister to them, and to what 1 consider defects in the law which I think ought to be remedied.


David Tisdale: We must be very cautious in making legislation dealing with these matters. We do not want to confound the municipal and the military authorities. It would be going too far to say that the military authorities should turn out the troops whenever they pleased. We must be careful to keep the military power in check, and make it, so far as consistent with public safety, secondary to the civil power, otherwise there would be danger to our institutions. That is the principle upon which cur legislation has gone, and it should be continued, in my opinion. That is the principle which lias prevailed for ages in the mother country, and it has been found to work promptly and effectively. It is well that lawless elements should understand that there is a power behind the civil power strong enough to make them obey the law The trouble in the United States is that it is an elective machinery that controls the militia. The militia of the states are the forces called upon to suppress riots, and they are under the command of the governor, who is 'elected by the people. The military authorities of the United States can only act when the country is in danger from foreign enemies. The beauty of our system is that no politician, be he municipal or parliamentary, has any voice in starting or stopping the machinery of the militia force, and, in my opinion that is the only safe and Mr. FITZPATRICK.
proper system to allow. Though I have been for many years connected with the militia, and am still connected with it in a way, still I should resist by all means in my power the slightest interference with the civil authority on the part of the military authority. We want it well understood that the military power exists for only one purpose, or two'purposes, namely, for the defence_ of the country and the protection of our civil rights.


Frederick William Borden: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: I am quite prepared to submit this change to the judgment of the people of Canada to say whether it is a sound change or not. I do not think I am called upon to say anything as to the service of distinguished imperial officers in this country. They have served the country well according to their lights. I have nothing to say against any of them. I have had experience with quite a number and I have not a single word of reflection to utter, but I do say that it seems to me that it is high time the provision in the Canadian statute which involves a reflection upon the capacity of our own officers should be removed. It does not follow that we shall appoint a Canadian officer at once. It will be a matter for the administration to consider whether he shall be appointed this year, or next year, or the year after, or ten years hence, but that the ban, the reflection upon the capacity of our Canadian officers should be removed from the Canadian law, seems to me imperative at this period. I may say that the imperial authorities concur in that view.


Robert Laird Borden: Without discussing, for the present, the question of principle which has been raised, I would like to ask whether the words in this section have been very carefully considered. It seems to me that it might be at least open to argument that they coniine the appointment to an officer of the Canadian militia.


Frederick William Borden: That is not intended.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill deals with the active militia, including the permanent force and the reserve militia, and then it says that :
There shall be appointed, an officer of rank not lower than that of colonel to be the general officer commanding the militia.
I would be rather inclined to think that the selection of the general officer commanding would be confined to the Canadian militia, with which alone the Bill deals and if you wish to leave it open to appoint an officer not in the Canadian militia, you would require to say so specially. This, however, is only a question of drafting, but still it would not be well to pass a statute In words which would afterwards be constructed to mean something that we did not intend.


Frederick William Borden: I shall consider that because the intention of the section is to open the command to the whole empire.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that.


David Tisdale: I did propose to and probably will say something on the effect of this clause at a later period. I did not propose to say anything to-day, but when the Minister of Militia and Defence made the extraordinary statement that lie


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
David Tisdale: 
David Tisdale: 
John Graham Haggart: It is removed only in time of peace.


Frederick William Borden: I was coming to that. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) says that in time of war we are still to have the benefit of the services of an imperial officer. Certainly we are, how could it he otherwise ? A provision will be introduced here, that when the Canadian militia is called out to serve in time of war. to serve jointly with the imperial forces, then Ills Majesty should have power to appoint a senior general officer who should command the joint army. What other provision than this could you have ? It is absolutely essential that the King shall have


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: Would the hon. minister (Sir Frederick Borden) kindly answer the question I submitted in reference to the term of office of this officer and the method of his removal.


Frederick William Borden: He is appointed by Order in Council and the power which appoints him can remove him. me term of office will be fixed by regulations.


Samuel Hughes: And what becomes of him afterwards ? When a general officer commanding in Canada a few years ago was retired from this country he was stopped elsewhere in the service of the empire, but what will become of a Canadian officer under such circumstances ?


Frederick William Borden: If in the future we should happen to have a general officer commanding who was not to tn liking of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) and we desired to remove him, the situation mtoht have its inconveniences, but I do not think that will be put forward as a good reason for not taking the step we propose.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: Is the $6,000 salary an increase ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Samuel Hughes: I did not intend again speaking on this question of the selection of a general officer commanding were it not for the fact that, judging from the tenor of the hon. minister's remarks, there is no disposition to do otherwise than obtain as heretofore our general officer commanding from the imperial army. There are many reasons why, I think, the law should not


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: I doubt very much if the clause which we are now discussing was framed because of the inefficiency of previous general officers commanding the Canadian militia. To my mind, this is nothing more or less than a declaration-and a very fitting one-that there is no honour in the gift of the Canadian government too good for a Canadian, provided that 'Canadian, by attainments and experience, be worthy of it. Nevertheless, I sympathize deeply with a great deal of what the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has just said. I would take second place to no man in wishing the continuance of the close connection between the motherland and this country. But X cannot, for the life of me, see why this should weaken the tie in the least. I believe that it would have the effect, if anything, of strengthening that tie. If there is one thing more than another that would tend to build up in Canada the feeling of independence and the desire to become a separate power, it is that we should consider ourselves inferior to the people of any other part of the British empire. W e wish to speak in no braggart way ; we do not wish to assume that we are superior to or better than the people of other parts of the empire. But that we are their equal, I think we may say without boasting. And as an example of that, I would give the hon. member for North Victoria, who acquitted himself with such credit in South Africa, proving himself fully the equal, think, of the Imperial officers with whom he came in contact. I do recognize the difficulty of opening the door to political intrigue. That is the strongest point, possibly, that the hon. gentleman has made. But I have confidence in the strength of this government and in the strength of the present Minister of Militia, and I believe that, for some time to come at least, the power to appoint a Canadian general officer commanding will not be exercised unless we are so happy as to have a gentleman so well qualified by experience and ability that he is, so to speak, ear-marked for this high post. We must not leave out of consideration the fact that we have In Canada an excellent educational institution in the Military College at Kingston, and that graduating from that Institution, year by year, we

have some of the brightest young men in Canada. We would like to attract them to the permanent service of the Canadian militia, and it seems to me we should hold out the inducement to ability of possible appointment to fill the highest military post which is in the gift of the Canadian government. We do not tie ourselves in any way to do this. But suppose that at some future time, in further participation in the wars of the empire, some Canadian should come forward and prove himself fitted to command. Take Sir Percy Girouard himself. His name was mentioned by the hon. member for North Victoria in an earlier debate. Why should Sir Percy Girouard be debarred simply because he is of Canadian birth ? It seems to rue that is an excellent reason why he should be appointed, not debarred. And so I am in sympathy with the change proposed by the Minister of Militia, and will support it when it comes to a vote.


Frederick William Borden: Section 42 is unchanged-


Jabel Robinson: If the Minister of Militia has anything to reply to these gentlemen I will take my seat, but if he has no reply, I would like to say a few words. I notice that every hon. member who has discussed this question has been a captain or a colonel, and probably an aspirant for the generalship. Now, I am neither. But I was a soldier onee, for ten days. We organized a company in our town to learn the use of arms that we might repel the invasion of our country which took place some forty years ago. So I think I have some claims to speak on this question, since I have been a military man. But I do not wish to discuss the question further than this : I think that we should be free to select from among British subjects, no matter where they were born, the man who has the ability to lead us in the defence of our country in case of war or trouble. I do not think we should be confined to the men who happen to have graduated from Kingston, or to those who happen to have been bom in Canada, but we should have the whole British empire to select from. I hope that if tiiis clause reads otherwise, you will change it, so that we may be free to select the best man and the best Britisher that lives. You should not for a moment say that you will confine your selection to a Canadian. I think that would be an Insult to all us British soldiers. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) said he had not much to say In favour of the British officer. I have a good deal to say. We owe this country to the British officer. Had it not been for the British officer, we would all be Canucks or some other nationality here. They fougbt for us at Quebec and everywhere. Wherever the British officer is called he does not run away. He does not help the British army to conquer and them run off home, but stays to the end. He goes to Mr. THOMPSON (Haldlmanfl).
the place where his duty calls him, to stay and to die, if necessary, for the cause he believes to be right. Britain has given Canadians work at home and abroad. Hon. members will remember that General Williams was a Nova Scotian. He was selected by the British to lead their army, and he defended Kars to the last. When they are ready to give us Canadians employment, f should we hesitate to give them any position we have to give ? I think not. Suppose we had war between Canada and any other country. We have a militia of fifty or one hundred thousand men ; suppose they are-ruled by a Canadian officer. We call upon the British people to give us help, and they will give it readily, and will send to our assistance one hundred thousand men or more. Are you going to say that the British army coming over to help us must be commanded by a Canadian ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Jabel Robinson: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: But since these sections were enacted, other heads of departments have been created. The minister 19 very properly reorganizing his department and now we have the director general au? other chief officers on the staff, and I woulu ask why these officers should not be inciuu' ed ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Andrew Thorburn Thompson: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: It would be defined in the regulation, but I will take note of that.


Samuel Hughes: This is an important clause. As the minister knows, I have previously advocated that these district officers commanding should be tied up, so to speak, office men, executive men, who would be responsible for routine, for the correspondence, for forwarding requisitions, for inspection, for arms and accoutrements ; in other words, to see that the various corps throughout the various districts were preserved in a state of efficiency so far as the office work might go, so far as making up shortages and keeping - everything in good form and so on ; in other words, that these should be office men purely and simply. In addition to that I would suggest for the minister's consideration that there should be besides an officer who will take command of the troops when they go to drill. Let one officer be responsible for the maintenance of the efficiency of the equipments and the routine of the office work, and let the other officer be held responsible for the efficiency of the various corps in drill. The minister knows well that a man in an office gets to be a good office man, and a man in the saddle gets to be a good field man. I am satisfied that the minister will consider this proposition as of great advantage.


Frederick William Borden: I agree entirely with what my hon. friend says, and I hope to overcome that difficulty and to render these men less office men, as he calls them, than they are now, by increasing the district staff so that they will be able to perform the real functions they were intended to perform, the functions of command. Besides that I may say that the general, Lord Dundonald, has a scheme which I think has been promulgated, at any rate it has been mentioned, by which he proposes to group one, or two, or three districts together for the purpose of higher command, so that there will be over that group of districts an officer of the type which my hon. friend describes.


Samuel Hughes: But the minister fails to catch the point of the debate. These men are now permanent corps men. Now there are many men who are occupying positions in the various corps of the active militia throughout the country, and outside the permanent corps, there are any number of them, who if given a chance, would be as

304:
competent to command the militia, each In his district, as any of these district officers commanding. My point is this, that under the present system which has prevailed in this country for so long, an officer who does not get a chance to be of the regular district staff, of the regular permanent corps, has scarcely ever a chance of commanding a brigade. I maintain that there are officers who can command brigades and divisions, and have done so, as well as any gentlemen of the district. These gentlemen have had experience of the district. I think the minister should give every opportunity to such men of commanding brigades m the various camps. Let those gentlemen be in any official position they choose, but give officers other than of the permanent force an opportunity to command these brigades. As it is now, officers of the active militia have scarcely any opportunity of filling any position out of the ordinary routine. When the minister sent the last force to South Africa he complained that he was at a loss to get officers to commfmd, he told me so. I reminded him at the time that he had not commenced to touch the fringe of the class of officers who were competent to command. In the early corps that were sent out the officers were largely taken from the permanent force of the country. I pointed out that I could get him two or three men from my own regiment capable of commanding, and I did get officers from my own regiment who were sent out as commanding officers, and sailed from Canada for South Africa. One of them was so highly regarded in his own force and in the field that lie is still retained in South Africa, at a salary fully equal to that which the minister is paying the general officer commanding here by this Bill. The country is full of young men and middle aged men who are capable of taking any command he may place upon them.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: At the last camp in Niagara there were two brigades of infantry and one of cavalry, all of which were commanded by members of the non-permanent force.


Frederick William Borden: That plan has been adopted by a former general officer commanding, and in this Bill there is authority taken to create a higher grade of officers temporarily, that of brigadier general.


Samuel Hughes: They will be permanent corps men.


Frederick William Borden: Not necessarily.


Samuel Hughes: My point is to give these appointments to active militia officers.


Frederick William Borden: In nearly all the cases to which my hon. friend lias


Samuel Hughes: referred and to which I have referred, officers of the active militia; were selected.


Samuel Hughes: Speaking of the remark made by my hon. friend from Hal-dimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson) that these positions at the Niagara camp were held by certain officers last year I am glad to hear it. I was not at that camp last year but I had the honour of being there in former years, and I saw scarcely any officers of the active militia of the country filling these positions. I did see last year serious complaints in the Toronto press to the effect that certain favoured officers, not of the rural militia, but of the cities were placed in these various positions at the Niagara camp.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I must say that while this is the case I would be very glad indeed to see the position of brigadier filled sometimes by men from the country corps who are rattling good men and not given exclusively to men from the city corps.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Samuel Hughes: Before leaving section 54 which is in connection with commissions, the question has arisen about the position of royal military college graduates. I know that under the College Graduates Act a royal military college graduate upon graduation is made a lieutenant in the engineers. It may not be necessary, inasmuch as that) Act is continued in force, to embody it in this Bill.


Frederick William Borden: No, that is provided for in the Royal Military College Act. Section 56 is the same as in the present law with the exception of :
Mounted corps, to whom saddlery may be issued as proscribed.


Samuel Hughes: The words 1 mounted corps ' in the original draft appeared as ' mounted, militia.' Why not change the word 'corps' to 'officers'? Why not take in all mounted officers ?


Frederick William Borden: That is worth considering.


Samuel Hughes: It will never do to make a distinction. Why should an officer of a cavalry regiment get any consideration that the good colonel of the 37th regiment would not receive ? A great many officers have great difficulty in securing proper equipment. Why not make it include horse equipment instead of saddles because horse equipment includes bridles and saddles ?


Frederick William Borden: Saddlery includes that.


Samuel Hughes: Make it apply to all mounted officers irrespective of corps.


Frederick William Borden: I think that is a good suggestion.
Section 57 of the Bill will be dropped. It is unnecessary because the Customs Act and an Order in Council framed thereunder provide for this clause. Section 58 is practically the same as ection 53 of the present law. Section 59 is the same as section 56 of the present law, except that the following words are omitted :
And he shall be entitled to quittance by certificate, and to seb such quittance recorded in the book of his corps on returning such .article.
These words are considered to be unnecessary.


Samuel Hughes: There is a great deal of difficulty experienced by officers in getting the equipment of men who are not leaving Canada, but only their own regimental district. Would it not be advisable to amend it by saying :	' About to leave
Canada or about to leave their own regimental district.' The officers have great difficulty in finding men who go to the Northwest and elsewhere.


Frederick William Borden: I am aware that that is a source of great trouble. I had a communication recently from Major


Lydon, of Montreal, in regard to the difficulty he has in connection with the clothing issued to the cadets. I wish my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes), would put his suggestion into writing later on.
Section 60 is the same as section 57 of the present law slightly modified. The word ' permission ' in the Bill is substituted for the word 'order' in the Act. It reads: by ' permission ' of the commanding officer. Section 61 is new.


Samuel Hughes: Where did the minister get that ?


Frederick William Borden: From the Commonwealth Defence Bill.


Samuel Hughes: It is very badly worded.


Frederick William Borden: Does the hon. gentleman object to the sense ?


Robert Laird Borden: Is it provided by the imperial regulations ?


Frederick William Borden: It is not in the Imperial Act, but I think it is in the regulations.


Robert Laird Borden: There must be some army regulations about it, because I think the question arose in Halifax, and the permission of the general officer commanding had to be obtained before some of the men could be allowed to appear on the stage.


Frederick William Borden: It seems to be necessary to make some provision of the kind.


Samuel Hughes: Lest there be some question about it, I would suggest that the minister, in addition to the stage play, and music hall, and circus performances, would also include the Salvation Army.


Frederick William Borden: You want to get me into trouble.
Section 62 is also from the same source, and I suppose it would be subject to the same criticism. Section 63 replaces sections 51 and 59 of the present law.


Samuel Hughes: Section 62 is all right, and I think it was the one referred to in the Halifax case.


Frederick William Borden: Section 63 is a change from the present law. The number of days specified in the present law is from 12 to 16, and it is changed now to read : ' not less than 12 days or more than 30 days in each year.' I might repeat the explanation in regard to that which I made in introducing the Bill. If a central camp, as is now proposed, should be established in Canada, 16 days would be altogether too short to carry out the necessary instructions, and therefore we are taking power here to increase the number of days to 30 for a specific reason. I may say, however, there is no intention at present to increase the term of the annual drill beyond the 12 days.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Samuel Hughes: The point 1 raised earlier in the debate about the pet' manent force being continuously on service would have to come in here.


Frederick William Borden: 
Mr.  A. T.@: THOB1PSON. Inasmuch as tbe interpretation clause defines 'militia' t0, mean ' all the military force of Canada : would it not be better to use the word9 ' non-permanent militia ' in this clause ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: It is actif<? militia.
BIr. SABI. HUGHES. It is part of t&e active militia.


Jabel Robinson: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: Section 67 is the same as section 63 of the present law except that certain words are left out.
In such eases the daily pay shall be for each day of 24 hours, and the drill and duty to be performed in caipp, or in going to and from camp, shall be as ordered by the commanding officer for the time being.
It was thought that could be better regulated by the regulations. '
Section 68 is the same as section 69 of the present law.
On section 69.-Shooting privileges.


Frederick William Borden: Section 69 is new and it provides :
For the purpose of erecting works of defence, artillery ranges, or rifle ranges, shooting privileges only may he acquired on land, adjoining such works of defence or ranges ; and compensation therefor shall be subject to the provisions of the Expropriation Act.
This is a power which it is in the public interest to acquire.
Section 70 is the same as section 71 of the present law. Sections 72 to 75 of the present law are omitted, they being provided for by section 30 of this Bill. Section 71 is similar to section 76 of the present law, concerning which the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Jabel Robinson) made inquiry a moment ago. In this section rifle associations and clubs are provided for.


Samuel Hughes: I would take the liberty of suggesting again that in addition to the long range rifle, each company headquarters should be furnished with a miniature rifle range and a couple of small rifles, so that during the winter, or even the summer months, the volunteers in the locality might have regular practice. There is nouse pretending that these little ranges are useless. The best shots in Canada to-day are men who in the olden days learnt, with the old muzzle-loading rifle, to blow out candles with caps. This practice accustomed the men to pulling the trigger and steadying the rifle, and the miniature gallery shoot-

ing would serve the same purpose. It would only cost a couple of rifles for each company, and after they had indulged in that practice the men would readily go to the long range.


Frederick William Borden: Section 72 Is a new section :
In case 'of emergency the members of rifle associations and clubs shall become members of the militia and shall be under the direction and instructions of the district officer corn? manding ; and so long as the emergency exists and until lawfully discharged, all members of such associations and clubs shall remain members of the militia, and shall be subject to drill, training and discipline to the same extent as other members thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: How will the members of rifle clubs become aware that an emergency has occurred ? I suppose, whether or not an emergency has occurred, depends upon what view the authorities may fake. If a riot should occur somewhere in Canada, would every rifle club in the country become forthwith a part of the militia ? If so, some provision should be made for Informing them, by proclamation or otherwise, that they are part of the militia and liable as such.


Frederick William Borden: I shall take a note of the hon. gentleman's suggestion and see that it is done.


Samuel Hughes: In this connection, there is no means, unless defined by regulation, by which an officer commanding a company is to notify h'is men.


Frederick William Borden: That will be done by regulation.


Samuel Hughes: I have known of instances where the men claimed they had not been properly notified to attend drill, and in that way got off their penalty.


Frederick William Borden: I would like to ask the leader of the opposition whether he.thinks it would be possible to deal with the question he raised in section 72 by regulation, or should there be an enactment ?


Robert Laird Borden: There ought to be an enactment.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose these rifle associations will be uniformed find equipped?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. I might perhaps say that I doubt whether this clause will be really necessary, because it is the intention, under the scheme which Lord Dundonakl has put forward, to practically abolish the present rifle associations and make the members immediately members of the militia.
Section 73 is new. It provides :
The minister may-
(a)	Authorize boys over twelve years of age, who are attending school, to be formed into school cadet corps ;


Samuel Hughes: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: That will a matter for regulation.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the intentio^ under section 73, to deal with each individU8 case as it arises, or make some general re?8' la tion ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: That is


Samuel Hughes: Suppose there ^ an isolated post with a colonial and an jfl perial regiment, does this mean ^acoC>' such a case the imperial officer would mand ?	jt


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: It might be the same man. The hon. minister had better re-draft the clause.


Frederick William Borden: Well, the point will be considered.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure how it would work out in the present condition. If war should break out, with the British forces at Halifax and the west, would the command of the whole force pass to Lord Dundonald, or would the British troops be commanded by


Samuel Hughes: The officer at Halifax, no matter how junior.


Robert Laird Borden: But, under the provisions of this statute he would not take command of the whole, because he would be inferior in rank to the officer commanding the Canadian militia.


Frederick William Borden: That is the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: After all, the object aimed at is this-is it not ?-that, where the Canadian militia serve with the imperial forces, they shall be under command of the imperial officer, if he is senior in rank to the Canadian officer, but the converse is not true ?


Frederick William Borden: For instance, if war occurred, and there were a lieutenant general in command at Halifax, under the clause that I propose he would command. If he were junior to the officer commanding the militia, he would not command, but it would be within the power of the Crown to name an officer who should be senior to the officer commanding the militia.


Samuel Hughes: I have not the clause as proposed before me. But why not leave It to read that His Majesty should appoint the officer that should command the united force ?	.


Frederick William Borden: That is just what we are doing.


Samuel Hughes: This says that he shall be senior to the officer commanding the Canadian militia. But he may be the same man. That is the point I am making.


Frederick William Borden: Take the case of my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) * suggested a moment ago. Suppose there is an imperial officer of f*'nior rank and war breaks out, would he think that we should give power to the Crown to place over the head of Lord Dundonald an officer of inferior rank ?


Samuel Hughes: No ; but what I want to point out is that if the hon. minister will make the clause provide that in case of joint action, His Majesty may appoint as commander of the whole force a senior general officer of his regular army, that would be sufficient.


Frederick William Borden: I am inclined to think that it is the best way.


Samuel Hughes: There is no need to say ' Who shall be senior in rank to the general officer commanding.' Lord Dundonald would fill the bill exactly.


Frederick William Borden: That is right.


Samuel Hughes: But if you put in these last words, you rule Lord Dundonald out. If the minister would stop at the words ' regular army.' Lord Dundonald might be the officer selected by His Majesty.


Frederick William Borden: The point did not occur to me. I will reconsider the section.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN^ What my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) suggests is that the imperial officer might be the general officer commanding the militia-he might command both forces.


Frederick William Borden: There is no intention to interfere with the power of the Crown to appoint the general officer commanding the militia to command the whole force.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister let this stand ?


Frederick William Borden: We are not passing this, we are simply discussing it.
Section 78 is precisely the same as section 80 of the present law. 79 is the same as 82.


Robert Laird Borden: Does section 78 refer to the permanent force ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Why ?	[DOT]


Frederick William Borden: Because there is a special clause governing the permanent force.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware there is a special clause governing the permanent force, nevertheless the permanent force is included in the word ' militia ' as defined in the interpretation clause. I think it will be necessary to look carefully into this Bill all the way through to see whether, by the use of the word ' militia ' you are not applying to the permanent force certain provisions which perhaps you do not intend to apply to it. For example, you have a provision in one clause here that any man can obtain his discharge from the service on giving six months' notice. Is that intended to apply to the permanent force ? I do not know. Nevertheless, It seems to me that under the language of this Bill it would be held to apply to the permanent force, because you define the word militia as including the permanent force, and then you make this general provision with regard to all the militia.


Samuel Hughes: 


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: This clause has been drafted with special reference to meeting difficulties of that kind.
Section 80 is the same as section 82, paragraph 2, of the present Act. Section 81 is the same as section 84 of the present law. Section 82 is the same as section 85 of the present law. Section 83 is the same as section 86 of the present law, with very slight modifications. Section 84 is the same as section 87 of the present law.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. minister whether the regulations which it is proposed the Governor in Council shall enact are to take the place of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Instead of using the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army, we will have regulations and orders of our own ?


Frederick William Borden: Quite so ; instead of dealing with two authorities, we will be dealing with one.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Previously we had both.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe in the law that it is provided that Her Majesty in Council may direct that the provisions of the Army Act shall not apply to the militia force. That has been omitted from the proposed section. Does the hon. minister think it is wise to omit it ? We know what the Army Act is at present, but we do not know what it always will be. Might it not be wise to reserve a power of that kind ?


Frederick William Borden: The application of the Army Act to the Canadian militia is continued by this Bill, except in so far as it may be incompatible with the enactments of the Bill. Clause 79 deals with that.


Robert Laird Borden: In the law as it if>
at present there is a provision by which Her Majesty may direct that any provision of the Army Act shall not apply to the militia. That provision has been omitted in the proposed section. Might it not be possible that there might be certain provisions of the Army Act which, although not inconsistent with our own statute, might nevertheless. to some extent, he inapplicable to the militia of Canada ? Would it not therefore he wise to retain the power existing at the present time 1


Frederick William Borden: I think it ivould. I will look into that. I think that :hange is unintentional.
Section 85 is the same as section 88 prac-icnlly, with the omission of certain words .vhich are not considered necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Is not section 85 a relic of pre-historic days ? Why is it necessary to have either 85 or 86 ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think they do any harm.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest the insertion after the word ' females,' in line 3 of section 86, of the words ' and children.' What is referred to there is very clear and it is necessarily guarded, tout why should a farmer's wife, if the farmer should toe oft' fighting at the front, be liable to have troops billeted at her house any more than any one else 1


Frederick William Borden: Then we come to transport. Section 88 of the present law seems to have been divided into sections 85 and 87 of the new Bill. The present law says that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for the billeting and cantoning of troops and militia when on active service, for the furnishing of carriages, horses and other conveyance for their transport and use, and for adequate compensation therefor.
These words are made the subject of section 87 of the new Bill, giving power to the Governor in Council to make regulations in reference to transport. Section 88 of the new Bill is the same as section 89 of the present law with a slight modification. Section 89 is copied from the British law. Section 90 is new, copied also from the English Regulations of the Forces Act, 1871, Part iv, section 16.


Samuel Hughes: Why not also take control of steamship lines ?


Frederick William Borden: Evidently that was not done in the law from which this was copied, but in view of our inland navigation it might be very proper in Canada. It is a good suggestion.
Sections 91, 92 and 93 are taken from the same source. Section 94 is the same as section 91 of the present Act, except that these words are omitted :
But no officer of His Majesty's regular army on full pay shall sit on any such court martial
Section 95 is the same as section 92 ; section 96 is the same as subsection 2 of section 92 of the present law ; section 97 is the same as subsection 3 of section 92 of the present law ; section 98 is the same as section 93 of the present law, except that certain words are omitted. It is proposed to amend this -draft Bill now before the committee, by inserting after the words 'court martial'; the words ' except on active service.' The reason for inserting these words is obvious; in time of war the decision would be delayed and the Governor in Council would have his hands full. Section 99 is the same as section 94 of the present law except that wherever the phrase ' commanding a corps of militia ' occurs it is omitted and at the end the


Robert Laird Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: It appears to that that would bring a man under the cof1' trol of an officer when he is not subject f military law, and that should not be tl* case.


Frederick William Borden: It is same as the present law.
Section 111 is the same as 105 of the P*", sent law ; section 112 is exactly the same e 106 of the present law ; section 113 is *-** same as section 107 except for the words [DOT]
If an officer, not exceeding $100, and, if a a**1 of the militia-


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: It is P1'8 cisely the same.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: 

REVISEI

[Stage Direction]
On section 126,
Frederick William Borden: Section 126 is new and is as follows :-
For the purpose of legal proceedings, all moneys subscribed by or for, or otherwise appropriated to the use of, any corps, and all arms, ammunition, clothing, equipment, musical instruments, or other things belonging to, or used by, any corps, shall be deemed to be the property of the commanding officer of the corps; and no gift, sale or other alienation, or attempted alienation, of any such thing by any person shall be effectual to pass the property therein without the consent of the said commanding officer.
That is new and is copied from the Commonwealth Defence Bill. I think it is necessary.


Samuel Hughes: I think it is a very proper thing.


Robert Laird Borden: Might it not be better to have the property referred to in this section regarded as being the property of the Crown for the purpose of legal proceedings. Why should you regard them as the property of the commanding officer ? They are for the public service of the country.


Frederick William Borden: It is for the purpose of enabling the commanding officer to deal more easily with questions of theft or the collections of arms that may be issued by] him.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the advantage of calling the arms, ammunition, equipment and clothing, which are really the property of the Crown, the property of the commanding officer, for the purpose of any legal proceedings ? I do not see that there is any advantage in doing that ? I cannot see that it would expedite or facilitate legal proceedings in any way. You are really departing, in respect of those articles, from the facts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The property might not be vested absolutely in the Crown. The commanding officer might give certain articles of equipment to the corps, for instance, the headgear or musical instruments, which would not be vested in His Majesty, but rather in the particular corps with which he is connected.


Robert Laird Borden: You might have the instruments provided for the purposes of the band, but in respect of nearly everything in section 126, you find it is tlib property of the Crown. It would be more fitting to call everything the property of the Crown than call all these articles, which are really the property of the Crown, the property of the commanding officer. It is only a matter of detail, which I hope the minister will look Into.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, the commanding officer might die or become insolvent.



EDITION

Frederick William Borden: Section 127 3s the same as section 118 of the present law. Section 128 is practically the	^
section 119 of the present law. Section 121 is the same as section 120 of the present law.
Mr, SAM. HUGHES. I think we should
-ssmig z ssrvss
srLations would not want to have defaced by these Polters being pasted on the doors.


Frederick William Borden: I will look into that. They might be put on the fence.


Robert Laird Borden: That might give offence.


Frederick William Borden: Section 130 is the same as section 121 of the Present law, and section 131 is the same as 122. 132 is the same as section 123 of the present law except that the expression Governor in Council' is substituted for Her Maiestv.' Section 133 is the same as section 124 of the present law, and 134 is the same as 125. The last section, section 135, repeals certain acts.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Before we leave the consideration of this Bill, I do hope that the suggestion of the hon. the leader of the opposition will not be overlooked and that an unusually large number of to-day s Hansard ' will be printed. Like many other members, I have received requests for copies of the Bill, and the discussion we have had upon it this afternoon is undoubtedly a complement of the Bill as printed. 1 hope that a sufficient number of copies of to-day s ' Hansard ' will be printed to enable each member to have twenty or thirty, if possible.	.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, March 23, 1904.