1904-08-01

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-NINTH PARLIAMENT 4 EDWA.RD V11., 1904 VOL LXVIII COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TO THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, INCLUSIVE OTTAWA PRINTED P.Y S. E. DAWSON, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
\

[Stage Direction]
Col. 8315, 12th line from bottom for :-' two millions' read 'two hundred millions,'
House oi Commons debates


[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 1, 1904.

Mr.  L. N.@: 

TREADGOLD CONCESSION-REPORT OF COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) laid on the table of the House the report of Mr. Justice Brittodfron the Tread-gold concession, with the exhibits filed at the inquiry and the evidence.
Mr. SPROULE.: Will this report be printed for the use of the House?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think the better course is to leave it to the Committee on Printing as usual, as we are so near the end of the session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is done it may not be printed at all, because the Printing Committee may not be got together.


Wilfrid Laurier: The committee will surely have more than one sitting before the end of the session.



SOULANGES CANAL-CLAIM OF MESSRS. O'BRIEN.

Mr. F. D. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the government, in case further estimates are to be brought down, to the very equitable claim of the firm of Messrs. O'Brien in connection with the construction of the Soulanges canal



about 1S92. Their contract was cancelled. They had $18,000 worth of plant there, they had a deposit as security for the carrying out of tile contract and there was a large drawback at the time the contract was cancelled, I do no want to fake uip the time of the House, but their claim is certainly au equitable one, entitled to the consideration of the government, and I think it will he due to them to give the claim au equitable settlement.


Sir WILFRID LA  FRIER@: I do not understand what my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) means by an equitable settlement. Does be advise tbe payment of the claim?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think (bey are entitled to a certain sum of money and they should get it.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON. (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The claim of Messrs. O'Brien is receiving consideration, and as far as 1 have looked into the matter it certainly presents very strong merits. The matter is now being considered and perhaps a decision will be reached at an early stage.



SOUTH WATERLOO VOTERS' LISTS.

Mr. G. A. CLARE.: Mr. Speaker, lief ore tlie Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a question regarding the voters' list of South Waterloo. To make my statement clear I may say that the right hon. Prime Minister, in reply to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Rlain) a few days ago gave a list of voters' lists which hail been printed, and amongst those were the lists for South Waterloo. Two or three days after I wrote to the King's Printer, asking if I could get the lists for South Waterloo, and, he replied that :
The lists are not ready for distribution, but as soon as they are printed copies will be sent to you.
There must be some misunderstanding, because if they are printed I should be able to get them.


Hon.   H.@: There is a misunderstanding, because my informa-Mr. MONK.
tion comes from exactly tbe source from which tlie information of my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) comes ; that is from the King's Printer. I will inquire again about it.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	What sum of money has been paid during the years 1903 and 1904 for painting the bridge over the Grand river at Dunnviille ?
2.	To whom was such money paid, and at what dates ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	There was nothing paid in the year 1903 for painting tbe bridge over the Grand river at Dunnville, but tbe sum of $182.75 was paid in tbe year 1904, the work having been commenced in the fall of 1903 and finished in April, 1904.
2.	The money was paid to Messrs. Cong-don & Marshall, of Dunnville. On the 24tli of May, 1904.
.	TOBACCO CULTURE.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is there a government experimental station for the culture of tobacco at St. Jacques de l'Achigan, in the county of Montcalm ?
2.	Who is in charge of this experimental station ?
3.	What was the cost of said experimental station in the years 1902 and 1903, respectively ?
4.	Has the government received reports from said experimental station for the year 1902 and the year 1903 ?
5.	What experiments have been made by the government at said station during the past two years ?
6.	Is said experimental station in existence
at .present ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1. Not at present. During the years 1899, 1900 and 1901, by direction of the government, experimental and demonstrative work in culture and handling of tobacco was carried on by Mr. Louis V. Labelle, on his property at St. .Tacques de l'Achigan,
-	-. i

in the county of Montcalm. Mr. LaDelle becoming an officer of the Inland Revenue Department, ceased this work and it has not been taken up again.
This answer covers the remaining questions.
*	INTERPRETATION OF ' CORPS.'


Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Does the word ' corps ' in section 2, subsection (b) of the New Militia Act have the same meaning as in the old Militia Act 7
2.	If an officer of the Canadian militia considers himself wronged in a military matter by his superior officer, what is his course to secure redress ?


Hon.  W. S.@: What action has the minister taken in regal'd to the parties selling or manufacturing these adulterated jams or jellies ? Or if none has been taken, what action does he intend to take ?


Hon.   I..@: I1. BRODETJR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :
1.	For selling, if adulteration is not injurious to health, a penalty of from $5 to 8100 and costs. For manufacturing, a penalty not exceeding $200 and costs or three l nonths' imprisonment.
2.	Instructions have been issued requiring tlie payment of the cost of collection and analysis of sample and if this be not paid legal proceedings will be instituted for collection of full penalties.



I.C.R.-PENSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
1.	This is a matter of interpretation, but clause 22 of the Militia Bill interprets 'corps' to mean the following :
(a.) ' Corps ' means a military body appearing in the list of establishments as a separate unit.
I think this is the meaning under the present law.
2.	The mode of redress is fixed by the Army Act, par. 42.

Mr.   E.@: I). SMITH asked :
1.	What are the penalties under the existing law to which those selling or manufacturing adulterated jams or jellies are subject ?
2.	Bulletin No. 96 of the Inland Revenue Department having stated that an analysis of 74 jams or jellies, selected indiscriminately over the Dominion, showed the following result :
Genuine.	Doubt	- Adul-	Total.A. Raspberry jam	.. 2	ful. 1	terated. 16	19B. Straberry jam	.. 1	1	17	19C. Plum jam.. ..	.. ,3	1	8	12D. Peach jam ..	.. 0	2	5	7E. Miscellaneous.	.. 0	0	2	2F. Jellies	.. 8	0	7	15-	-	-	-14	5	15	74


Mr. GOURLEY asked :: 1.	in what stage is the pension scheme promised by the Minister of Railways to the employees of the Intercolonial Railway last year anil the present year ?
2.	Has such scheme been submitted to the government for approval ?
3.	Will an Act be introduced this session to give effect to said system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A pension scheme, prepared by a joint committee of the management and employees of the Iiilcn'olonlal Railway was presented during the present session of parliament to the Minister of Railways, and he gave the matter consideration and study, with the result that a Bill was drawn up, and the data as to the employees of the road, furnished by the Railway Department, as respects both the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway, was submitted to an actuary for cpmputation as to results. The work of the actuary and his assistants took up about two months of time. The final report of the actuary was only received by the Minister of Railways about a week ago. The Bill and report of the actuary have been submitted to the government for consideration ; but owing to the extreme lateness of the session it has been deemed impracticable to undertake to
8027a

8028a
have the proposals laid before parliament this year. A Bill will be introduced at the next session of parliament, providing that l>ensions may he paid to officials and employees of the permanent staff of the government railways who have rendered long and faithful services, and who attain to such an age as will necessitate their relief, and for those who become permanently incapacitated or disabled, and generally for the purpose of promoting efficiency in the railway service.



TRURO STATION.

Mr. GOURLEY asked :: 1.	Will a new station be built at Truro this summer ?
2.	If not, will provision be made in the estimates next'/ year for that purpose ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No.
2.	The whole question relating to additional accommodation at Truro will be considered by the Minister of Railways before the next session of parliament.



TRURO ESPLANADE.

Mr. GOURLEY asked :: Will the esplanade at the Intercolonial Railway depot at Truro be graded this summer ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The question of an esplanade at the railway depot at Truro will be considered after the session closes.



ROUND-HOUSE AT TRURO.

Mr. GOURLEY asked :: 1.	Has the site of the round-house at Truro been settled upon ?
2.	Ait what date was it' acquired 1 . 3. WheTe is the location ?
4.	From whom was the land bought ?
5.	What was the price paid ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Hon.   H.@: It. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
The question of the site of the roundhouse at Truro has been settled in the mind of the Minister of Railways, but official action has not yet been taken.
This answers the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs.



BOUNTIES ON STEEL.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it ig expedient to amend chapter 68 of the statutes of 1903, respecting bounties on certain articles manufactured from steel, and to provide as follows :-
1.	Resolved, that section 1 of the said Act be amended by adding the words 1 or used,* after the word ' use ' in subsection (a), and after the word ' sold ' in subsections (b) and (c).
2.	Resolved, that the foregoing provisions 'shall he held to have come into force on the 24th of October, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) respecting an arbitration between Ills Majesty and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
A

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 148) to amend the Dominion Elections' Act of 1900-Mr. Fitzpatrick- was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. HAGGART.: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not in the House this morning, but will be here this evening. He wishes to speak on this Bill and I would be glad to have it stand.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I am quite agreeable. I may state now that it is my inten-

tion to ask that the reference in the Bill to Algoma be eliminated. That is to say there will be no exceptional treatment as to Algoma and therefore the Bill will be applicable simply to certain counties in British Columbia and the province of Quebec.
Progress reported.



POST OFFICE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to further amend the Post Office Act-Sir William Mulock-was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC.: This section abolishes the office of chief inspector for the Dominion.


Mr. CLARKE.: Who is to discharge the duties formerly discharged by that officer 1


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many offices are there in which the revenue is over $400.000 ?


William Mulock: I do not think there are any besides Toronto and Montreal. The revenue of Winnipeg this year will be nearly $250,000. At present this clause is applicable only to two offices.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The intention, then, is to appoint a superintendent in the Toronto post office and one in Montreal post office at a salary of $1,800 a year ?


William Mulock: Yes ; it will be a promotion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who at present does the work which the superintendent is to do ?


William Mulock: The work Is done by the various officers.


John Graham Haggart: Should not his duties be defined ?


William Mulock: There has been no chief inspector acting for some years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you going to appoint a new one to take the place of the former one ?


William Mulock: This does not mean an additional appointment. I have not had any chief inspector since the death of Mr. Sweatman. That office is being abolished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it is not intended that the chief superintendent shall do the * work ?


William Mulock: The chief superintendent has to do only with the city post offices._____________________________


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3,
William Mulock: At the present time, besides chief inspectors and pont office inspectors, we have assistant post office inspectors, who frequently conduct examinations and inquiries ; so does the chief city superintendent. It is proposed to give to the assistant post office inspector as well as to the chief city superintendent the same powers that were given to inspectors, namely, to hold inquiries and to examine persons on oath or affirmation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-appointment of superinten dent.
William Mulock: It is proposed to have a superintendent in each post office where the revenue reaches $500,000. The only post offices which at present will come under that designation are those of Toronto and Montreal. The post office revenue of Toronto is approaching, if it has not already reached, $1,000,000. Montreal is a good second.


William Mulock: I do not think it is necessary to define them. There is nothing in the law defining the duties of any of the officials. The duties are assigned to them by their superior officers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will this officer have precedence over the deputy postmaster ?


William Mulock: No ; he will be subordinate to the assistant postmaster.


Mr. KEMP.: Will he be under the instructions of the postmaster and the assistant postmaster ?


William Mulock: This officer will be as much under the orders of the postmaster as any other officer in the post ~
office. The postmaster is left to organize his staff, getting the most use he can out of them. There is no exception made in the case of the superintendent. So far as I have anything to do with the superintendent, I shall deem it my duty to promote to this office the man best qualified to din-charge what would ordinarily be understood to be the duties of such an officer. He will be an intermediate officer, between a first-class clerk and the assistant postmaster.


Mr. MACLEAN.: This officer will probably meet the case I have in view. I have seen the Toronto post office practically administered by a very young but very competent man, doing first-class work, and getting about $600 a year. I believe that has happened in several of the post offices of this country. If this clause will permit a man of that kind to receive a reward in keeping with the services he discharges, I think it will be a good move.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6,
William Mulock: Under the Act of 1902, it is made optional with letter



carriers to come in under the new scheme therein provided, or to remain under the old law. The time in which to exercise that option expired within two months after the passage of that Bill. Some of the letter-carriers desired after it was too late to exercise that option, and last year parliament passed an Act extending the time. That time has expired, and now a considerable number of letter-carriers have signified their desire to avail themselves of the provisions of the law and come in under the Act of 1902. This is giving .them three months further time.
Mr. CDARIvE. What will he the position of these 'men who were in the service prior to 1897 if they come in under this Act ? Under this Act the sum that stands to their credit in the superannuation account will be passed over to another account, and they will get that sum with interest at five per cent on leaving the service ; but when they leave or are discharged there is no superannuation beyond the amount at their credit. What advantage is it to these men to come under this Act ? Their position at present is such that when they retire they receive superannuation, which continues as long as they live, but under my hon. friend's Act they will not. Is that right ?


William Mulock: That is wrong. The Act is in the following words :
Such election shall not affect his rights or position under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or Retirement Act of 1898.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will they still continue paying into the superannuation fund the same percentage of their wages that they do now, and will they receive the same superannuation after they have been retired ?


William Mulock: The language of the statute is quite plain : ' Such election shall not affect their rights or position uuder the Civil Service Superannuation Act or retirement Act of 1898.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not quite understand. Under the civil service law which existed when they entered the post office as letter-carriers, they contributed so much per month to the superannuation fund, and after their services were dispensed with they got so much per annum' during the balance of their lives. Will the fact that they take advantage of the present Act deprive them of their superannuation when they leave the service ?


William Mulock: It is not for me to say what the law means. I have read the iion. gentleman the statute, and I will pass the Act over to him. It is to be found in the statutes of 1902.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Has any kind of pressure been exercised on the men to get them to come in under this Act ?


William Mulock: 


William Mulock: Not the slightest. The department is not interested one way or the other. Some carriers have petitioned for this privilege and the department has simply acceded to their request. If some letter-carriers had not had themselves prejudiced, they would long since have availed themselves of the advantages of this Act. Under the old law the salary of a letter-carrier was $600, but under the present Act he can attain $725 a year, and in addition have some other advantages.


Arthur W. Puttee: Under the old law a letter-carrier was entitled, in case of sickness, to his pay, and under the new Act he is not.


William Mulock: He is not entitled to it under the old law.


Arthur W. Puttee: Under the Civil Service Act he was.


William Mulock: No.


Arthur W. Puttee: As a matter of fact lie does get it.


William Mulock: He may or may not.	,


Arthur W. Puttee: They are fearful that their sick-pay is going to be stopped, and I do not know whether that would be looked upon as pressure to induce them to come under the new Act. Is the rumour right that sick-pay will be stopped ?


William Mulock: 
Mr. HEYD.: There is a misapprehension in the minds of the letter-carriers of the old school that, in the event of their being sick for an indefinite period, they have acquired the right to be paid. They have obtained the impression that they are legally entitled to be paid while laid up. It will clear the atmosphere a good deal to let them know that they have no such legal right, and that if any of them have occasionally enjoyed their pay while ill that was simply a matter of courtesy and not of law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With regard to the matter of which the hon. gentleman speaks, a petition was sent to the Postmaster General on the 10th of March last by the letter-carriers of the Dominion who are under the provisions of Bill (No.' 106) in which they refer to this very question of sick-pay. ' They say :
We, the undersigned letter-carriers of the Dominion of Canada, all of whom are under Bill (No. 106) beg to state that we appreciate your efforts to bettfer the condition of the post office employees generally. Nevertheless, we think that the change has not benefited us to the extent to which your honour had intended that it should, and we would request that you give the following brief epitome of our claims your favourable consideration :
1st. We feel that loss of pay in sickness or accident is a condition not imposed on any other branch of the service, and that if you take into consideration the unfavourable conditions under which we have to perform our duties, these disabilities will be removed by you in our case.
2nd. That reduction in grade is a condition that we would ask to be eliminated from the Bill, and some fixed form of penalty inserted specifying the acts for which imposed and how the same may be regained by those unfortunate enough to fall from the path of duty.
These are the two paragraphs in this petition referring to the sick pay. The hon. Postmaster General says that these men receive $2,25 a day. That is the maximum pay, I believe, of class ' E.'


William Mulock: And they may receive a bonus of $20 besides.


Edward Frederick Clarke: So they receive $2.25 with a bonus of $20 in addition-that is the maximum. But it is optional with the officers of the department to lower these men from grade ' E ' to grade * D ' or ' C ' or ' B and of course, the pay is reduced with the grade. Only those in the highest 255}
| class receive $2.25 a day, and they are not paid during the period of sickness.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Wherein do they differ in that respect from the old condition ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand it, the difference is this-that if a man contracted sickness in the discharge of his duty and was able to send a medical certificate, his pay went on during the period of sickness. Of course, if the sickness were caused by misconduct on the part of the man himself he could not obtain the medical certificate and so was not entitled to sick-pay. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) will see that in this memorial complaint is made of the withholding of sick-pay from men who are under the operation of the Bill (No. 106) which has been passed since 1896. Now, with regard to the position of the men who were in the service


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Let us finish that other point first. As I understand it, although they occasionally got sick-pay they had no legal right to it-it was a matter of favour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not know that.


William Mulock: They had no legal right to it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But they received sick-pay.


William Mulock: Some did and some did not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the case of the men who were able to show by a medical certificate that the sickness was not caused by misconduct or indiscretion on their own part, they received sick-pay. But it makes no difference what may be the cause of sickness, they now receive no sick-pay; they receive $2.25, if they are in the highest grade for each day on duty. Now, with regard to the men appointed prior to 1896, they do not think that it would be to their advantage to come under the provisions of the hon. minister's Bill-at least many of them do not. They memorialized the department in March last. Of course these men are officials who are under the provisions of the Act of 1882. Their petition says :
We, the letter carriers of Toronto post office working under the provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1882-3, respectfully ask your consideration of our petition for an increase of salary for the reasons hereinafter set forth :
We do not question your desire to better the condition of the letter-carriers by the legislation enacted at the past two sessions of parliament, but regret to say that owing to our length of service in the department we are unable to take advantage of it, and think it would be unreasonable to expect us to accept its provisions, which detract materially from any financial benefits set forth therein.
We feel it incumbent upon us to urge upon your honour as a defence against the unfair, artificial and unstable arguments of outside

comparisons and market value of labour that our work has a value in itself which the outside market cannot determine.
That is the point of this petition.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But the siek-pay is the principal one.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume that they understand that, in their own interest, they should not take advantage of the provisions of the hon. gentleman's Act of 1902. They think it would be unreasonable to accept its provisions, because the acceptance would detract materially from any financial benefits accruing to them therefrom. Their
pay is $650, I believe


William Mulock: It is $600.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Less whatever small sum is deducted on account of the superanuation fund-say $10, $15 or $20 per annum. When they become incapacitated or retire from service they receive superannuation for the remainder of their lives.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How much ?


Mr CLARKE.: If a man served for thirty years, as I understand it his superannuation would be $360.


William Mulock: If he had served thirty-five years he would be entitled to 70 per cent of his salary or $420 a year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now, that is secured to him as a result of his compliance with the conditions on which he entered the service. He commenced at a very low salary-$25 or $30 a month-and it took him seven or eight years to reach the maximum.


William Mulock: Nearly nine years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, that makes his position all the stronger. It would take him nine years to work up from the minimum salary to the maximum of $600 a year. But, as he understood it, a part of the contract was that, in consideration of his beginning at a low wage and working up, he would establish and make good his right to superannuation when the department did not require his services any longer. The contention of the men who came in under that law is that if they take advantage of the Act of the hon. gentleman they lose their superannuation, and the sum to be paid them would be only the total of their payments into the superannuation fund, with interest added. They would continue to pay a certain sum annually into the fund ; and when they retire, what they receive is whatever is at their credit in the superannuation fund-it may be $200, $300 or $400. But they absolutely deprive themselves of the right to superannuation. Now, that is the difference between the two schemes, as I understand it from the men.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


William Mulock: Of course, that is entirely'erroneous.


Mr CLARKE.: Then, the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) will please explain how it is.


William Mulock: I have read the statute twice ; I will send it to him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will read it, because I do not wish) to misunderstand the law. This is the Act of 1902 :	[DOT]
Such election shall not affect his rights or position under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1SSS.
Does that mean that the carriers will still continue to pay in annually as they did up to the passage of the Act of 1897, and that when they retire from the service they will receive an annual allowance, if they have served 35 years, of seventy per cent of their wages ? Is that the explanation !


William Mulock: I do not wish the hon. gentleman's remarks to go abroad unchallenged. The hon. gentleman is quite aware that when the retirement Act was passed an option was given to all persons who were then on the superannuation list, either to continue under the old superannuation list or to come in under the Retirement Act ; and if a letter-carrier was entitled to superannuation under the old Act and did not desire to be transferred to the provisions of the new law, he remained entitled to all the benefits of the old law. A letter-carrier who was entitled to supeiannua-tion then is entitled to superannuation today ; and if to-day a letter-carrier chooses ,tio change his mode of payment, and instead of being paid by the year to be paid on another basis, he is still entitled to his rights under the Superannuation Act.
\Iv CLARKE. Of 1882-83 ?


William Mulock: Whatever the date of the Superannuation Act is. Whether the hon. gentleman is arguing, or supporting the contention of others, or whatever view lie is advancing, it would be a great pity if if letter-carriers were misled, and by the suggestion that they are losing the benefit of the Superannuation Act, were to fail to avail themselves of the great pecuniary advantages that the Act of 1902 conferred upon them. A number of them have been (badly advised, prejudiced, and have failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of having a salary of $725 a year, which is waiting for them if they choose to accept it. A number, more wise, have availed themselves of it. It would be incorrect to state that all the old letter-cairiers had refused to accept the new law; a considerable number of them have. I gave some figures when I was asked that question some time ago. I do not remember the number now. but the number that have , already accepted the new Act and those

who are now anxious and waiting to accept it, will represent considerably more than a majority of the letter-carriers. They hare been misled or frightened, and have not therefore profited as they might have done by the Act. That does not affect their legal right in the case of sick-pay, for they have no such legal right. My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) stated that nothing in the law entitled letter-carriers or any other members of the civil service to pay when absent, for whatever cause, unless they are employed under the statute ; and if there is any class that the public expect to be on hand for the performance of their duty it is the letter-carriers. When one makes default it is too late in the morning to appoint a substitute to perform that morning's work. The state of affairs in some parts of the Dominion made it necessary to withdraw any excuse to letter-carriers not to be prompt and punctual in attendance at their duties. If any man comes under this Bill and works faithfully, he is well paid for it

as well paid as any class of workmen in Canada. If. however, they do not wish to avail themselves of this measure, it is entirely their own affair and their own loss.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would take this opportunity of asking the minister if it is a rule in the post office at Montreal and the substations, that when letter-carriers who are ill and who produce satisfactory proof to the postmaster, by a medical certificate or otherwise, that they are ill, they are deprived of their pay ?


William Mulock: The rule is, in the first instance, to withhold pay from any one who is absent from duty except during his holidays ; the cause of his absence is investigated in the first instance by the officers of the post office in question. They make their report accordingly, furnishing such evidence as bears upon the case, which is transmitted to the Deputy Postmaster General, and he thereupon pronounces upon the case, and decides whether, under all the circumstances, the employee should or should not be granted sick leave.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Is that a matter of law ?


William Mulock: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That strikes me as imposing upon the minor employees of the department because letter-carriers are minor employees-a very long and difficult procedure in order to obtain pay for periods of illness. I think, in a large place like Montreal where the postmaster is a trustworthy man, he ought to have power to exercise a certain discretion. Now, either the Postmaster General is rather harsh to the minor employees of his department, the letter-carriers in particular


William Mulock: I do not think so.
Mr. MONK-or else he is a much maligned man, because in Montreal the letter-carriers are dissatisfied, and those employed in the inside post office are dissatisfied, and it seems to me there is a consensus of dissatisfaction to-day, showing that there must be some grievance. I have already offered the Postmaster General to investigate it with him if he will come down


William Mulock: I found the hon. gentleman's statement was entirely without foundation.
Mr. MONK-but the hon. gentleman has never accepted my offer.


William Mulock: I investigated what he said, and found it absolutely baseless.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am still waiting for him to come to Montreal. When I brought up the question some time ago, of these men being obliged to work overtime without extra pay


William Mulock: That is absolutely untrue.
Mr. MONK-my hon. friend at that time caused to be placed in the post office at Montreal, as I am informed, in a conspicuous place, a notice that nobody should work overtime-that is the information I have-when I brought up the question of overtime-work a notice was given that nobody should be called upon to wrork overtime. Well, I think nobody should be called upon to work overtime. I think that notice was quite proper. But 1 think circumstances may arise


William Mulock: That is not the tenor of the notice.
Mr. MONK-that is the tenor, according to thte information given to me


William Mulock: My hon. friend is misinformed.
Mr. MONK-that no person should work overtime. I think there are circumstances where letter-carriers and minor employees, sorters, may be called upon to work overtime. That is done in every country. In the United States the postmaster who makes them work overtime without making them an allowance as extra pay is liable to dismissal. That is a rule which my hon. friend, if he has at heart the interest of the men, should make one of the regulations of his department. Let me give him one instance, that is the case of Mr. Henry Goodrick, who resides at Mount Royal Vale, and was employed as a letter-carrier by the Post Office Department for six years.
There never was a complaint against him, there never was a reprimand. He had walks, as they call them, in Montreal and vicinity and nobody had any complaint to make against him. He resigned and I called for a return of all the papers connected

with his resignation. They have been brought down and I have that return here. I do not wish to take up the time of my hon. friend to any great extent, but I wish to point to the case of Henry Goodrich as an example. Goodriek had been three years letter-carrier in Westmount. West-mount is an important municipality near Montreal and a sub-station. There never has been any complaint against him of any kind. In Westmount there is a very large mail. At the time I got the information I am now referring to, there were only five letter-carriers. There is a considerable population, there is considerable mail ami it has been positively asserted to me that the number of live letter-carriers is quite insufficient to distribute the mail within the time assigned for these letter-carriers. They have delivered the mails time and again, as I am informed, up to ten o'clock at night by lamplight and as an instance of the overcrowding of the mails in that locality, and of the insufficiency of the delivery staff, I may say that mails arriving at Westmount on the 27th December were detained in part and delivered only on the 3rd of February following. On the 12th February of this year Goodrich was removed from Westmount where he had been for three years during which time his conduct had been perfect, and during which time he had been living in the neighbouring municipality of Mount Royal Vale. He was removed to Point St. Charles without any reason being assigned to him therefor. There appears to be no reason in this letter that I have before me. Goldrick was ill. I refer to papers Nos. 33, 34, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32. From these documents produced I find that he furnished a satisfactory certificate given by a licensed practitioner, Dr. Day, as to the cause of his absence which was the serious illness with which he was afflicted and which appears to have been caused in part by over work. That certificate was placed in the hands of the postmaster, but his salary was not given to him for the time during which he was absent. What better proof could the postmaster have of the cause of the absence of this man than the certificate of a respectable doctor of the locality showing the grave nature of the illness with which he was afflicted. About a month after Good-rick had been removed from Westmount to Point St. Charles, an inquiry was held into the cause of dissatisfaction that might exist against him. He had asked for an investigation, he had inquired as to the cause of his removal which under the circumstances appeared to him to be more or less of a disgrace. In the month of April Mr. Beauso-leil, the postmaster of Montreal, instituted an inquiry. He made an investigation, to which Goodrich was not a party and of which he was not notified, into the report unfavourable to him which had been made by the postmistress of Westmount.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


William Mulock: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I want to ask him whether he thinks this is the proper occasion to discuss a question of this kind, because it is quite impossible for me to take it up now. I have none of my officers here. We are now discussing a Bill to amend the Post Office Act, and if the hon. gentleman wants to discuss a matter involving departmental action the proper time would be when we are considering the estimates, and when I would have my officers here to inform me of the facts. He is now undertaking to make an ex parte statement, an extreme one, and one which is incapable of explanation at the present time. Surely his own sense of propriety will tell him whether this is a proper occasion or not. It can be productive of no good on this occasion. .


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The question of the pay of the officers of the department and the particular question of allowing pay to those who are ill is a question under which the discussion of Goodrick's case comes up.
. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I think it is quite out of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are several sections of this Bill bringing up the question of the pay of superior officers and my contention is that sufficient consideration is not given to the minor officers of the department. It is possible that my hon. friend the Postmaster General may not have the officers of the department here to assist him but I have only a few words more to say in reference to Mr. Goodrick's case, and my hon. friend can have the statement which I have made and explain it when the opportunity seems suitable to him. This ex parte investigation by the postmaster was conducted a month after the removal of Goodriek from the walk upon which he had been engaged, and although he was an old employee of the department and although this investigation was one to which he must be a party he received no notice whatever of it. Under these circumstances I think there is proof in this very return that whilst my hon. friend the Postmaster General is anxious to secure proper treatment for the superior officers of his department those in minor positions are not given sufficient attention. Of course, as the hon. Postmaster General said, there is no special knowledge required by a letter-carrier, but it is a position of trust of responsibility and of hard work, and if a man has been in that position for six, seven or ten years he is entitled to as much consideration as any other men of the civil service. In conclusion I find from this return that ample proof was given of the illness from which this man suffered. He was removed without cause being indicated to him from Westmount to Point St. Charles and an Investigation ex parte was started

against him a month later, the result of which investigation was communicated to the department. I contend that he was entitled to an investigation and to the opportunity of answering the charges made against him by the postmistress of West-mount and by some other letter-carrier who had made a report unfavourable to him. He asked for an investigation. He received none. Sly hon. friend can take communication of the return brought down and of the remarks which I have made already in respect to Mr. Goodrick's case, and I am sure he will find thait Goodrich, although he has tendered his resignation since he has found that he cannot obtain justice from his immediate superior and from the department, is entitled to an investigation even now and my hon. friend should grant the investigation that has been applied for.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) referred to the wage paid to letter-carriers as being $2.25 a day.
I understand that under the Act there are three or four different grades. A few days ago I met a letter-carrier on the street in Toronto, a man whom I have known for a number of years. He has been in the employ of the Post Office Department as a letter-carrier for at least ten years, and I think he said fifteen years-I am not sure. He has been engaged in that capacity for ten years at any rate. He said that he was getting $1.60 a day. 1 know him to be a very good man, a worthy man in every sense. He cited an instance of another man who was appointed only five years ago and who was getting $2.25 a day. Would the Postmaster General say who does the grading ?


William Mulock: If the hon. gentleman will give me the particulars with the names of two officers, I will give him full information and I am sure he will find there is a satisfactory explanation.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who does the grading of letter-carriers ?


William Mulock: They are graded by Act of parliament.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, but I was under the impression that it could be done outside an Act of parliament, that is not right.


William Mulock: A letter-carrier when appointed enters in grade ' A.' The statute provides when he may be transferred to grade ' B ' and to another grade, and in every case a man is transferred unless he has done something to disqualify himself for promotion. Of course the postmasters in each city are anxious to recommend men for promotion and the promotions stimulate officers to perform better services,. If a letter-carrier does not get promotion, it is his own fault.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is in the hands of the postmaster ?


William Mulock: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the Postmaster General that if a letter-carrier elects to come under the provision of this new Act, chapter 28 of the Statutes of 1902, he does not lose the superannuation to which he was entitled under the Act of 1882-8 if he entered under thait Act ?


William Mulock: I have tried to make it as clear as possible, by reading the statute. When an Act says that nothing in that Act shall affect the status of an officer under some other law, how can the new law operate in conflict with what it expressly provides ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is true, I must admit that; but I laboured under the impression that if the letter-carriers accepted the provisions of the hon. gentleman's Act, they barred themselves from the advantages of the Superannuation Act of 1882-3. I think a great many of the letter-carriers also were under that impression.


William Mulock: When the Bill of 1902 was under discussion, my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) whom I see in his place, put this question to me, and I read the section dealing with it. That hon. member acquiesced in the sufficiency of the words for he made no answer after I read them.


John Graham Haggart: If the letter-carrier accepts the provisions of the new Act does he not abandon all rights which he had under the old Act?


William Mulock: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand he abandons none of them. The law of 1902 provides for five grades. These men may be graded down again.


William Mulock: Yes, so may any officer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose that an officer has been graded down, and that he has been paying into the superannuation fund the required percentage of the salary paid in a higher grade than the one to which he is reduced ; and suppose that he has been reduced from grade ' E ' to ' C.' In grade ' E ' he would receive $2.25 per day, but in grade ' C ' $1.75 per day. When such a man comes to be superannuated, under what grade would he receive his superannuation allowance ? He may have been paying under the higher grade into the superannuation fund for years, but at the time of his superannuation he may be in the lower grade.


William Mulock: It is quite competent for the Governor General in Council to lower the status of any civil servant.

A man may be in the first class of the civil service but may be lowered to a lower grade and if his salary was reduced with his grading his superannuation would be computed in proportion. The Superannuation Act provides that superannuation shall be based upon the average salary for the last three years of the officer's tenure in office. It is so rare a thing to lower an officer in status that the clause may perhaps serve as a little warning, but I do not think it will ever have any other effect. The whole tendency in the public service is to be lenient and therefore I hardly think it is a practical question.
On section 7,


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the effect of this 7


William Mulock: The section that is referred to here, provides for classes who are exempt from passing the promotion examination. This adds to that section the words ' sorters and stampers ' so that they also will be exempt from passing promotion examinations.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The effect will be to do away with the necessity of passing the civil service examination.


William Mulock: Where an officer is doing work of this kind he undergoes a certain ex.Tmination by the higher officials in the office to see whether he is familiar with the work of the department.
Mr. HA6GART. Does this allow a sorter or stamper to be promoted to a third-class clerkship ?
SIR WILLIAM MULOCK. It is not deal-irg with that feature at present. A stamper or sorter or any one in the service who wants a promotion will have to undergo an examination provided by the civil service Act. It is the view of the department that when it comes to men who are doing postoffice work inside, the examination should not be a civil service examination but an examination by the officers of the department on the work they are going to do. We have a provision in the Act for examining these officers when they are being promoted, for examining them departmentally.


John Graham Haggart: Virtually what I said is correct; you do not need an examination unless you are promoting the man to a clerkship. The object of it is to allow a sorter or stamper to be made a third-class clerk without any other than a technical examination in the office as to his duties.


William Mulock: Of course he has had to pass some examination in order to enter the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this section practically annuls the provision of the Civil Service Act; and if it should apply to this branch, you would think that Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
it might apply with equal propriety to almost every other branch.


William Mulock: I do not know about other branches, but I know that in the Post Office Department what we chiefly require is men who understand the technical work of the post office. When a man has been appointed stamper and assorter, he has commenced his career, and before being transferred to a higher class, he should be examined departmentally. That is the object of this clause.
On section 8-chief post office superintendent's salary,


William Mulock: The present law fixes the salary at $3,000 a year on appointment, no more and no less. The appointee is therefore appointed to the maximum at once. By this provision the maximum is raised from $3,000 to $3,500, the minimum being $3,000, with an annual increase of $100 till the maximum is attained.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-transportation expenses of letter-carriers.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the necessity of this legislation 7


William Mulock: The object is rather apparent. Street railway companies enjoy a monopoly, and in some instances are very exacting ; and this is a method by which we can perhaps secure the performance of the service satisfactorily, and without having to submit to exactions.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount you have to pay now to street railways for transporting letter-carriers 7 Does it average $50 a year ?


William Mulock: I could not say.


John Graham Haggart: Where are you entitled to free transportation 7


William Mulock: In Winnipeg only.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How will that work out practically 7 Will the hon. gentleman cite a case where this clause would become operative 7


William Mulock: In every city except Winnipeg where we have a letter-carrier delivery system.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Take the ease of Toronto. I suppose the company there charge the government a bulk sum for the right to send its letter-carriers on the cars to their various routes. Will it be optional to the letter-carrier to say whether he will avail himself of the $50 or not 7


William Mulock: No. The interest of the service will determine it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 11,
William Mulock: At present the salaries are determined by section ' b ' of the schedule, but that is only intended to apply to city post offices, on what is commonly known as the civil service basis. There are now growing up a good many places called cities which are not on the civil service basis. Therefore it is left to the Governor in Council to determine whether such post offices shall or shall not be on a civil service basis. If so section ' b ' applies. It does not make any change in the present conditions. I propose to add the following section :
It shall not be lawful to transmit by mail any books, magazines, periodicals, circulars, newspapers or other publications which contain advertisements representing marvellous, extravagant, or grossly improbable cures, or creative or healing powers by means of medicines, appliances or devices referred to In such advertisements.


John Graham Haggart: That would give you power to stop any newspaper in Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any appeal from the decision of the department ?


William Mulock: What does the hon. gentleman suggest ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not able to suggest anything. This is very drastic power to give any one.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I do not see that the parliament of Canada is called on to act as censor over what the people shall read. It is just another little bit of that repressive legislation to which I object. Let the people' read what they have a mind to. The minister will run foul of the newspapers. The medical men may have put up a combine with him, he will find the newspapers on his back and rightly so.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the Postmaster General tell us if a similar law is in force in the United States, and if he has seen any report as to the result of its working ?


William Mulock: I do not know the experience of any law on the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a law in the States.


William Mulock: They are beginning to apply it now. My hon. friend from West Toronto inquired whether there would be any appeal. An appeal from whom ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose it would be the duty of some one to determine whether periodicals, circulars, magazines and newspapers contain advertisements of grossly improbable cures and so forth. In such a case will not the newspaper have some right to appeal ?


William Mulock: The Post Office Act vests the power entirely in the Postmaster General. It would not do for an officer in the first place to exercise his discretion. Any one in the responsible position of minister, before he exercises such an authority, would have to lay down general rules. There would have to be some regulations given a newspaper or periodical and careful consideration of what is and what is not proper advertising. To-day there is a crying evil. People who are in extremely ill health, who have lost all faith in the regular practitioners, will grasp at straws and become victims of swindlers who advertise these fraudulent devices for restoring health. Some papers to-day are running an advertisement that is positively shocking.


William Findlay Maclean: Such as electric belts.


William Mulock: That may be shocking too. We see advertisements of people professing to have supernatural powers. The hon. gentleman from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) may think that the public are not all gullible, but considering the enormous extent of these advertisements and the fortunes made by the people who are carrying out these schemes, and considering that there is no effective way of reaching these frauds under the law of the land, we cannot too soon direct our attention to save the unwary from becoming the victims of such wicked devices.


Samuel Hughes: But the Postmaster General will note that the supernatural gentleman to whom he refers is not touched by this amendment. It says ' by means of medicines, appliances or devices.' I take' it that that means human devices-not supernatural. Surely he is not going to legislate beyond the bounds of the Dominion of Canada ? If he will read his amendment he will see the ridiculousness of the whole thing.


William Findlay Maclean: And how does the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) propose to deal with the political quacks who infest this country ?


William Mulock: We must leave them to their constituents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How would this amendment meet such a case as this V-I was yesterday looking over a paper and saw an account of a marvellous cure effected through attendance at a certain shrine. Any medical man would ridicule the idea of cures being effected in the way described. There would be no way to account for it except on the assumption of a miracle having been performed. The question is would this apply to such cases and would the newspaper giving this account of alleged cures be excluded from the mails ?


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I think that the object which the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) has in view is a very

good one. There is too much trash disseminated amongst the people. But the question arises in my mind, who shall be the judge as to what is trash and what is not ? It seems to me that the Postmaster General will have a difficult task before him to say what shall and what shall not he published. Of course, if he admits my advertisement to the papers some of the Tories will say that he is not acting fairly, and the Grits will say the same. We should have somebody who is not a politician to decide these matters. If the hon. gentleman is going to carry out this system, some censor should be appointed to say what matter should be disseminated amongst the people and what should not. I am satisfied the papers contain a good deal of trash and that the people read the trash in preference to reading the truth, but the difficulty will be to decide what is the truth. I am strongly in favour of keeping quack medicine advertisements, out of the papers, if possible, for they do the people no good.


Samuel Hughes: I believe the hon. Postmaster General will find that anybody publishing an improper or obscene advertisement can be reached and punished under the criminal code. And as to this paternalistic scheme of his to guard the people in case some one should take some quack medicine that the doctor would not prescribe, I must say I cannot favour it. Let the people buy what they want. Why, what would Senator Fulford say to this kind of thing ? He will not thank the Postmaster General for interfering with his advertisements of pink pills or with the newspapers that print those advertisements. The mere fact that he makes money out of them is no reason against them. Half these fellows who advertise patent medicines put out medicines that they believe may do some good. There is a little cayenne pepper in the liniments or a little ipecac in the medicines. Why, if the people want to use these things let them do so-they are like regular old wives' medicines, if they do not do any good, they will not do much harm. You will never make the people wise or cautious by legislation. The people learn that by experience. The hay-fork men came around the country but it did not take the farmers long to get on to them ; and the lightening-rod men and all the others-the farmers soon learn. The farmers are not such fools as the Postmaster General seems to think they are. Why, they even get on to the politicians. The Postmaster General himself is known all over the country by the farmers. He used to come around and sing his little song about 1 bigger patches on our pants.' But the farmer is not as gullible as the Postmaster General evidently thinks he is and he will take care of himself.


William Mulock: It seems to have taken the farmers of North Victoria a long time to learn wisdom.


Jabel Robinson: 


Samuel Hughes: They are alnong the very best. The Postmaster General came in there with his political quack medicines, but the boys were on to him in a minute and they stood right by the old family physician.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the third reading of the Bill.
William Findlay Maclean: I think the Postmaster General should not press the third reading at this time. This is a very important amendment that he has introduced, and without any notice given I believe. Certainly, the press of the country and others who are interested should have an opportunity to present any views that they have to present on the subject within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours.


William Mulock: I think that is a reasonable request.
Motion for third reading withdrawn.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at Three o'clock.
GENERAL INSPECTION ACT-AMENDMENT.	'
Bill (No. 124) to amend the General Inspection Act-Sir Richard Cartwright-read the second time and House in committee thereon.
On section 1,


Mr. BLAIN.: Will the minister give us an explanation of the weaknesses of the former legislation ?


Hon.   H.@: This section defines the word 'dealer' as meaning the person or firm manufacturing or importing, or having in his or its possession for sale, or exposing or offering for sale, any binder twine. Questions have been raised as to whether parties who have purchased binder twine from other parties and exposed it for sale should be held responsible for shortage. This Act involves the necessity of all parties (who expose binder twine for sale taking the consequences of shortage.


Richard Blain: If a dealer purchases binder twine from a manufacturer and a farmer purchases it from the dealer and it is found to be short, the farmer can proceed against the dealer rather than the manufacturer-is that it ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: Yes. The dealer is held responsible for selling short twine ; of course, he will have his remedy against the manufacturer.


Mr. CLANCY.: While I sympathize with the desire that those purchasing twine shall

get just what they pay for, both as to length and quality, is it not going a long way to make an innocent dealer, who has no means of knowing whether the twine is what it is represented to be, responsible for any shortage ? If that is done, it seems to me no man will dare to undertake to deal in twine, because he may sell it in perfect good faith. The answer is that he has re course against the manufacturer. But that is rather an awkward position. I am heartily in favour of any measure that will protect the consumer ; but I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce will himself conclude that to make every dealer in the country responsible for a thing that it is impossible for him to know, because he has no guilty knowledge of the Act, is going a very long way. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman is able to point to legislation of a similar kind elsewhere ; if he can, it would be useful to the committee.	*


Richard John Cartwright: I am afraid that unless you make it pretty stringent, you give no protection at all to the farmer. My hon. friend will notice that the dealer has a remedy straight against the manufacturer who had sold him any bindei twine which was short. I do not think that any hardship will result from compelling the dealer to be responsible in the first instance, and he will be able to protect himself if he receives short measure from any manufacturer. I am afraid that to exempt the dealer would be merely offering a premium to the fraud we are desirous of restraining. My hon. friend will observe that a considerable amount of twine has been offered to the farmers which was short. I can assure him that I have received a great many communications from farmers and others, all commending the object of the government in this matter in giving them full measure in the matter of twine. I do not think any practical harm will result from it.


James Clancy: There is much in what the right hon. gentleman says. But it would be very pertinent here to inquire what the inspector of binder twine is doing, if he makes his visits as he should to the establishments where twine is being manufactured, and where it is imparted. It seems to me that if he is doing his duty there would be really no occasion for any widespreaa complaint. I may just mention here-it is a very difficult thing to say-that binder twine that is known to be short has been reported and the attention of the inspector has been called to It, as I am informed-I give this for what it is worth, I do not vouch for the accuracy of my information, because I have no personal knowledge of it. But I am informed that in one case at least, where it was brought to his notice, the inspector never proceeded against the parties who had manufacturered twine contrary to the law. Now, if there are complaints that have brought forth letters to the hon. gentleman,
it would seem to emphasize that statement as having some element of truth in it.


Richard John Cartwright: If the hon. gentleman will give me the particulars, I will make inquiries into them.


James Clancy: I will give them to the hon. gentleman privately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the date of the Inspection Act relating to binder twine ?


Richard John Cartwright: I think 1901.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: 
James Clancy: It goes farther than that. Suppose that the law has been entirely complied with in the direction the hon. gentleman indicates and it is found that notwithstanding that the twine is short of the length marked upon the tag the dealer is then liable without recourse.


Archibald Campbell: Then he has recourse against the manufacturer for selling him wrongly marked twine. It is the dealer's duty in the first place to see that the law is complied with. When he buys the twine he must see that the number of feet to the pound is stamped properly upon it and if a dealer sells that twine wrongly marked or stamped he is guilty of fraud.


Mr. GILMOUR.: It is rather the manufacturer's duty to see that the twine is marked according to law and that it contains the number of feet stamped upon the tag. Have the inspectors not time to go around and inspect all the factories and see that the provisions of the law in regard to the length of the twine are complied with ?


Archibald Campbell: I think the manufacturer is certainly liable, and there is a penalty declared against him if he wrongly marks binder twine, but in case there is collusion

between a dealer and a manufacturer and the dealer gets a lot of binder twine that is wrongly marked, he should be held responsible. Suppose a manufacturer is outside the country, and you cannot follow him, and suppose a dealer is imposing on the farmers by selling them binder twine which is not up to the standard, you must hold the dealer responsible, and he must see when he buys his twine that it complies with the law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can the dealer follow the manufacturer outside of the country if the twine is improperly marked ?


Archibald Campbell: He need not buy his twine from that manufacturer. That is his remedy.


James Gilmour: It is necessary to protect the dealer as well as the farmer. If the dealer buys from an outside manufacturer, before the binder twine is allowed to come into the country, care should be taken to see that it complies with the law. If the twine is manufactured in this country it should be inspected before it leaves the factory. Many dealers would not be able to tell how many feet there were to the pound in a ball of twine, and would not, therefore, know whether it complied with the law or not. It is unfair to the dealer to place such a responsibility upon him unless you provide for an inspection such as I have suggested.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There is nothing harsh in the provisions of this section. The same principle applies to the grocery trade. If a grocer sells a pound of adulterated pepper to an innocent purchaser he is liable. He has bis recourse against the wholesale dealer, but primarily he is responsible. It is an easy thing for the dealer in binder twine to protect himself by simply purchasing from reputable manufacturing establishments. There are no manufacturers of a reputable character engaged in the trade putting up improperly marked binder twine, and all the dealer has to do is to see when he makes his contract that he makes it with a respectable firm. If you are going to do the farmer any good you have to reach the man who is selling twine, because he is better able to protect himself from the charge of selling improperly marked twine than the farmer is to protect himself from imposition. There is no hardship in this case, and the law, to be effective, must be enforced against the dealer.


Mr. STEPHENS.: If when the binder twine is imported into the country it could be examined and passed by a competent person before it goes into the hands of the dealer, it would be better and more simple. It is a difficult thing to know whether binder twine is running the length that is marked on the tag or not, and it puts the dealer to considerable trouble to find out, whereas, if a man who was well up in the business could examine the twine as it entered the country, and pass it before it entered into Mr. CAMPBELL.
the hands of the dealer, it would be much more simple and much more effective.


Richard John Cartwright: That is done at the manufactory as far as is practicable.


George Stephens: I have reference to imported twine more than to twine made in the country.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose a dealer buys twine believing it to be all right, the fact that it was found afterwards to be not all right would be only prima facie evidence against him in the court. I take it that he would be able to explain to the court if the purchase was made in good faith by him. The fact that it was found not to comply with the law would not be sufficient to convict him. Surely the dealer would have the right to explain it. Does the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce say that the very fact of the dealer having in his possession twine which might be properly marked. but which was not of the proper length, and who sells it to another party although he bought it in good faith, would be liable to conviction under the Act ?


Richard John Cartwright: I think so.


John Graham Haggart: The ordinary interpretation of the statute would indicate that the fact would only be prima facie evidence as to the guilt of the party, and that he would be at liberty to explain afterwards.


Richard John Cartwright: I think it will render the Act almost null and void unless you compel the dealer to be responsible for giving the article that he professes to give and that he gets money for. The dealer receives a certain sum of money for selling a certain number of feet of binder twine, and if he does not sell that number of feet of binder twine he will do so at his own peril, and he ought to be convicted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the law make it obligatory that every ball of binder twine shall have a stamp with the name of the manufacturer upon it ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: On to-day's order paper there is a question which shows that fifty-five samples of jam out of seventy-four have been adulterated, and if I understood the reply given to that question, it was that the men selling that jam were to be prosecuted. Why should a man who sells adulterated jam innocently be prosecuted any more than the man who sells binder twine which does not comply with the law ?


James Clancy: Because in one case there are no inspectors, while in the other there are inspectors.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: This trade is inspected. Any man who is engaged in the grocery trade is supposed to sell pure goods, and the only recourse he has is to fall back upon the man

from whom he purchased his goods. The same is true of those engaged in the sale of binder twine.	i


Mr. WRIGHT.: I think there is no difficulty in carrying out this provision. To give an example of how this matter works out, I may say that not long ago I bought a quantity of lace which was made in Germany. Each one of these packages of lace was supposed to contain twelve yards. When we sold the lace we found that there were not twelve yards in each package. The purchasers came on us for redress, and we had to refund the money. We at once wrote to the firm in Montreal from whom we had purchased these goods and they made it g;ood to us. The same thing will apply to the* sale of binder twine. If we sell binder twine it is right that we should be liable just the same as if we sell any other kind of goods.
On section 121,
Upon or attached to every ball of binder twine sold or offered for sale in Canada there shall be a label with the name of the dealer and the number of feet of twine per pound in the ball marked or stamped thereon.


Mr.   BRAIN@: The law at present is that the manufacturer of binder twine must put upon each ball of twine a tag showing the number of feet per pound contained in the ball. Are we to understand that under this section 121 the ball of twine is to have a similar tag attached to it ?	.


Richard John Cartwright: If my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will read that in connection with section 120 he will see that the word ' dealer ' included the parties manufacturing. The parties manufacturing are covered by the express definition given.
On section 122,


Richard John Cartwright: The first and second subsections of this subsection considerably reduce the penalties formerly imposed.
On section 123,


Richard John Cartwright: I wish to call the attention of the committee to an amendment which I shall move :
Except that binder twine manufactured in Canada for export need not be labelled with the name of the dealer but there shall be attached to every ball so manufactured a label with the number of feet to be found in the ball, marked or stamped thereon, in the same manner as when for sale in Canada, and the onus of proof that such twine was manufactured for export shall rest upon the manufacturer, dealer, carrier or other person in whose possession the twine is found.
2. Every manufacturer or dealer who falsely represents any binder twine found in his possesJ sion as manufactured for export or who shall sell or offer for sale for consumption in Canada any such twine shall be liable to a penalty of $1,000.
The object you can see is not to interfere with Canadian trade which is springing up with the United States, but at the same time I do not want them to send across the line and then return to us twine in regard to which all the conditions of the law have not been fulfilled.


Richard Blain: Is that date in section 3,
' 1902,' correct ?
(Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. That was the date fixed in the original statute. I do not think there is much risk of twine remaining on hand from that time but I have left it in to avoid any danger of unjust dealing with these people.


James Clancy: I must say that it is very gratifying to find the Minister of Trade and Commerce now legislating to promote trade between Canada and the United States. There is a combine in the United States that has raised the price of twine high enough there and in Canada to enable them to import fibre into Canada manufacture it here and pay the duty on the twine going into the United States. That is the price our farmers are paying for twine to-day by reason of the hon. gentlemen destroying every binder twine factory in Canada by giving free binder twine.


Richard John Cartwright: I think my hon. friend is misinformed there.


James Clancy: Not at all.


Richard John Cartwright: I think so.


James Clancy: There is a duty if I am not mistaken of 20 per cent on binder twine going from Canada into the United States, yet our manufacturers in Canada instead of selling to our own people are finding a market in the United States. The price is high enough there to enable them to sell it, and yet our price is the same as the American price.


George Stephens: I think the hon. gentleman is in error. The twine that goes from Canada into the United States is a class of twine that goes there free of duty.


Richard Blain: What class ?


George Stephens: I think it is a class of twine that runs less than 600 feet to the pound.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is a twine in which there is no manilla.


George Stephens: It is made from sisal or New Zealand hemp.


James Clancy: It is all kinds that we make here.


George Stephens: The twine that goes into the United States is of a kind that enters that country free of duty ?


James Clancy: What information has the hon. gentleman that it goes into the United States free of duty ?


George Stephens: I looked up the Act some years ago, if I remember that is the class.


Richard Blain: Did I understand the hon. member for Brant to say that all the binder twine manufactured in Canada in which there is no manilla can enter the United States free of duty ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is my impression.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman state that as a fact ?


Mr. HE  YD@: I think so.


Richard Blain: You do not know.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is easy to find out; we can get the United States tariff.


Richard Blain: I thought that if the hon. gentleman was informing the committee possibly he would know himself.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The binder twine question is one that deserves the very greatest consideration. It is a well known fact, admitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-day, that Canada makes more twine than can be sold in Canada. For years twine made in Canada has been to the United States, notwithstanding the fact that there is an open market for it in Canada. On the other hand, we import immense quantities of twine from the United States. We consume in all about 28,000,000 pounds of twine, of which about one-half is American and the other half Canadian. So far as we can gather, there is a hugh combination in the manufacture and sale of twine, in which the American manufacturers predominate. They seem willing to give the Canadian manufacturers one-half of the Canadian market provided the American manufacturers fix the price; and that is the reason we are to-day paying the enormous price we are for twine. I apprehend that the Peterborough manufacturer for whose purpose this clause has been introduced, to enable him to get rid of his twine in the United States, is not allowed to say at what price he will sell his twine in Canada. It must be sold at the price fixed by the American combine. The dealer in twine in an ordinary country village does not fix the price of his twine. The price is dictated to him by the American trust, even if he buys from a Canadian dealer. I do not feel like making it any easier for these people to carry on their operations. The farmers are fleeced every year by being compelled to pay three, four or five cents a pound more for their twine than they ought to pay. The whole thing is the result of the change that took Mr. STEPHENS.
place on the 1st of January, 1898, when twine was put upon the free list. Had we maintained a good round duty on twine, sufficient to protect the market of this country for the Canadian manufacturer, we should have had all our twine made in Canada and sold to the farmers of this country on fair terms and at fair prices, and this American combination wrould not have had the power to interfere with us as they have been doing during the past two or three years. Our government, while exercising this paternal care over the binder twine industry, insisting that the measurements shall be right and that the name of the manufacturer shall be put on the tag, should institute an inquiry into the whole matter, and find out why it is being sold at three, four or five cents more than it is worth, and why the American manufacturer is allowed to fix the price of every pound of twine sold in this country.


Aaron Abel Wright: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Do I understand him to say that the retailer has the price fixed by the manufacturer ?


David Henderson: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: No. I am in the trade, and I know.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman's price is fixed for him, and if he does not sell it at that price, he gets no more twine.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: As a matter of fact, that is not true. I sell twine also.


David Henderson: All right; the hon. gentlemen can do it this year, but wait until next year. I admit that they can sell it this year. When they buy twine, they can sell it at what price they choose ; but let them wait until next year and see whether they will sell any twine then or not. This is something the government should investigate. There is no reason why, when we consume 28,000,000 pounds of twine in Canada, our manufacturers should come to parliament and get legislation to enable them to ship their surplus to the United States to find a market when there is a large market in Canada for all they make.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What percentage of the twine used in Canada is made in Canada V


David Henderson: Fifty per cent in round numbers. Our manufacturers seem to be allowed to sell only that much, and if they do not agree to that, the American manufacturers are sufficiently strong to crush them out of the market. If our manufacturers did not submit to these tyrannical measures, there would not be a pound of twine manufactured in Canada in three years. So the government have something more to do than simply to fix the length of a pound of twine and to require the name of the manufacturer to ,be put on the

tag. They must go a great deal further and get at the bottom of the -whole matter, and see that our manufacturers are protected, and not forced to sell their twine outside of Canada for the reason that they are not permitted to sell it in Canada. 1 approve of the Bill so far as it goes, protecting the farmer against short lengths and short weight. Any legislation which we can put on the statute-book to protect the farmer it is our duty to pass ; but we must protect him not only in regard to the length, but in regard to the price of the twine. There is no doubt that during tee years gone by the price to the farmers was increased as much as three cents a pound by short lengths. A farmer paying for what was represented as 600 fedt and getting only flSO feet was simply paying three cents a pound more than he ought to have paid. We are trying to remedy that; but we must go further and break up this huge trust that enables the American manufacturer to fix the price of twine in Canada.


George Stephens: I am astonished to hear the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) say that the dealer's price is fixed for him by the manufacturer.


David Henderson: I did not say by the manufacturer. I say it is fixed by the American trust.


George Stephens: It is not. I have been in the .binder twine business since it has been established in Canada, and I have never yet had any dealer or manufacturer say to me at what price I should sell the twine, or even ask at what price I was selling it. I have handled as much as 100 tons in a year. I have never known a year in which I coulij not buy twine freely except the year 1896, when the government of the day went into a combine with the Canadian Cordage Company of Montreal and tied up all the factories except one or two, and then they would not give you a price on twine but would sell it and put the price on afterwards.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask what twine sold at that year ?


George Stephens: It was very low and would have been considerably lower if the government had not tied up all the twine they made and allowed the Consumers' Cordage Company to sell at their own prices. True the twine was cheap, but the reason was the hemp was very cheap. That was before the Cuban war and the hemp was sold in New York for less than four cents a pound. The labour market was also very cheap. That was during the hard time of the national policy, which made labour cheap.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I rvyant to explain this binder twine duty business and put the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) right. That hon.
gentleman evidently did not know what he was talking about. I said that only binder twine containing manilla was subject to a duty. Let me read from the Customs Tariff of the United States :
491. Binding twine : All binding twine manufactured from New Zealand hemp istle or Tampico fiber, sisal grass, or sunn, or a mixture of any two or more of them, of single ply and measuring not exceeding six hundred feet to the pound ; provided, that articles mentioned in this paragraph if imported from a country which lays an import duty on like articles imported from the United'States, shall be subject to a duty of one-half of one cent per pound.
That shows that there is no duty on binder twine except that which contains manilla.


David Henderson: That is the kind we make.


Mr. T. I. THOMSON.: I think that the binder twine question presents a much more serious aspect than that shown by the hon. member for Halton. If there is an American combine for the purpose of fixing the price of binder twine in Canada and extorting larger figures from our farmers than are necessary, the government of Canada is not altogether blameless. The Conservatives established a plant at the Kingston penitentiary some years ago, so that we might make a certain quantity of twine and put it on the market to regulate the price. And it was put on the market at a reasonable advance on cost to prevent combinations from charging the farmers extortionate prices. The Ontario government did likewise. They put a plant at the Central prison for that purpose. But during all the years the present administration has been iu office, the manufacturers have been extorting exaggerated prices from the farmers, and the twine manufactured in the Kingston penitentiary and the Central prison at Toronto cannot be bought a cent cheaper than the American trust charge for twine ; yet these gentlemen, while they charge the farmers just as much as the American combine charges him, will sell to their friends, the jobbers, for one-half what they charge the farmers. They sell to the farmers mixed manilla twine at nine and a half to ten cents a pound, while they sell to their friends 'hundreds of tons at four and five cents a pound. The government have the key of the position. Had they placed their twine on the market at reasonable prices, no combine could charge more. There must be some self-interest, some conspiracy in order that the farmers may be charged more than reasonable profit on the twine manufactured by the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Really I cannot allow such ridiculous statements to go unchallenged. I cannot understand how any sane man can seriously get up and make such a statement as the hon. gentleman has

just given utterance to. We are told that we regulate the price of hinder twine, of which some 28,000,000 pounds are used in Canada, and we do this despite the fact that the whole product of the Kingston penitentiary is some 400 tons. How, with such an infinitesimal production we can control the price is to me inexplicable. The hon. gentleman further said that we sold the binder twine to our friends at three and four cents a pound less than to the general public. What authority has he for that statement ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The Auditor Gene-eral's Report. I will lay it before you in a moment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I should like to see it. We put up for sale our output each spring. We send our circulars around the country telling our farmers that each one of them on application may have a certain quantity at cost price wjth one cent added. We have issued this circular the last three years. Those who take an intelligent interest in what is going on know that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You sell the twine at ten and a half cents a pound, but it is only 600 feet to the pound. The ordinary twine is 650 feet to the pound. When you take into consideration the length and add the freight, the price is about the same as you can buy it at in any village in the country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That only shows that binder twine is sold at a reasonable price, because our twine is sold at actual cost plus one cent, and we pay fifty cents a day for our labour,and buy the raw material at the lowest cash price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that last year or the year before, at the end of the season the balance was sold out to Mr. Connolly for about 5 cents a pound, whereas the farmers had to pay 10 cents ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There has not been a pound of twine sold to Connolly since 1896. In 1896 Mr. Connolly, through a man named Galliher, succeeded in buying up the whole output of the year, and as a result not a single pound of binder twine was put by the government on the market that year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may be mistaken in the name, but I know the twine was sold and the excuse given for selling it at so low a price was that it would deteriorate if held over. But our farmers have had twine lying from year to year in their barns and it did not deteriorate. I have frequently put the question to them, and they have invariably said that keeping it over for a year made no difference. But that was the excuse given to us for selling this large quantity of twine at so much less than the price at which it was sold to the farmer.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is confusing two things, Mr. FITZPATRICK.
and I think he will agree with me, when I explain the matter, that is the case. Two or three years ago-I have forgotten exactly when it was-a resolution was passed in this House ordering the Department of Justice not to dispose of the binder twine except in small lots to farmers and to sell it at a certain small advance above cost. During the season the binder twine was offered for sale to the farmers, but they took only a small proportion of it, something like one-quarter of it. So we had something like three-quarters left over at the end of the season, and that was sold by public auction. That is why the twine realized this small figure. And what was the result ? At the next session of parliament it was decided that, instead of proceeding that way the Department of Justice should have a free hand like other manufacturers, to sell the twine, preference being given to the farmers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was because 'preference was not given to the farmers that it had to be sold by public auction.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When I say that it was sold by public auction, I do not mean that an auctioneer stood up and sold it on the market, but that tenders were called for.
(Mr. SPROULE. We tried to bring it out that these advertisements were not put in the papers to say that the twine was for sale to any person who would pay the highest price for it, but circulars were sent out to individuals who were in the habit of handling twine, and they put in their tenders. So far as our inquiry led to real information, we were inclined to believe that there was an understanding among these parties as to who was- to get the twine and what price was to be given for it. Just as, on a former occasion, when the twine made in the Kingston Penitentiary was sold to H. N. Bate & Sons, and the Hobbs Hardware Company of London, the same individuals controlled the Central Prison output and so controlled the price of binder twine for Canada.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is no wonder that the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. T. I. Thomson) left the House when the facts were given. But I see that he has now returned. If the hon. gentleman will turn to 43-M of the Auditor General's Report he will find an account of the sales of binder twine and the prices received :
32,9451 pounds pure maniUa (600 feet) at 101 and 101 cents.
8,590 pounds pure manilla (650 feet) 111 cents and 11J cents.
34,586 pounds sisal at 91 cents, 91 cents and a. cents.
51,091 mixed manilla (monarch) at 101 cents and 101 cents.
38,7141 pounds Kingston special at 91 cents and 91 cents.

84,724 pounds extra standard at 10J cents and 10J cents.
It does not look us if they sacrifled very much if they sold the binder twine *at those figures.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What year was that ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is in the Auditor General's Report of last year.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am very glad that the bon. gentleman for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has given me the opportunity to put this properly before the House. I turn to the sessional papers for 1902-3, volume XXXVII, No. 1, and I find there the statement of sales presented by the Auditor General :
Maple leaf (pure manilla), 17,325 pounds at 10 cents.
Mixed manilla (Monarch)-
6,783 pounds at 101 cents.
12,960 pounds at 101 cents.
12.905	pounds at 10 cents.
220.000	pounds at 5 1-10 cents.
Sisal-
1,358 pounds at 91 cents.
8.000	pounds at 91 cents.
15.905	pounds at 9 cents.
200,065 pounds at 61 cents.
60,025 pounds at 4% cents.
Now, I think that is pretty conclusive proof that the American trust controls the price of binder twine in Canada, and that this has been the case since the duty was removed. And if the trust has charged the people more than is legitimate, what excuse is there for the government 7 the Minister of Justice states, they are selling this twine at a small advance on cost. But I ask what justification is there for selling the great bulk of it for half the price to jobbers at which it is sold to the farmers 7 He has not explained that, and I will give him an opportunity to do so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The'whole thing was explained while the hon. gentleman (Mr. T. I. Thomson) was out of the chamber a few minutes ago.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I have quoted from the Auditor General's Report in the sessional papers of 1903, showing the sales made in the previous years. This is not for 1890.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall this be adopted ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I think the Minister of Justice should give some explanation. 'This is a very serious charge.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, not at all serious.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The combination were charging more for the twine than is legitimate and the government were charging as much as the combination. Of course there was no object in the farmer buying from the government. Yet, when the gov-236
eminent could not sell their twine owing to the high price asked by the government, they sold it to their friends at low prices, and the farmer had to pay the combination price when he purchased from their friends.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know that it is proper, at this stage of the session, to expect a transaction to be explained twice over because it suits the convenience of an bon. gentleman to step out into the lobby while the explanation is being given. I explained that in this House a resolution was passed directing that the binder twine should be sold to the farmers exclusively. As a result a large part of it remained on our hands at the end of the season. We decided to dispose of this by tender, and the tenders were called for and the twine sold. The question was investigated the next year while my. estimates were before the Committee of Supply. I discussed the whole matter and the resolution was cancelled and instructions given that the Department of Justice should be left free to dispose of the binder twine in the ordinary way.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT moved to insert after the words 'for sale' in subsection 2, the words ' in Canada also to change the word ' confiscated ' to the word ' seized.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Bill as amended, reported, read the third time and passed-.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 113) respecting the inspection of grain.-Sir Richard Cartwright.
On section 2,
David Henderson: I understand that the chairman of the committee litis gone carefully over the Bill since it was reprinted, anu says 'he has found it correct with the amendments made by the committee.


Archibald Campbell: Yes, I have gone carefully over the Bill. There are just a few verbal amendments to make the Bill readable, but no material change. The Bill was carefully considered ; the committee spent eleven days over it, and I think it is pretty nearly perfect.
On section 4,


Archibald Campbell: There is one change here, adding after the words 'in his division' the words ' or divisions.'


David Henderson: That is in view of/ having one chief inspector for the whole.


Archibald Campbell: Yes.
On section 52,
The inspection fees upon grain within the several districts shall be paid by the inspec-



tors into, and shall form part ol, the Consolo-dated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Archibald Campbell: It is proposed to strike out clause 52 and to substitute clause 87 in its place. The object is to enable the government to collect the inspection in weighing fees. The clause we propose to add is the same as clause 87 of the Bill and when we come to clause 87 it is proposed to strike that out altogether. I therefore beg to move in amendment that section 52 be struck out and that the following section be substituted in lieu thereof :
The inspection fees upon grain inspected within the division shall be treated as advanced charges, to be paid by the carrier or warehouseman in whose possession the grain is at the time of its inspection, and shall be paid through the chief inspector into, and shall form part of, the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and accounts thereof shall' be kept by the chief inspector in such manner and in such detail as is from time to time determined by the minister.


Richard John Cartwright: This puts section 87 in place of section 52.
Section as amended agreed to.
Ou section 69,


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would call the attention of the committee to a complaint that comes from my own constituency that the government have appointed a weigher of grain but that there is no'provision made for paying him. What provision is there for paying a man who may be appointed to weigh grain ?


Richard John Cartwright: Certain fees are allowed per ear.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: How is he going to collect them ?


Richard John Cartwright: We will have to make regulations to that effect. We can do that under the authority of this Act when it is passed.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Then it is the intention of the government to do so ?


Richard John Cartwright: To make certain fees for all the grain that is weighed out.
On section 74, inspection east of Winnipeg.


David Henderson: The question upon which there was most divisiou in the subcommittee who examined this whole Bill tery carefully from beginning to end was this question of mixing grain or permitting grain to be mixed in the western country, or after it had once gone into an elevator. While agreeing with my colleagues on the committee in nearly everything in connection with the Bill I reserved to myself the right to take exception to the matter to which I now refer and in order to bring be-Mr. CAMPBELL.
fore the committee without waste of time my views upon this point I shall move the following amendment :
That the following words be added to section 74 :-
And all grain placed in any elevator at Winnipeg shall be inspected into such elevator by the government Inspector and be Inspected out on the same grade as inspected in.
I understand that the complaint of eastern millers is that the grain that goes into, say the northern elevator at Winnipeg, is not inspected out on the same grade as that on which it goes in, that several grades of grain may be mixed together and the result is that the car which is inspected out is of a quality inferior to the high standard of grain which western millers such as the Ogilvies are able to buy on the western market, and that our eastern millers are handicapped because they cannot get that high class western grain used by the western millers with whom the eastern men have to compete in the sale of flour. I do not use the word ' elevator ' as meaning a public elevator. I mean any elevator into which grain is put, and if grain is put into an elevator at Winnipeg I say it should be inspected in, and then when it conies out it should be inspected out as the same grade as it was inspected in so that the man who buys on that inspection will be able to get grain of the same class as goes into the elevator. I believe this amendment which I move is in harmony with the wishes of eastern men, and as it affects them materially. I think it is deserving of the careful consideration of this committee. I admit that my colleagues did not agree with me on this matter, hut I felt that I was compelled, owing to the manner in which it was brought to my attention, more especially by a miller in my own county who is a large shipper of flour, to submit this change to the.committee for their consideration.


Archibald Campbell: As the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said this point was about the only one on which the the committee differed at all. I may say that these elevators in Winnipeg to which he refers are private elevators. The evidence which was submitted to us by Mr. Horn the chief grain inspector from the western division and also letters from the lOgilvie Milling 'Company which gets a large amount of grain from this elevator, indicate that the grain from this elevator was as good as what was selected from other elevators. The practice has been tliat dealers in Winnipeg will have perhaps 50 or 60 elevators all along the line. They are buying this grain constantly and the committee took this view that the men who bought the grain could do just what they liked with it. and could put it all into one bin if they choose, that it was nobody's business, but when they brought it to Winnipeg and asked

the official inspector to inspect that grain and put his stamp upon it, there should then be no tampering or mixing. We have carefully provided for that, but if you go further and inspect all the grain into elevators in Winnipeg, including private elevators it will entail a great deal more work and will necessitate the employment of more officials. But I do not think it will overcome the difficulty referred to by the non. member for Halton, (Mr. Henderson) because there are elevators still farther back, at Brandon, at Emerson, and at other points where they are receiving this grain from the small elevators along the line. Whenever the small elevators get filled up they ship the grain into a large elevator. Then in many cases they take in grain nt certain seasons of the year when it is damp and out of condition. That grain is dried in the elevator and it would be quite impossible to inspect it in. However, when this grain is being shipped out it is officially inspected and it must be kept clear without any mixing after that. I do not think that we can safely amend the clause, in fact, Mr. Horn, the chief inspector whose testimony was very clear and distinct on that point, thought it was .quite unnecessary to do that. I would prefer that the committee should let the Bill stand as it is for a year, and then if it is found, as it probably will be, that as the great .Northwest tills up there will have to be other divisions further west and that inspections will be necessary at Brandon and Prince Albert just as at Winnipeg today. then we can adopt whatever amendment is nocessaiy. But in the present state of the grain trade there I do not think it would be desirable or in the interests of the trade to inspect this grain in as well as out, and that was the view taken by the committee.
Amendment (Mr. Henderson) negatived.
On section 75,


Richard John Cartwright: In section 75, after the word ' or ' in the 23rd line I would more to insert the word ' at ' so that it would read :
Any grain inspected at Winnipeg or other western point may be reinspected at Fort William or at other terminal elevators, &c.
In the 28th line I would move ; that the words ' Canadian Pacific Railway Company ' be struck out and the words ' any railway company ' be substituted.


Mr. BOYD.: Before the Bill is reported,
I wish to call attention to a matter which I brought before the House last year, that is the posting on the blackboards of the stations at Fort William of the price of wheat in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I do not know whether it should come here or under the Grain Act.
256i


Archibald Campbell: That comes under the Grain Act.


Nathaniel Boyd: I want to be sure, because I want to test the House ou the question. I proposed it last year, but was not able to get it in.


Archibald Campbell: That was discussed when the members for Winnipeg were not here.


Nathaniel Boyd: I know how the Winnipeg men feel about it. They do not want it. All I wanted to see was whether I could bring the matter up here.


David Henderson: When the hon. member spoke to me about his amendment, my impression was that it should come as an amendment to the Grain Act. However, if there is a possibility of introducing it here without in any way destroying this Act, that might be done.


Richard John Cartwright: It belongs more properly to the Grain Act.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE MILITIA ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order,
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canajin-Sir Frederick W. Borden.
John Graham Haggart: I ask the hon. minister to let this Bill stand till this evening. The leader of the opposition is not here, and he wants to be here when it comes up. Colonel Tisdale also is going to move an amend ment. I thought there was an understand ing with the Minister of Militia that the Bill would come up to-morrow.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The understanding was that we would complete the work in Committee of the Whole, and report the Bill for a third reading to-morrow, when certain resolutions of which notice has been given me by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) may be moved. This is simply to put through certain clauses which were suggested the last time the House was in committee on the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: The only reason I make the request is that the leader of the opposition left me a memorandum requesting that the Militia Bill, if the government are willing, be held over until he is present.


Samuel Hughes: There was one clause which the minister or the leader of the opposition were to draft, on which they were agreed. I do not know what stage that has reached. I suggest that the Minister of Militia hold the Bill' open until the leader of the opposition is here to-night.
House went into committee on the Bill.

On section 69,
The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.


Frederick William Borden: When this clause was passing through committee, it was suggested that there should be a provision for calling parliament within a certain number of days after the militia were called out, in the event of an emergency.
I have copied the English law almost verbatim, which I think applies to this case, and I propose a section to be called 69a :
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia or any part thereof on active service anywhere in 'Canada or beyond Canada for the defence thereof, if parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit on the day appointed by such proclamation and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.


John Graham Haggart: Was not that clause passed in committee before ?


Frederick William Borden: No, it was suggested that some such clause should be adopted, and I promised to have one drafted. This is *he one which the Minister of Justice has handed me, and it is copied from the English law.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the intention of the government to confine the calling out of the militia for the defence of Canada '! I am quite sure we are making a mistake in doing this. We are part and parcel of the British empire, and the defence of the empire is an emergency which might call for tjje turning out of the Canadian militia and sending them abroad. We have a political alliance to-day with the empire. We have, I believe, a defensive alliance. In this Bill we have the oath set forth : ' I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty.' This proposed amendment used the very same language as the clause to which I object, namely :
When the Governor in Council places the militia or any part thereof on active service in Canada or beyond Canada for the defence thereof-
And so on. I object to the limitation, to the use of the militia of Canada only for the defence of Canada. Either we are of the empire, or we are not. If we are of the empire, as I say we are, the militia of Canada and the resources of Canada ought to be at the service of the empire, always provided that the people of Canada, through their parliament, are consenting parties. There ought to be provision in this Act under which the Governor in Council, as-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
suming the responsibility of the Act, may order the forces of this country outside of this country not only for the defence of Canada but for the defence of the empire. We to-day have a political alliance with the empire. We also have, I believe, a defensive alliance. To-day, our country is defended by the army and navy of the mother country. And, surely, while that state of affairs is continued we should not declare in our legislation that the forces of Canada are only for the defence of Canada. Not only have we a political and defensive alliance with the empire, but I hope we shall have a closer commercial alliance between Canada and the mother country before long. That is the great question that is before the empire to-day,-the political binding of the empire together, the defensive binding of the empire together and the commercial binding of the empire together. If that is the work that the people of the empire have in hand, let not this country, at this important stage of this great discussion, put it on record that the militia force of Canada is to go outside of Canada only for the defence of Canada. Let us put it fairly. Let all the world know that the imperial idea in the mother land has all the daughter states and colonies at her back in an emergency. To enact such a clause as here proposed is, in effect: to declare that the power aud resources of Canada, which is the greatest of the daughter states, are not to be used for the defence of the empire. In England to-day there is a movement which means a great deal to Canada-a closer commercial union between the mother country and colonies. That movement is growing. The government in England is more or less committed to it. Mr. Chamberlain's committee reported the other dav in favour of the extension of the principle of trade preference. Let us not prejudice that position by saying to all the world that whatever military forces we have are only for the defence of Canada. The prayer read in this House every day by Mr. Speaker, is, concerning the King,
' strengthen him to overcome and vanquish all his enemies.' That prayer, I believe, comes from the heart of the people of Canada. Let us not cause the statutes of Canada to give the lie to the prayer that wre deliver here every day. I am a Canadian and nothing but a Canadian ; I am a nationalist and nothing but a nationalist. But I believe that the future of Canada is bound up with the maintenance of the imperial tic. and requires that we be prepared on all occasions to stand by the empire. That being the case, do not put it in our legislation that the fighting force of the country [DOT]is purely for the defence of Canada. Why limit it ? Leave out these words, and I will have no objection to the clause. But to put in these wrords is to place us in a false position and to make people think that in some way Canadians are not pre-

pared to defend the empire. We are prepared to defdnd the empire, but, all the time, we wish to retain complete independence over ourselves as to what we shall do. We do not wish to be dragged into a war, but we want to be free to elect to go if such is our wish. But, under this clause, the Governor in Council will be limited and will not know what to do. They will say : Our powers are limited : We cannot send the forces of Canada outside of Canada except for the defence of Canada. If we are not ready to assume our responsibilities for the empire let us go about it in the proper way and arrange for separation.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Oh, oh !


William Findlay Maclean: That is your intention.


Robert George Macpherson: Whose intention ?


William Findlay Maclean: It is the intention of whoever framed this Bill.


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) must be fair. There can be no intention of anything like that. Does he not know that only volunteers can be sent out of this country ?


William Findlay Maclean: I know what it says in this Bill.


Mr. .TALBOT.: What did the old Act sayV


William Findlay Maclean: It left the Governor in Council free. We had the matter before the House some days ago, and it was shown that the Governor in Council had power to send (he Canadian forces outside of Canada without being limited by these words ' for the defence of Canada.'


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: No, the Governor in Council could not send them before.


William Findlay Maclean: Then let us put it in this Bill.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Nonsense. Would the hon. gentleman give the government power to send out militia to South Africa ?


William Findlay Maclean: Certainly. If the Governor in Council will assume the responsibility of doing it, then call parliament and let parliament ratify the Act if it thinks proper. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ileyd) is a Liberal, and yet he proposes to limit the freedom of the parliament of Canada and of the Governor in Council.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I would certainly limit them so that they cannot send out people to South Africa.


William Findlay Maclean: Why 1


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Because they lia\e no right to do it.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me tel! the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) why there should be no limitation. The mother country, with her soldiers and her sailors lias defended Canada from all attack, no matter from
what side it threatened. She has spent her blood and treasure on this continent to maintain the integrity of Canada. Why should we restrict our government so that we cannot assist the mother country as she has assisted us ? Why should not the people of Canada be at the service of the empire ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Can the government of Great Britain send her own militia to South Africa ?


William Findlay Maclean: The militia is the only army we have. Now the hon. gentleman is pettifogging. The only army we have is this active militia, it is the forces of Canada, the only forces we have to defend this country. Now, I say when the empire is defending us in every quarter of the globe, why should not the services of the forces of Canada be at the service of the empire ? The motherland has stood by us, as I said before, has fought all our battles, is defending us to-day, is defending the Canadian flag on every sea on the face of the globe. That being the case, why should we be limited as to what we should do in the matter ? Let us be free. Let the Governor in Council assume responsibility. Let them call parliament, but let them have freedom to come to the defence of the empire in ail emergency. War is an emergency, war has not ceased, it is springing up every day ; and that being the case, we must be prepared not only to defend our own country but to defend the empire. And what has that empire done for the people of Canada ? It has guaranteed to us that those institutions which we are proud of, and which we are trying to maintain on this continent-*-


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: ' What about our territory that she gave away ?


William Findlay Maclean: Granted that she did. The hon. gentleman comes from the province of Quebec, and the rights of the province of Quebec to-day are guaranteed by the empire and surely the hon. gentleman and nli the other citizens of this country ought to stand by the empire, and be prepared to defend the empire that guarantees to us the form of government that we now enjoy. Now, if that is the case, why should we not be British, and outspoken in favour of British connection ? Why should we go through this Act and combat out every reference to the empire ? The soldiers in the militia swear loyalty to the King ; we pray here that the King may overcome all his enemies ; and surely if we are to have an empire, why not be prepared to defend it ? Why not let the Governor in Council have full'authority to do what they think proper in the circumstances-always provided that parliament is called, and always provided that Canada lias complete control over her forces, complete independence of action, and that in no way can we be overridden by

any outside authority. The people of this country are prepared to trust the government ; the government always has the confidence of the people, and that being the case the action of the Governor in Council should not be limited in the disposition of these forces. The forces are for the defence of the country, they are for the defence of the empire, and it is of supreme moment that they may be used in an emergency. The life of the nation is supreme, the life of the empire is supreme, and there ought to be no qualifying clause in regard to the action of the authority, whatever it is. in whom the supreme power is vested. That being the case, let us withdraw these words. If the government persist in adopting that clause as it is phrased now, I will move to strike out the words ' for the defence thereof.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: It seems to me we are making much ado about nothing. The old law was very vague and indefinite ; there was nothing in it that would apply one way or the other as to whether the troops could be moved out of Canada or not. I make this statement after having carefully considered the matter at the time of the South African war. Here is the position that is taken now, that we give to the Governor in Council authority to employ the troops of Canada either within or without Canada for the defence of Canada. Then we make provision that parliament should he summoned fifteen days after a declaration of war, and that the troops may be called out. so that parliament shall decide then what use is to be made of the troops, whether within or without Canada, and what we are to do with them. But I say now, speaking as a member of parliament, that I would long hesitate to give to any government no matter how good, power of attorney authorizing them to use the troops of Canada at any * time at their own sweet will, whether within or without Canada, when parliament might he summoned within fifteen days thereafter. Why not leave that in the hands of parliament ? The British empire is not going to pieces in fifteen days. If parliament has to be summoned within fifteen days, why not let parliament deal with it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Let parliament say whether the troops are to be used outside for the defence of Canada or for the defence of the empire.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think my hon. friend does not understand the result of his amendment. What he wants to do is to give to the Governor in Council, without authority. without the sanction of parliament, authority to order the troops anywhere within the British empire. I cannot agree to that.	[DOT]


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to have the law so that whenever the Governor in Council Mr. MACLEAN.
sees fit they may order the militia of Canada on active service anywhere in Canada or beyond Canada, without the limitation proposed in the amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is provided for.


William Findlay Maclean: Let the Governor in Council be free to send the troops abroad or anywhere.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Canada must decide that, not the Governor in Council.


William Findlay Maclean: They have as much right to decide that here as they have in England.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, we are of the empire, and we have to take our responsibilities in connection with it. The defence of the empire is just as important as the defence of Canada. That is the way I take it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And we take it that way, and we are prepared to assume our share of the responsibility for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the occasion of that unfortunate trouble in South Africa, the troops received consent to go to South Africa without parliament being called together.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They volunteered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but when objection was taken, what was the answer given by the First Minister in regard to the action of the government allowing that to be done ? The answer was that the sentiment in favour of imperial defence was so strong that toad the government not consented to it, there might have been a rebellion. But owing to the loyal sentiment of the Canadian people the government took the action it did. Now, that was done without any injury to the country, without any impropriety, and the loyal sentiment of Canada was so pronounced and evident that no government could withstand it in a critical moment like that. My hon friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) desires to go no further in this particular case. The Minister of Militia and Defence says he has modelled this clause after the Imperial Act. _ But he forgets that the Imperial Act includes the whole empire, applies to the whole empire, and when these troops are called out, will go to any part of that empire.


Frederick William Borden: Will my hon. friend allow me to say now what I intended to say later on ? The militia of Great Britain cannot be sent beyond the boundaries of Great Britain.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That has no application here. The minister says what is absolutely opposed to common sense.


Frederick William Borden: The militia could not be sent to this country.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is a quibble.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you mean that the militia could not be sent out of the United Kingdom V
Sir FREDERICK- BORDEN. It could not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I was mistaken, because I thought it could be.


Frederick William Borden: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought at any time it could be sent to any part of the world long before there were any signs of war, and that the government could at any time open proceeding with those great ironclads in any part of the world, though parliament might not be in session, in defence of the country. And is it to be said that an integral part of the British empire, which is defended by the empire on the high seas as well the United Kingdom itself, shall be unwilling or unable to bring our forces into co-operation with the empire and defend it in any part of the world ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If what the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence contended be correct, we are because I claim that even without the consent of parliament the British fleet may be ordered to any part of the world when there is the slightest sign of danger.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it goes to the scene of the trouble at a moment's notice if necessary to open the batteries of its ironclads against the enemy.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: And the regular army.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the regular army may also be sent. That is protection in the highest sense of the word. That is the authority which the imperial government have and that it is derived from the English Act which we are copying. But we are confining it to a limited area, whereas England lias the whole empire as her field of operations. For that reason I say that wt$ would be doing less than our duty if we did not hold ourselves in readiness at any time to go to the defence of the empire, and if our government, taking the responsibility upon their shoulders, were not prepared to do as they did in the South African affair and send our forces out to protect the empire and defend our flag. What is the use of our connection with the mother country if it is not that ? We receive her protection the world over. Our commerce, our trade our people are under her care and we feel that we are safe became of the protection which we enjoy from the British fleet and the British army. Are we to be such poltroons that we are not prepared to throw in our quota to help to defend the empire in any part of the world wherever the need may be ? We are doing less than our duty as an integral part of the British empire and less than what the loyal sentiment of Canada demands if we restrict our Act in such a way that we cannot do our duty in that respect and if we fail in our duty we will; be held strictly to account by the loyal people of Canada.


Jabel Robinson: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that would tend so much to the peace of the world as to have it known that the British empire and colonies stood ready at any moment to defend themselves. I am satisfied that if the powers of Europe knew that not only Canada, but Australia, South Africa, and all the British colonies were bound together, not by a rope of sand, but by a strong and firm determination to defend every part of the empire they would hesitate long before they would make war against the British empire. Therefore, I think this clause should be framed in such a way that we could at any time as occasion demanded, say that our men should go to the defence of the empire. I hope a provision will ba inserted in the Bill under which we will he able at any time, -without calling parliament together in case our safety is placed in jeopardy, in case a nation makes war against us to send our militia to the defence. We do not know how soon such an occasion may arise. Suppose a foreign fleet were to come up the St. Lawrence, and we do not know how soon that may happen because Great Britain is continually in trouble, would we Canadians sit quietly here waiting until parliament met ? On the contrary would we not go against the enemy determined to defend our shores ? I think so and I think we should be able to send our troops outside of Canada if need be. I think we should have the- power to send them wherever it was necessary to defend the British empire.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Mr. Chairman, I am not in the habit of using very strong language in this House. At the same time, I believe it would be almost justified to-day. 1 do not know whether it is the intention of the draughtsman or not, I cannot enter into his mind and therefore I cannot charge against the draughtsman the intention of entering a wedge between Canada and the British empire, hut I am allowed from what the draughtsman has done to draw my own conclusion and the conclusion I draw from reading the clause as changed and from reading the old Act is that there was a distinct intention to make a clear-cut change in regard to the power of this government over the militia. That is clear. Every man and especially every militiaman that

you talk with on the street -will tell you at once, after tlie former debate we bad here, that the clear intention of the change was to drive a wedge between this country and the empire. Whether that is true or not I will not say, but I do say that in the public opinion of this country there has been created a doubt as to'the fealty and loyalty of Canada to the empire. That is an unfortunate thing at this time but what did we see in London the other day ? In the unfortunate speech made by the Solicitor General, with whom I am friendly and in reference to whom I do not wish to say a word in his absence, lie emphasized the fact that there was in Canada a separatist party. I do not myself endorse that proposition, but I am arguing as to the effect of this upon the world and I am pointing out what public opinion is in Canada since the Solicitor General made that speech. I am not frightened at separation. No power on earth can separate any portion of Canada from this empire. Any man who has any wish in his heart or any dream that Canada will ever be torn from the empire must remember that the streets will flow with British blood before he gets his wish, and any man who entertains that idea will most surely be disillusioned. No power under Heaven can separate this country from the British empire. But, there are worse things than that and that is to create the public opinion that Canada has really not any interest in the empire and is not prepared to go to the defence of the empire in time of need. If those gentlemen who recently charged that there is a separatist party in this country would act decently there would be no need of such a public opinion existing in the world. All those men who are so alarmed when the charge is made that there is a separatist party in this country need do is to turn around and make the speech I am making to-day, to stand by the empire and to stand up for anything that will strengthen Canada and destroy the notion that there is the least vestige of public opinion in this country in favour of separation' from the empire. I want to deal for the moment with the speech of the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). Coming, from Nova Scotia he should have common sense, he should have the power of mental discrimination, and he should have the power when he reads a section of the Bill to know what it means. When he tells me that there is no change in the two sections it is impossible for me to believe that the hon. gentleman has read the section which is before us. It would be impossible for me to believe that any man could have made the statement that there is no clear and wide difference between these two sections if he had read them. But the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has made a more extraordinary and misleading state-Mr. GOURLEY.
ment still. I do not know he intended it because it strikes me that he does not thoroughly understand this Bill. When in answer to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sprouie) he stated that the volunteers in England could not be sent abroad he must have intended in giving that answer and in drawing that parallel to mislead the House. There is no similarity whatever between the two cases. In England the standing army defends the shores of the mother country and defends the empire all over the world and in case of an emergency the English government can send every one of these soldiers of the empire away from England for service in any part of the world and in doing so leave the country absolutely defenceless. All the navy may at any day be sent abroad. Therefore England has made provision that she can call out her militia to defend her shores while the army is abroad fighting the battles of the empire. You agree to send our militia abroad to fight our battles and I will agree that the volunteers required for the defence of the country after that shall not be sent out of the country. That will be a parallel. The militia is our standing army and we want it to be placed on the same footing as the standing army in England so that the Governor in Council can send it to any part of the world to defend this empire. Then in reference to the naval miatia which is being established, I want power given to the Governor in Council to send it to any part of the world. It would be extraordinary if that were not provided. I say that when the Minister of Militia undertook to persuade this House that there was no comparison and no argument in citing the ease of the volunteers of England not being sent abroad he was utterly and absolutely misleading and the Minister of Militia will never be able to make any one believe that that is an argument for this change. The Minister of Justice said that he had great doubt about the construction of this old section. I do not wish to say anything unkind of any one, but I think that his attitude with reference to the construction of this section arose not out of his mind, but out of the circumstance that he represents a city ,in the province of Quebec. At the time of the South African war it was well known that the province of Quebec unfortunately- and that is the only thing I do not like about the province-unfortunately at the time it was believed that every man in the province of Quebec was opposed to sending a soldier to help the empire in that part of the empire, and that gentleman representing a constituency down there may well have imbibed that opinion, and the opinion he gave on that occasion was more or less influenced, as all our opinions are, by our local surroundings. I can only accept his opinion as being the result of his surroundings because it is impossible to believe that

this plain language means anything else than what appears on its face.
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof, either within or without Canada, at any time that it appears advisable to do so by reason of war, invasion, insurrection or danger of any of them.
If there could be any doubt, then as the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) says, let us clear it up, let the Minister of Justice point out the difficulty he had in advising the Crown on that occasion that they could send the militia by Order in Council to any part of the empire. Let the minister tell us what words are lacking in the wording of the section which I think is as broad and ample as is required, and then let us amend the section, and make it clear for all time that there is no doubt as to the government's power to take such action. The Minister of Justice went on to say : Oh, but you can call parliament ; the Governor in Council has power to call out the militia for the defence of Canada but if we want it sent abroad let parliament be called. That is not an answer to the situation. What we want on the statute-book is a clear expression to the whole world that we stand for the empire. Then let parliament be called. Parliament is called in England although there the government have the fullest power to send the army and navy to defend the empire in any part of the world. Yet parliament is called to control it, to revise the action of the government. We want the same thing here. We want the government to have the fullest power to send troops at a moment's notice to any part of the world. If parliament is called it could meet in fifteen days, in which time not much could have been done. The enrolment could not be half completed in fifteen days and no harm could have been done. But we want the proclamation on the statute-book, express and clear, that the people of Canada have placed their standing army, that is, our militia at the service of the British empire, at any moment or at any time. If the minister does not do that, he will awaken a sentiment in this country against the militia. I am for the militia ; I have helped the minister to get his estimates through this House, but if this kind of humbug is to prevail, if the feeling is to go abroad in Canada that the militia is being used as a tool not to save the empire but to break it up, we had better repeal this Act and throw it to the winds. Let me tell the minister that is the feeling that is growing. I had reason to talk to numbers of militiamen, and every one of them has alluded to this clause and put upon it only one interpretation, that it is intended to separate Canada from the empire eventually and this is one of the steps. If it is not, and hon. gentlemen realize the feeling that exists, why not resort to the old section or let him suggest whatever words he desires to have added
to that section, and then the next time difficulty arises if he should be Minister of Justice he could have no doubt as to the power of the government to call out the militia and to send them to any part of the empire.
From a military standpoint, if the hon. Minister of Militia intends to use the militia for the defence of Canada, he must see that it is necessary to send them abroad for a blow may be struck at India which will destroy Canada, or that blow may be struck in South Africa or in the farthest islands of the sea without a shot being fired in Canada. The Minister of Militia must understand that. It is a matter of plain deduction that this empire may be broken in the farthest islands of the sea and that the gov-vernment of Canada must have power to send the militia to defend the empire in whatever quarter it may be attacked.
Let the minister make it quite clear that we can send the militia to any part of the world.


William Findlay Maclean: All I ask is that these limitations be removed. The government have only to strike out these words ' for the defence thereof.' The characteristic of the world to-day is the struggle for mastery in trade, industry and manufactures. There are great men in Europe, statesmen and crowned heads, who are constantly planning trade and industry which the British empire, for the removal of that supremacy in trade and industry which the British empire has to-day. These men are constantly planning in some way to destroy that British supremacy or any portion of it. In treating a question of this kind these men will go by what they find and when they take up the Canadian statutes and see that the statement that the militia force of Canada is only for the defence of Canada and that it cannot be sent out of the country for the defence of Canada, it will encourage them in their design. We do not want to let that impression go abroad ; do not let any enemy of the empire be able to use the Canadian statute-book to say : The army of Canada is only for the defence of Canada. Let these men know not only by our statute-book but by our actions, that the people of Canada are behind the empire every time. We have our parliamentary freedom and that being the case, we should not put on record a limitation on our actions.
It is true that our forces are called the active militia. It is an active militia in the sense that it is the citizens' army. It is the citizens' army and the only army we have, except for the permanent force wnich is provided for in this Act. If that permanent force is anything it is a regular army, and even this, a regular army of only 3,000 men, is governed by this Act so teat it cannot be sent abroad for the defence of the empire. There is no reason then to change the law from what it was. This amendment certain-

ly appears to be a limitation of the previous law. Let us have this provision for the summoning of parliament, let us insist on having the absolute control of our own purse and our own men, but if the people and the government wish in an emergency-and in an emergency everything turns on immediate action-let us be free if the government care to assume the responsibility of sending the forces of Canada outside of Canada, whether for the defence of Canada or of the empire outside of Canada. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After this Bill passes could the volunteers go to any part of the British empire ?


Frederick William Borden: Just the same as before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What portion of the Bill gives them the right ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The section you are considering.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Citizens of the United States could enlist in the same way to defend the British empire.	.


Frederick William Borden: I will answer my hon. friend. The troops we sent to South Africa were not sent under the militia law at all. They were sent under a special arrangement; they went as volunteers. The same thing could be done at any time. It certainly would not be done under the militia law, either as it was or as we propose to make it, because there is no essential difference. Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend from Colchester questions my possession of common sense, I still believe that the Act as we propose it is essentially the same in that respect as it was before, the object being to make clear the actual intention. Now, I do not propose to be drawn into the heroics that have been Indulged in t>y my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gour-ley) except perhaps to make this one observation. I do not think there is any necessity for the people of Canada to advertise their loyalty to the British empire by putting it on the statute-book in any special form. The people of the British empire, and the people of the world at large, so far as they are interested in Canada, know full well what the loyalty of Canada is and what it means ; and it is appreciated in the proper quarter. It suits our hon. friends opposite on certain occasions to shout about their loyalty. It has suited them sometimes in the past, and I regret to say that they are engaged in the same enterprise now, if not in this House, outside of it, of endeavouring to cast some doubt upon the loyalty of the people who sit on this side of the House. I do not think it is necessary to go into that subject. I think the experience of the last few years has proved Mr. MACLEAN.
that there is no difference between the political parties in Canada as to their loyalty to Canada or their loyalty to the' British empire. The very fundamental idea of a militia force always lias been, and is now, home defence. In every portion of the British empire, without any exception, the same principle is laid down which is found in the Bill before the House-that the militia of that particular part of the British empire, including the British islands themselves, shall be limited in their service to the particular part of the empire in which they live. I have taken the trouble to examine the old militia laws of the different provinces which made up the Dominion of Canada, and in every one of those provinces we find the same limitation. It has always existed. Under these circumstances it is absurd to talk about service abroad.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why ?


Frederick William Borden: Because we are not fitted for service abroad without a special provision to that end ; and when the time comes, should it unfortunately come again, then parliament, under the provisions of the Bill we are proposing, will be immediately convened. In that respect this Bill is much more in the interest of service abroad, if we choose to give it; because parliament will be immediately convened, and such steps will be taken as may be thought necessary and desirable by parliament towards the defence of the empire, should Canada desire to engage in that defence beyond the borders of Canada. The whole point is that a militia force is a_force for home defence. The militia law of Great Britain expressly provides the limitation that the militia shall not serve beyond the United Kingdom. So it seems to me that our Bill meets the requirements which are met by similar legislation in every other part of the British empire. In addition to the authority we had in the past, we are now arranging that parliament shall automatically meet within fifteen days after any emergency that may arise, when parliament can take such steps, with the guidance of the government of the day, or independent of the government of the day, as it sees fit, for the support of the empire in any part of the world.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has evidently declined to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East York, that the words 1 for the defence thereof ' be omitted. The old Act was quite different from this Bill. It read :
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active service, either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do, by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
The new law simply reads : ' The Governor in Council '-not His Majesty, you will observe :

The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof.
If the minister objects to the other words, I have an amendment which I purpose offering- to the Bill. It is as follows :
The Governor in Council shall, subject to the conditions of the imperial service, accept the services of Canadian militiamen who volunteer to serve the empire on active service, in any part of the world, and shall have authority to equip and place them at the disposal of the imperial authorities, whether parliament be called, or in session or not, and shall incur the necessary expenses towards that end.
In regard to the service of the militia in the old country, I might just read from the Army Act, section SI :
In 1859 a- power was given to the sovereign to accept voluntary offers by the militia to serve in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man ; this w-as extended by the Act of 1875 to serve in Malta and Gibraltar ; and as so extended was re-enacted in 1882.
I do not want any grins contradicting my statement.


Mr. FIELDING.: There is nothing in the Act to prevent grins.


Samuel Hughes: A further extension to any part of the world was made in 1898. At the same time the Crown was authorized to employ militiamen volunteering to serve, whether an order embodying the militia was in force at the time or not.
So that we find that the services of a militia corps in the United Kingdom may be utilized in any part of the world under the English law, that is, if they volunteer. And we find that certain individual militiamen, under the law, may be taken to any part of the British empire.


Frederick William Borden: Under the British law the militia of the United Kingdom cannot be ordered for foreign service.


Samuel Hughes: I have said that also. I have said that volunteer offers may be taken. .


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does the minister say here that if a militia regiment of Canada volunteers to go abroad, lie could, under this law, provide the money and send them to the front?


William Stevens Fielding: No, nor could he under the English law either.	.


Samuel Hughes: That is the point 1 want to make clear. Of course no power ip Canada can. prevent Canadian boys from enlisting in the imperial service. We owe allegiance to the imperial rather than to the Canadian service. If it should ever come to the test whether the people of Canada are
to obey the mandate of the Governor In Council on the one hand or His Majesty in Council on the other, there would be no doubt or mistake as to which order will prevail. It will be the imperial order which the people of Canada will obey. We are Britons first, so far as the defence of the empire is concerned. That must he clearly understood, and if the Canadian government should undertake to issue a mandate preventing any volunteer in Canada from serving the British empire, the rebel would be the one standing by the Canadian government and not the one standing by the empire. So we find the English Act permitting the use of the militia of that country in any part of the British empire where they may choose to serve. We want the same thing in the Dominion. We want it provided that when a militiaman iii the Dominion volunteers to serve the empire in time of war, it shall be the duty of the Canadian government to accept that service and to s^e that ho is fitted out and sent on to taice part in the imperial war. We do not want any Hesitation such as was shown when the South African war broke out. We want no quibbling as to whether parliament or the Governor in Council has the right to order out the troops. We want it clearly understood that when Canadian boys volunteer their service to the empire for the defence of tile empire in any part of the world, it shall not only be the right, but the duty of the Canadian government to take these men, fit them out and send them wherever Britain may require their services.	*


Charles Fitzpatrick: Permit me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is rather to he regretted that the lipn'. member for Kings, N.B.. (Mr. Fowler) is not here at present, as I think he would benefit very largely by the lecture on loyalty to which we have just been treated. When this discussion was up. the hon. member for King's said (see page 6374 of ' Hansard') :	-


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


Wilfrid Laurier: What do you object to ?


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


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He contradicted that afterwards.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Pardon me, my hon. friend's memory is not accurate. Then the discussion went on :


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


George William Fowler: You can call almost anything the defence of Canada-you could call sending



S083 COMMONS 80S4

[Stage Direction]
the militia to any part of the British empire doing it for the defence of Canada. The Governor General in Council should not have power to do that ; that power should remain in the hands of parliament alone.
Charles Fitzpatrick: We have had that power for a long time.


George William Fowler: That makes no difference, we are now discussing this Bill which makes changes in many directions and the existing law can be changed as well in this respect. I do not believe in this centralization of power in the Governor General in Council. It would seem that every Act passed in this parliament now inclines to give more power to the government of the day. Parliament has no right to divest itself of its inherent powers ; we are here as the repesentatives of the people and we should hold this power in our own hands,-
and a lot more to the same effect.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If he said that, he ought to he ashamed of himself.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. member for King's did not want the Governor in Council to have the power to send troops beyond Canada even for the defence of Canada. That was his position. What is ours ? It is that we are prepared to give the Governor in Council a blank power of attorney extending over fifteen days. The Governor in Council may send the militia of Canada out of Canada at any time, when deemed necessary for the defence of Canada. . If, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, it should be necessary, because of a war going on in India, to send our militia out there for the defence of Canada, they may, in the exercise of their discretion, do it, lie-cause they are the sole judges of what is necessary to be done in defence of Canada. But we do not think it advisable that that power should be absolutely and unrestrictedly in the hands of the Governor in Council. We think it advisable that the period during which they may exercise that power should be restricted and that parliament should be called together and be consulted at the earliest opportunity. Parliament must be summoned in fifteen days and then the whole matter will be in tlie bands of the people's representatives. So far as we are concerned, it may be suggested that tliii s* is treason, and that we are separatists. .But these are mere idle words which are being used for a purpose, and my hon. friends may as well understand that that purpose will not he served by all their vapouring, and that no sensible people attach the slightest consequences to their silly threats. Our loyalty does not consist exclusively of words and hot air. In the unpatriotic task in which my hon. friends are engaged, of endeavouring to create the impression here and abroad that the Liberal party, which represents the majority of the people, are a gang of separatists, they are simply holding themselves up to ridicule and no good purpose can be served by sucli methods. In any event, the position we take Mr. FITZPATRICK.
is that the Governor in Council must be controlled toy parliament and parliament alone can decide, after the Governor in Council has taken tlie first step, tlie extent to which our troops may toe moved out of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is such a sentiment, what gave rise to it?


William Stevens Fielding: The statements of toon, gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It could not be the action of tlie opposition, but must be the action ot the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The words of the opposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the whole of the Militia Bill. It" first does away with the General Officer Commanding, which is one of the ties connecting us with the imperial powers.


Frederick William Borden: It does not do away with him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It practically does away with it when we get the right to do away with it. and especially when we see the organs of the bon. gentlemen opposite declaring that tlie last General Officer Commanding has gone away and that the sending out of a general officer commanding fiom Great Britain will never be repeated. Are we not, then, justified in concluding that the trend of events under this government seems to be in that direction ? What interpretation do we put on the fact of the name of His Majesty being cut out so often from this Bill ? Does not that seem to weaken the tie ? A great many of the common people have so interpreted it, whether lightly or wrongly. But whose action gave rise to this belief? Was it the action of the opposition ? It could not be ; it was the action of the government. The Minister of Militia says that there is no necessity to advertise our loyalty by statute. But is it not better, by statute or in some other way, to let the world know where we stand and the power we possess as a portion of the British empire, rather than keep these things in the dark and make.belief that we are not prepared to defend the empire ? It h; merely putting it in the statutes that the world may read it and know that our position in the British empire is settled. We are supposed to be loyal people and we have a flag, the glorious Union Jack. But should the day come when that flag is hauled down at Gibraltar, or on the Red sea, or in any part of the world, what will be our position? Tlie battle deciding the fate of the empire, and so deciding the fate of Canada might he in a distant country, and*defeat for the empire would be as much a defeat for us as tliougb tlie disaster took place upon Canadian soil. Is it to be said that we who have in our hands the power to go to the
<

defence of the empire are not to do it in an emergency ? I say that we do less than our duty if we are not prepared to do that. The Minister of Militia said that home defence is the destiny and duty of a inilitfa.
I differ with the hon. gentleman entirely cm that point, I say that our militia in the wider sense of the term, means the defence of the empire to which we belong. If it does not mean that to hon. gentlemen opposite. at least the Canadian people believe that it does mean that or ought to mean that. That is what the loyal sentiment of this country stands for. And, if the law is not in accordance with the sentiment, let us amend the law and make it to read with the loyal sentiments of Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Would the hon. gentleman allow me a moment to point out that not a single man of the m'ilitia of the United Kingdom can he ordered for service to this country, nor can a man of the militia of Australia or any part of the British empire.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) forgets that the defence of the empire is largely in the hands of the navy and that the regular army of Great Britain takes part in that work of defence throughout the world. But we have no regular army. In time of danger we can only call the militia the only defence we have,. It represents to us both the army and the navy, or. if it does not, then, it is not what we desire that it should be. We have no navy and no standing army, and our militia must represent both until our organization is changed, and for that reason we should not amend this Act in such a direction as to curtail our power. I am not much of a militiaman, and am not familiar with miltary life, but bringing my common sense to bear on this Act, I have reached the conclusion that, by these amendments, our powers are circumscribed. This Act does not enlarge, but narrows our powers, taking away the rights we had and making those rights less than we recognized them to be in the past, and confining them within the limits of Canada. Suppose, as one hon. gentleman has said, there were an attack upon Newfoundland, which is almost a part of Canada. Suppose that through some com-* plication of the French shore difficulty, the French fleet should be found off Newfoundland some morning. Should we be obliged to sit here idle, because we have no power to assist in the defence of that part of the empire until parliament was called together? Would that be doing our duty to the empire? Yet, that is something that might happen any day. I say that the impression upon the popular mind-rightly or wrongly-is that the trend of these amendments is in the direction of limiting the powers more and more, circumscribing them by the bounds of Canada and not extending them to the bounds
of the empire. Yet, were the British flag to be hauled down in any part of the world, how long would it remain over us in Canada. Not twenty-four hours. That being the case, it is incumbent upon us to be Yeady to do our part in the defence of the empire wherever that defence may be necessary, because in defending the empire we are defending ourselves.


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. minister told us that when he was in England there were four points agreed upon by the imperial defence committee and himself. May I ask, with respect to the general officer commanding and the establishment of a council as referred to in sections 7 and 30 of the Bill, is there any correspondence between the hon. gentleman and the imperial authorities ?


Frederick William Borden: No.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Peter Macdonald: The business before the committee is the further consideration of section 77 and the amendment thereto. .


Samuel Hughes: That is the same as was agreed on.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, by both the leader of the House and the leader of the opposition.


Peter Macdonald: The leader of the opposition wishes me to read it.


Frederick William Borden: This is a new clause.


Peter Macdonald: Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada or beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, if parliament be then separated by adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and to act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued for the same day.


Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. Does this follow the provision of the English statute in that respect ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, word for [DOT] word.


Frederick William Borden: Why is it necessary to change the words of the form' r statute in view of the summoning of parliament ? Why is it desirable ?


Frederick William Borden: There was no provision in the former statute for call-

ing out the troops at all. This is an entirely new clause.
Mr. I!. L. BOIiDEN. But you have altered the terms of the section from whit they were before as* to calling out the militia. Why do you require to do that if you have parliament summoned within fifteen days V Is not that a sufficient safeguard so far as concerns the use to which the militia might he put ? It seems to me to be the greatest possible safeguard, and a proper safeguard, because in parliament you have the voice of the country acting upon the government and directing them in what the will of the country is.


Frederick William Borden: I have explained that there was no object except to make quite clear what the intention of the Act was. I think there never was any doubt as to the meaning of the Act, although the words, perhaps, were not so clear as they ought to be. * For the defence thereof,' those words have been introduced so that it might be quite clear that the calling out of the militia to serve outside the country could not be done except for the purpose of the defence of Canada. I said this afternoon that the only object of the militia corps in, so far as I knew, in any country, at any rate in the British empire, is for home defence. The United Kingdom itself has passed a law providing that the militia shall not serve without the territory of the United Kingdom. The same idea is contained in all the militia laws of all parts of the empire and it did not seem to me that there would be any doubt upon that point. A good deal has been said this afternoon about this being a retrograde step. I do not understand that this law in its spirit differs in any way from the old law.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why not leave the old Act ?


Frederick William Borden: I am sure my hon. friend would not pretend to say that under the law as it is to-day the government could send a corps of the militia upon foreign service.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have not the slightest doubt of it; you could send them anywhere.


Frederick William Borden: I am quite prepared to come to close quarters on that question and I am quite prepared to say that in so far as the militia are concerned I do not believe it is in the interests of the militia that a provision of that kind should be made.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why, every man in Canada wants to go.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman himself would seriously contemplate a proposition by which the government would have authority to Sir F. W. BORDEN.
order the militia to serve a thousand miles away from Canada.	[DOT]


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why not ? What are we here for ?


Frederick William Borden: It is for the hon. gentleman to explain that. I do not think that any thoughtful man looking at the condition of things in this young country


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Explain yourself. Tell me what you mean.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Peter Macdonald: Order.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-would seriously propose to enact a statute which would place in the hands of any government the power of ordering out the militia to serve in distant parts of the world.


Mr. BARKER.: That is the old Act.


Frederick William Borden: It is not the old Act. I have taken the trouble to go to the statute of old Canada and of the various provinces in , this Dominion and there I have found that not one of them contains a provision by which the militia can be sent outside of the province itself. That being the case it seems to me that we may just as well understand where we are and I accept, fully, absolutely and entirely, myself, the responsibility for the proposition which is contained in this clause.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not know that there is anything very extraordinary about that. It is usually supposed that when an hon. gentleman introduces a Bill into this House he accepts the responsibility for it.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman need not sneer at my statement. If he had been here this afternoon he would have heard all sorts of charges and insinuations against hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot help what took place this afternoon. All I repeat is that when an hon. gentleman introduces a Bill into this House he is supposed to take full responsibility for it and there is nothing that seems extraordinary about that.
I was not aware that the militia of the United Kingdom were confined in the way the hon. gentleman suggests. In a report of the recent army council it is put in this way : that the militia may be ordered for certain service out of the United Kingdom, but not the volunteers. Whether that is a correct statement of the law I do not know-


Frederick William Borden: No.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN-but I can refer the hon. gentleman to the report in a few minutes. If my memory is not altogether at fault without having the document be-

fore me, that is what the report contains. But that is not precisely the point we are dealing with. Everything that the hon. gentleman said might be conceded and still no good reason shown for malting this change in the U\\v. The law which he proposes to change is this :
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active service either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of war.
*
What is the practical effect of it ? The practical effect of it is that it leaves the whole matter absolutely in the judgment of the executive of this country. There can be no doubt about that. There is no tribunal in Canada except the people of Canada whieh can call in question the judgment of the executive of Canada in taking action under that statute. After all it is entirely a question for the executive, for the government of Canada as controlled by parliament under the statute which the hon. gentleman proposes. I challenge any successful contradiction of that statement. Nobody in Canada except parliament and the people of Canada can call in question that action of the executive. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the hon. gentleman is leaving the law as it was before except that he is adding certain words which he sees tit to insert in this statute advertising as it were that Canada is taking a little step away from the rest of the empire. That is what I do not like about it. It is the same in effect as it was before, precisely the same, but on the face of it it is not the same as it was before. It will not be considered as it was before by those who are looking on in foreign countries. That is the objection I have to it. If you leave the statute as it was, it will have precisely the same effect in operation as the statute whieh the hon. gentleman proposes. If the government of this country makes up its mind that the defence of Canada requires troops to be sent abroad, no tribunal in Canada can call that action in question except parliament and the people acting upon parliament. Therefore it is simply a matter for the judgment, of the executive, but you have here this change in form which seems to me not advisable. I, myself, when this Bill was at a previous stage, suggested that we should follow the English provision as to the calling of parliament within fifteen days. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia spoke to me about it at the time. Ten days is the time fixed in Great Britain, twenty days was spoken of and eventually I told him that as far as my judgment was concerned I thought that fifteen days would be a fair time in this country considering our means of communication. I am absolutely in favour of that provision because I think parliament, here as in the mother country, should be called when a serious
question of that kind confronts parliament and the people. It seems to me that if you have that you have every possible safeguard that you desire and I do not see any object in inserting certain words which would alter the effect in one way but which are liable to be misunderstood. That is the objection I have ; here are certain words which are liable to be misunderstood, and particularly liable to be misunderstood in other countries ; then why should we gratuitously and without really effecting any change in the law insert them ? I am willing to be convinced in this matter, I want to be absolutely reasonable about it, but does not that view of the matter commend itself to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence ? Is he prepared to seriously controvert what I have said as to the effect of this change ? I think not. Is he seriously prepared to controvert the view that the calling of parliament in fifteen days must always operate as an effective safeguard ? If not, what is the good of changing the law in such a way as to make it liable to be misunderstood ?


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I cannot see how there can be any ihisunderstanding. I cannot see why anybody in the world, the imperial authorities, for instance, will misunderstand the commonwealth of Australia or any one of the colonies, in which precisely the same restriction or even a more stringent restriction exists. Who is to call it in question ? I can tell the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that as a matter of fact this proposed Bill has been before the imperial authorities for a whole year. It was before the imperial authorities on the occasion on which I had the honour to attend a meeting of the Defence Committee. It was discussed clause by clause and exception was taken to every clause to which objection- could be taken, and T assert that the imperial authorities absolutely approved of this cluase and I am here to make that statement.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister to be good enough to tell us who sit on this side of the House what objection he would have to clause 09 if it were altered in the way proposed by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). It would then read :
The Governor in Council may place the militia or any part thereof on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Coupling with that clause the amendment proposed (leaving out the words ' for the defence of Canada), whereby within fifteen days after the government so call out the militia, parliament must meet to consider what the cabinet have done. What possible

objection can there be ? Does the hon. gentleman suppose that there is a militiaman in Canada who would not take the risk of being called out in some great emergency for active service knowing that within fifteen days the parliament of Canada had to meet to rectify an error if error there should be on the part of the government ? Where is the militiaman from one end of this Dominion to the other who would not take the risk of being ordered out of Canada in such an emergency V The hon. gentleman has said that gentlemen on this side of the House are desirous of advertising their loyalty.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman from Montmagny-I think it is-says ' hear, hear.' 1 have noticed several times that he lias taken the opportunity of intervening with a sarcastic hear, hear, in this debate. 1 repeat that there is not from end to end of this Dominion, in any of the provinces, I do not care in what province, any militiaman who will object to the risk of being ordered out by the government of Canada for active service, knowing that parliament must be called within fifteen days to pass upon that order. Any militiaman who would object is not worthy of being a member of the militia of Canada. He is not worthy of the name of Canadian, because we all know that such an order would never be made by any government of Canada except in extreme emergency. Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Suppose that some foreign nation attacked Newfoundland. Are we to remain sitting in our chairs doing nothing, not even making necessary preparations that the fifteen days would allow us, because the hon. gentlemen have put upon the statutes a provision that the militia must only act for the defence of Canada ? The hon. Minister of Militia laughs, lie puts such words in the statute that they cannot even make the order to call out the active militia except for the defence of Canada. What would the taking of Newfoundland by some foreign nation mean to Canada ? In fifteen days, as is suggested by my friend beside me (Mr. Gourley), Newfoundland might become the possession of a foreign nation. What would that mean to Canada ? Does the hon. gentleman suppose that if such an emergency should arise any militiaman from east to west of this land, would object to turning out in the defence of the empire though not in the defence of Canada ? Defending Newfoundland would not be defending Canada.


Frederick William Borden: It might.


Samuel Barker: It might, but in the opinion of the government of the day it might not. We know well enough that in 1899 when the fate of the whole British empire, including the fate of Canada, was at stake the First Minister thought Canada


Samuel Barker: was not interested. The Minister of Militia will not deny that that is the case. I assert that to be a statement made by the First Minister of Canada ; in the time of the South African war when the very fate of Great Britain and of every colony of Great Britain was at stake, the First Minister allowed himself to be interviewed and his interview was published in the Toronto ' Globe ' of, I think, October 4th, 1899, and he stated in that interview that the government of Canada had no power under the Militia Act to intervene ; they could not send a soldier, they could not pay a dollar. Why, Sir, what a disgrace it would have been to this Dominion had we not intervened ! Canada would never have recovered from that disgrace. But, Sir, within ten days after that the government found the means of doing what the Militia Act, according to their contention, did not enable them to do. The old Act, the Act which is in force at this minute, was not clear, it was subject to some doubt, the Minister of Justice tells us. But what does the Minister of Militia want to do ? Does he want, in removing all doubt, to make the change in the interests of the British empire ? No, not a bit of it. The hon. gentleman wants to change in the opposite direction and to make it absolutely clear that we cannot and shall not interfere in such a case. That is what these gentlemen are doing and that, Sir, is what we object to. Now we say that the people of every part of this Dominion are willing in such a great emergency as war to leave to the ministry of the day, whether that ministry be Liberal or Conservative, the power of calling out the militia. They are willing to do that with the constitutional safeguard which the hon. gentlemen propose that within fifteen days after the order is pronounced, parliament shall be called together to say yes or no, to the decision that the active militia shall be sent beyond our borders. Who is going to object to that ? Who can object to it ? I think if he were to tell that to the militia of Canada they would say that they would like to have another Minister of Militia. They would tell him he is not the kind of minister they want in the interests of this Dominion. I say that having regard to the law as it stands, to the fact that the Minister of Militia tells us that the law he now proposes does not materially alter the law as it stands, the old law confers no greater power on the government than the law he proposes, and therefore he would do well in the interest of Canada to leave it as it is. Why does he want to make the change ? He wants to accentuate the question that was raised in 1899, as to the power of Canada to interfere on behalf of the British empire, even if the empire's very life was at stake. The hon. gentleman wants to put it beyond doubt that he cannot interfere. He is seek-

ing not to enable us to interfere, but absolutely to prevent us from interfering, no matter bow dire the need might be. If there were any danger to be apprehended from leaving the law as it is, one could understand it ; but the hon. gentleman has not attempted to show that there is a danger. When was any question ever raised under the law except in regard to the South African war ? And yet at that time what did the people of Canada say ? Why, the government were actually kicked into sending assistance to the empire in South Africa. That is the fact, hon. gentlemen know it, and this government want to put themselves in the position that they cannot get another kick of the same kind.


William Mulock: At the time of the Egyptian war the Conservative government would not send a man.


Samuel Barker: The Postmaster General does not attempt to answer what I have just said. His reply is the reply of the little blackguard in the street who puts his finger to his nose and says : You-re another. Is it not time to have that sort of thing stopped in this country ? Suppose the Conservative party did fifty times what the hon. gentleman and his colleagues sought to do in 1899, is that any excuse ?


William Mulock: It shows how insincere the hon. gentleman's remarks are.


Samuel Barker: I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman. I can only say that I stand here to justifiy myself. The hon. gentleman was in parliament on both occasions. He had the opportunity in 1899 of knowing hpw wrongfully, according to his opinion, his opponents had previously acted, and instead of taking warning by their errors, he simply followed a bad example. I do not propose to do that, and if the Conservative party had done tenfold wrong


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman would endorse it.


Samuel Barker: I say I am prepared to do right now, and as far as I can, I will try to compel the hon. gentleman to do right. Now, I say, that the old law has worked no harm. Hon. gentlemen opposite admit that in 1899


Mr. BOURASSA.: I rise to a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but for a long time I have felt that this whole discussion was out of order. Clause 77 of the Bill has already been adopted by the committee over two weeks ago. The motion proposed by the Minister of Militia is a new clause, and we -have no right lo discuss a clause which has already been adopted.


Samuel Barker: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is an amendment before you.


Peter Macdonald: Sir Frederick Borden moves to amend the Bill by inserting a new clause entitled 77a after clause 77, and that is the question before the committee at the present time.


Samuel Hughes: Does that not include the words ' for the defence of Canada,'' to which the hon. member for Hamilton is taking exception ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I respectfully submit that the 'question of the defence of Canada in clause 77 has been settled by this committee. Of course, I know that there are other means of bringing up the question again.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to suggest that when an amendment is proposed, that amendment may have a bearing on other clauses which have been passed and may have to be reconsidered ; and all that is necessary to put a member in order is to move the reconsideration of the other clause.


Samuel Barker: The same words are introduced into the two clauses. If you omit them from this, you will probably" have to go back and omit them from the other. Therefore one cannot very well discuss the amendment without discussing the two clauses together. The whole question must be discussed as one question. If the words ' for the defence thereof ' are not in this amendment, the whole law must be changed. I object to these words as absolutely unnecessary according, to the statement of the Minister of Militia himself. He is conveying not only to the empire at large, but to every other people, that Canada has laid down distinctly in its statutes that it will never use its militia except for the defence of Canada.
That is what I object to in the words proposed by the Minister of Militia. If we are to say openly to the world that we will never do anything with our militia, under any circumstances whatever, except for the mere defence of our country, why do we belong to the British empire 1 Are we to receive support from the British navy ? Are we to live under he British flag ? Are we to refer to this statute to the British empire or the King of Great Britain, and while referring to the King of Great Britain, and over again-much as we have done to eliminate him from the statute-are we to say, that under no circumstances whatever, shall we intervene in a British war except for our own selfish purposes ? No matter if the British empire were to be dissolved and crushed, we will remain still, we will never move, the government of Canada shall have no power even to call out for fifteen days the active militia, provided the emergency that has arisen is not one directly affecting our [DOT] own Dominion. Surely every Canadian who
REVISED EDITIOn

crnims to be a British subject must see the impropriety of inserting such words in this statute. I observe again the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) laughing when I used the words ' British subject.'


Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: I ask the hon. gentleman to recall that statement entirely. I think my loyalty is quite equal to his.


Samuel Barker: I said not a word about your loyalty.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: You said that I was sneering when you used the term ' British subject.' I am as proud as any one here of being a British subject, and whilst I have the opportunity, I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that if he is to-day a British subject, he owes that privilege to us French Canadians. If the British flag is floating in Canada to-day and if you can keep your two hands to-day upon it-to use a favourite motto of your dear friend who has just left our shores-you owe that to the French Canadians who saved it in 1770 and 1812, and hon. gentlemen opposite, with their tin swords, paper cocked hats and rocking horses are not likely to be the saviours of their country or more necessary to the defence of Canada than we are.


Samuel Barker: I do not propose to enter into any discussion with the hon. gentleman as regards who saved Canada. I am only speaking for myself as a British subject, and as I would speak if the hon. gentleman had never existed or any person of his race. I am quite as willing as any one to admit French Canadian loyalty, but for my part 1 deny that my existence as a British subject is due to the hon. gentleman or any of his.


William Mulock: He did not say that. He said that Canada to-day was indebted to the loyalty of French Canadians in 1776 and 1812 for the preservation of the flag over the eastern part of this Dominion and practically over this country, and I say so too.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman can let the hon. member speak for himself.
Sir 'WILLIAM MULOCK. I can speak for him and for myself as well.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman did not get up to speak for himself but for the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne). I deny what the hon. member for Montmagny has said so far I am concerned.


William Mulock: Then you have not read your history aright.


Samuel Barker: I have read as much history as you have. I am quite willing to admit what French Canadians have done in the past. We are all proud of what they have done in the past, but it is also proper Mr. BARKER.
that we should not forget what the men in Ontario have done in the past. They have fought and bled for their country just as well as their neighbours, but they do nlot perhaps boast unnecessarily of it, and I do not think the hon. gentleman need boast too much, either. We are glad to admit and always shall, what the men of Quebec did. We will never deny it. But that does not prevent us to-day from objecting to anything being put in a statute of this Dominion that will at all detract from what may be thought by the world at large of the loyalty of Canadians to the British empire. The moment we put in a statute only unnecessary words such as are proposed by the Minister of Militia, we will leave the world at large to believe that we are departing from that loyalty to the British empire which we ail feel so sincerely. I do not want to occupy longer the time of the House, but I say this, that if there were any necessity shown for these words, I would not object to them. I am not disposed to put the government of the day above parliament. I say that the government of the day must be subject to parliament, but when it c-cmes to a question of this nature-and it is only a matter of fifteen days that is in controversy

I say it is ridiculous- to stipulate that the Dominion of Canada, the people of Canada, cannot, in some great emergency which alone could call upon the government to send its troops out ot this Dominion, allow their government free action during fifteen days to organize the militia of Canada and then call parliament together to pass upon their action. Why, Sir, what do fifteen days or thirty days mean in the calling out of the militia ? Before the fifteen days were over the men would hardly be assembled at their headquarters. It would take fifteen days to gather them together at their various barracks and drill-sheds, and it is to be supposed that we must not allow the government of the day to call them out, when within fifteen days after the order goes forth to call them out, the government must call parliament together. Does anybody suppose that there can be any possible danger to the liberties of the people or any danger to the militia of Canada being sent against their will out of the country? Is there any danger that parliament cannot prevent it ? Before a man of them could be sent out of this Dominion, parliament would meet and put an end to it, if the government happened to be wrong. But the government do not want to leave it in their own power even to do such a thing, no matter how great the necessity may be. They are not willing that even they err their political opponents should have the power. They want to put it in black and white on the statutes that they cannot do it. Surely we may well protest against that. Surely we may look upon it as offensive to our fellow British subjects

throughout the world that we should proclaim upon our statute-book that we would not do such a thing in the defence of the empire. We are not saying that the government should have unrestricted power to send them out, but that they should have it subject to the reasonable safeguard that exists in the old law as it stood, which would give all the protection needed and avoid conveying to the world the offensive idea that we are not prepared to do our duty to the empire at large.


Frederick William Borden: I do not wish to impute motives to anybody in the House, but it does seem to me difficult to understand what possible good such a speech as that just delivered by the hon. gentleman can possibly serve. I am afraid that he Is not so much exercised as to what the rest of the world may think about this particular section of the statute as he is anxious by hook or by crook to say something or do something that will prejudice a certain portion of the pepple against this government. The hon. gentleman has asked, with an affectation of much anxiety, what the world will think, and what the rest of the British empire will think of Canada-though I have told him over and over again that upon the statute-book of every colony of the British empire is to be found precisely the same provision as he is now criticising. And, 8ir, upon the statute-book of the mother country herself, the hon. gentleman will 8nd this :
Section 12, part 3. Any part of the militia shall he liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom but no part of the militia shall be carried or ordered to go out of the United Kingdom.
Why, the hon gentleman out-Herods Herod. He is more loyal than the King. But let him look at the statute-book of that colony which, I believe, according to its population and means sent more men and spent more money than any other part of the British empire in the South African war-I refer to New Zealand-and in the Militia Act of that colony he will find the following :
The Governor may, by a proclamation In the ' Gazette,' direct the commander of the forces, to draw out with all convenient speed all of the defence forces therein for actual service, and to lead the said forces into any part of the district or colony which may seem best and to which such forces can be lawfully taken.
And the same thing is true of the law of Australia :
Members of the defence force who are members of the military forces shall not be required, unless they voluntarily agree to do so, to served beyond the limits of the Commonwealth and those of any territory under the authority of the Commonwealth.
Now, iMr. Chairman, coming back for a moment to the present law, the hon. gentle-257J
man says that we are doing something against the best interests of Canada, something that will prejudice Canada in the eyes of our sister colonies and of the mother country. Let me ask him to look at the present law and say, if he can, that under that law-taking not a single clause, but the law as it stands on the statute-book- the government of Canada can order out the militia to serve in South Africa or any other part of the world. He will not say so.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to answer his question ? I do not say we can. But I ask, that being the case, why alter the law ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-To make it absolutely clear, to make it as clear as it is upon the statute-book of the United Kingdom or upon the statute-book of other colonies. Why, what is the very title of this law ? It is a law relating to the militia and defence. What is the very essence of militia ? As I have said before, the underlying first principle of a militia organization-as any man who is familiar with the history of militia organization or military law knows-the prime object and the sole object of a militia is to defend the homes of the people. But the hon. gentleman went out of his way to find excuse for some quite unnecessary sneers at the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with reference to the action which was taken in the time of the South African war. Well, I would recommend that hon. gentleman to read the debate which took place the other day in the imperial parliament, and especially to read what Mr. Arnold-Foster had to say as to the Prime Minister of Canada. He will find, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Arnold-Foster, the Secretary of State for War in the imperial government, said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister of Canada, had rendered most distinguished service during the troubles in South Africa. It is a little too late-yes, and it is in exceedingly bad taste -for the hon. gentleman, at this time of day, to sneer at the Prime Minister of this country. In that connection, let me point to the fact that this country came to the assistance of the mother country in South Africa. And how ? Under the existing militia law which the hon. gentleman is so afraid to have touched ? Not at all, but by the voluntary offer of services from the people of this country. Does the hon. gentleman wish this country to embark upon the dangerous proceeding of preparing to take part in foreign wars ? Is that the policy of the hon. gentleman ? I think we have enough to do to attend to our own affairs. And, in my humble opinion we shall best serve the empire by making ourselves solid at home and preparing to defend our own soil. But the hon. gentleman says that we shall appear in bad form before other portions of the British empire.

Does lie know that, in addition to the fact that the great commonwealth of Australia has precisely the same provisions upon its statute-book that we are putting upon ours that great commonwealth has persistently and determinedly refused to invest a single dollar of its money in a navy to go beyond the seas immediately surrounding Australia ? Yet the hon. gentleman presumes to sneer at this government, and presumes to say that the slight alteration that is being made in this statute is something that is going to reflect upon the character of Canada. Well, Sir, in conclusion, let me tell him, repeating what I said this afternoon, that the loyalty of Canada and the power of Canada to aid the mother country are too well known to make it necessary to place any declaration upon the statute-book. The statute we have here and this provision of it is, as I have said, entirely in accord with the spirit of the militia force-it is that and nothing more. And the attempt of the hon. gentleman and others to prejudice the people of this country against this government, on this ground is unworthy of the hon. gentleman and of this parliament.


Samuel Barker: I want to say one word in allusion to a remark of the Minister of Militia. He says I sneered at the First Minister. I alluded to the opinion expressed by the First Minister in 1899, when he said that the old Act, the one that is now in force, prevented the government sending the active militia out of Canada for any purpose not Canadian. I said that the Minister of Justice expressed the same opinion. I referred to these opinions when I asked the Minister of Militia, as 1 did ask, under these circumstances, what was the need of altering the law.
at home and abroad and even for field service abroad.


Frederick William Borden: Purely as volunteers.


Robert Laird Borden: I don't know about that. I suppose there must be some statute or some authority vested in the government which would enable that to be done.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, there is.


Robert Laird Borden: And it was in that view I suggested that the militia of the United Kingdom might be sent abroad under the authority of the government or of parliament, because I had distinctly in my mind this paragraph which I had read not long before. It would appear therefore that there must be some statutory provision in the legislation of the United Kingdom beyond that to which the hon. gentleman has referred ; otherwise the report of the commission, headed by the Duke of Norfolk, could hardly have been couched in the terms I have just read. They are very significant, because it says the volunteers are purely for the protection of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended invasion.
Sir WIDDIAM MULOCIv. Those words in the report ' having at all times come forward and frequently been used ' would suggest that they themselves had volunteered.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, they could not be sent beyond the limits of the country, it seems to me, without some statutory provision, without some vote of parliament at least. Certainly, it is perfectly plain that their use has not been confined to the defence of the United Kingdom. They have, as distinctly stated in this report, been used for garrison duty both at home and abroad.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I ask the hon. gentleman what he meant when he said that the government, including the Prime Minister, had been kicked into doing what they did do.


Samuel Barker: That is so.


Robert Laird Borden: As the Minister of Militia has read a statute apparently in conflict with something I referred to, I would like to read from a report of a royal commission on the militia and volunteers, which has been recently made public in Great Britain. This report was made under a Royal Warrant bearing date 23rd April, 1903. The second paragraph of the first division of the report is as follows :-


William Mulock: On their volunteering to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether they cease to become militia on becoming volunteers. The report may be ambiguous on that point ; it certainly does not say so, because it distinguishes them from the militia all through ; and with regard to the use to which the militia has been put, it is still distinctly spoken of as distinct from the volunteers.


William Mulock: What is the meaning of those words ' on coming forward ' ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know.
The function of the volunteer force has always been held to be the support of the regular forces in the protection of the United Kingdom against ' actual or apprehended invasion,''while that of the militia has been two-fold ; this force having had the same duties as the volunteer force in the event for which the volunteers would he called out for active service, and further, having at all times come forward, and frequently been used, as a supplement to the regular army during war for garrison duties both Sir F. W. BORDEN.


William Mulock: That would seem to suggest volunteering.


Robert Laird Borden: On the other hand, you would hardly suppose they would be regarded as militia if they ceased to have the status of a militia and became volunteers, or an integral part of the regular army. Of course there is nothing to prevent the men of the militia from entering the regular army.

As pointed out in this report, the regular army ifi Great Britain is recruited from the ranks of the militia more largely than from any other source. That is one objection which is pointed out in this report to the actual conditions as they exist in Great Britain at the present time ; the ranks of the militia are continually depleted by the best men leaving the militia and becoming recruits in the regular army. However my suggestion to the Minister of Militia was simply this, that no good purpose, it seemed to me, could be obtained by altering the law from what it was before. You will still have ft government responsible for acting one way or the other, for sending troops out of Canada or refraining from doing so. The only tribunal to which an appeal can be made is parliament, and if parliament is to be summoned within fifteen days, where after all is the great advantage in altering the wording of the statute ?


William Stevens Fielding: The explanation of the report which the hon. gentleman has read will be found in the English statute in which, after first distinctly stating that the militia shall not be ordered abroad, it goes on to provide that where men volunteer they may within a limited area be used in service abroad, but the limitation refers particularly to the Jersey Islands, the Channel Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and they may go as far as Malta and Gibraltar ; but only to that extent, and then only when they volunteer.


Mr.   SAM@: I-IUGHES. The bon. gentleman is right up to a certain year, and since that year he is entirely vyrong. I will read a summary of the law which says :
In 1859 a power was given to the sovereign to accept voluntary otters by the militia to serve in the Channel Islands1 and the Isle of Man ; this was extended by the Act of 1875 to service in Malta and Gibraltar ; and as so extended was re-enacted in 1882. A further extension to any part of the world was made in 1898. At the same time the Crown was authorized to employ militiamen volunteering to serve, whether an order embodying the militia was in force at the time or not.
Every man in South Africa saw some of those volunteers in the militia uniform of the regular army ; and they have served in other parts of the world since 1898.


William Stevens Fielding: The law to which I referred and which was placed in my hand by some friend, was passed in 1882.	My hon. friend from Victoria
(Mr. Sam. Hughes) corrects me to the extent of saying that under a later amendment volunteers may go to any part of the world. But it is only when they volunteer; and the main fact still remains that the militia of Great Britain cannot be ordered beyond the confines of the United Kingdom. That, I am advised, is the law.


Hon.   I..@: I would judge from the statutes, which I have not examined
carefully, that they cannot go without their own consent. Still they go as an embodied part of the militia.


William Mulock: There is nothing in the law to prevent them if they choose to volunteer. The government has no power in Great Britain, I understand, to order the militia of Great Britain to serve outside the United Kingdom. What the law may permit a man to do if he desires to do it of his own motion, is entirely a different matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman appreciates what I was trying to convey to the Minister of Finance. I was merely suggesting that they go as a body of militia with their consent.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Volunteer militia, I think they are called.


Robert Laird Borden: If I do not make myself clear to the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) I am unfortunate. The militia are embodied in a regiment, a particular number of men are embodied in a regiment of militia. That regiment of militia cannot be ordered beyond the confines of the United Kingdom, but if the men, or a large number of men, are willing to go, then that regiment can go as a regiment of militia.


William Alfred Galliher: As volunteers.


Robert Laird Borden: No, they do not go under the English law as volunteers ; they go as a regiment.


William Stevens Fielding: I would almost think that was correct. But still the main point remains ; if the whole regiment were to volunteer and go as a body they would still be a body of militia and the Act contemplates that that can be done, but it is subject to the main provision of the statute that the militia shall not be carried or ordered out of the United Kingdom.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: Mr. Chairman, the subject before us is of no little importance to the country and of no little importance to the future well-being of Canada. It is to be regretted that there have come up in the debate in regard to this measure some expressions that would seem to reflect or cast a doubt on the loyalty of a part of the people of this country, but I believe that when I look over the faces of the members of this House who are reflecting the opinions of the people of the whole of Canada there is no disloyalty in Canada. I believe I can speak for this House, and speaking for this House speak for the country when I say that Canada stands for the integrity of the empire not only in sentiment, not only in vapouring, speech not only in discussion in parliament, but for the integrity of the empire embodied in the legislation placed on the statute-book. Therefore, I say it is of no little importance that the worid

should know, that Great Britain should know that we are taking no retrograde step in this regard and that we are content with the statute as the statute formerly was upon this question. I have been met and others may perhaps have been met with this reflection while visiting in the old land : ' You speak and boast of your loyalty and you pride yourself upon being a part of the British empire. What are you doing for the British empire ? Your loyalty is very cheap. It is costing you nothing for the maintenance of your independent status or for the support of the army or the navy'- I would like to be able to point to the fact that we are not taking any retrograde step in this regard not only as regards the speeches made on the stump, at social gatherings, or elsewhere, but I would like to be able to point to the statute-book and say :	We are doing something and we are
willing to do something to maintain the integrity of the empire. The Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has repeated that the only underlying principle upon which the existence of the militia is based is the defence of the country. The same might be said in regard to every armed force. No armies are organized now for aggression or conquest. They are ostensibly for the protection of the country and of the trade of the country in which they are formed. It may be that their warfare may be waged a long way from home as we may have to protect the interests of Canada a long way from Canada, but if we would regard ourselves as a part of the empire we would be able to bear our share of the burden and responsibility of the empire and in so doing we would be doing something to show that in this regard we are not taking any retrograde step. We ought to be willing to give Great Britain the support of our statute legislation so that they may see that: there is no doubt upon the question, and if doubt or ambiguity exists, let it be eliminated by expressing in unmistakable language that we are not taking any backward step, that we are holding as firm to those principles that we have professed in past years to-day as ever we have done and that we are ready and willing as ever to assist the empire. I believe that in doing so we are simply expressing the sentiments of our country. I do not think that there is any part of Canada, that there is any political party in it, that there is any province in which there is any sentiment of disloyalty. We are proud of the empire to which we belong and I believe that there are thousands of Canadians who would be willing to wipe away the reproach which is cast upon us to-day by the question ; What are you doing and what are you willing to do for the maintenance of the empire ? We are all intensely interested in this ques-Mr. RICHARDSON.
tion and we ought to be willing to make good our professions. If we take a little step in advance of other parts of the empire what does it matter ? It is only our right, it is only our duty. We have no standing army, we have no navy, we are contributing very little in that regard, but if we are able to say: ' We have a militia in Canada, an armed force, and we are not only willing to stand up in defence of our borders at home but for the defence of the empire, wherever we are called upon,' we would have the backing of the whole of the Dominion of Canada in doing so.


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. gentlemen opposite are losing the real point that I raised this afternoon. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence says that the militia of Great Britain cannot be ordered without the United Kingdom. He to-day is taking power to move the militia of Canada out of this country and in moving them out to say when they go forth that they must go forth only for the defence of Canada. He has limited the movement of the force of Canada by putting it on the statute-book that if they go without the country they can go out in order to assist in the defence of Canada. That is an unfair position to put the people of Canada in. They want to be free and this parliament ought to be free, if the power is given to move the militia out of Canada, to send them out for any purpose, the defence of the empire or the defence of Canada. I think there is no good reason why a limitation of this kind should be made. I agree with my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Riehardsou). These are growing times, the empire is * growing and if Canada can lead the empire, can lead Australia, New Zealand and other colonies, and if we say we are ready not only to maintain our own defence but to send our forces without Canada to assist in defending the empire we are only going along the line of progress^ I agree also with what has been said about the loyalty of Canadians. We have no doubt as to* tho loyalty of Canadians. I would be very willing to see my hon. friend from Labelle Minister of Militia in this country. I would .lost as soon see the chief command of the forces of Canada in the hands of a French Canadin as in those of a British Canadian.
I have every confidence in him and I am sufficient of a Canadian to say that I want to see the supreme command in Canada in the hands of a Canadian. I will never be ashamed of it. I say that we have men in this country competent to command our militia. There is not a citizen of this country not capable of being Minister of Militia and that being the case do not put a restrictive meaning on the position that we in Canada are prepared to take. Let it be known to all the world that not only are we prepared to defend our own country, but send our troops outside of Canada not

only for the defence of Canada, but for the defence of the empire and of her trade at any time.


William Alfred Galliher: I think a matter of tin's kind should be discussed dispassionately on both sides. I do not consider that fireworks or declamations are necessary to the production of a convincing argument. The proposition before us is as to whether we shall place in the hands of the government the power to say not only that the militia of Canada shall be sent out of Canada in defence of Canada, but also that it may be sent to any part of the world in defence of the British Empire. I think the latter is too great a power to place in the hands of the government. If it is necessary surely the parliament of Canada, representing the people, should be the first body to determine whether or not the militia should be sent abroad to fight the wars of the mother country.
Let us be as patriotic as we desire, yet we know as reading men, we know as thinking men that these things have occurred in the past and may occur in the future, that the mother country may be the aggressor, and may enter upon a war for the purpose of aggrandisement or the acquisition of territory. Those days are not dead in the world. It is yet possible that Great Britain or any other nation may go to war for this purpose. Suppose that such a war should be declared by Great Britain, a war for the purpose of aggrandisement. Are we going to say that any government shall have power to say to the militia of Canada : ' You shall go forth to aid in that war.' even although we may believe it to be an unjust or unreasonable war V I say that power should be in the hands of the representatives of the people. The amendment of that section will still leave it in the hands of the people's representatives to decide whether or not our militia should go forth to take part in a war whether that war is or is not a war in which we as a part of the British empire are interested. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) has made the statement that he is frequently met with the question : Why do you not contribute something towards keeping up the British army or navy, contribute something towards the defence of the empire ; you are doing nothing. Let me tell the hon. member that when the people of Canada are elevating the standard of the militia here, or when they will, as I hope they will in the near future, provide a certain coast protection by way of a navy, I say that we are contributing towards the defence of the empire. Wo are contributing just as materially and I claim we are contributing more materially towards the defence of the empire, when we elevate the standing of our own army than we would be by paying in dollars and cents so much into the British treasury which
might be expended elsewhere than in Cau-ada. That I say is to my mind a sufficient answer to any person who makes the accusation that we are not contributing anything towards imperial defence. I do not think that any one in this House, I doubt if there is a citizen in all Canada who entertains the slightest doubt in his mind of the fact that when the time comes, if it should come, that Great Britain while engaged in a just war in a just cause needs the assistance of Canada she will only have to ask for it; aye, she will not even have to ask for it, the sons of Canada will be ready to offer their services as they did in the South African war.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Why not put it in the statute ?


William Alfred Galliher: Reference has been made to certain portions of this country as being indifferent to defence. I do not think that is a fair statement. I would call attention to the fact that of the very first quota of men that ever went from Canada to engage in the service of the imperial government some twenty years ago,-I refer to the expedition to the Soudan-three-fourths were French Canadians. I knew this personally, I know the class of men who were in that party. I will state that no abler, more energetic, more loyal or more faithful body of men ever left the shores of Canada than the contingent that sailed from Canada in 1884. I speak from personal experience, 1 speak because I know whereof I speak, I speak because I myself worked and slept side by side with these men, and I cannot permit any7 reflection to be cast by any hon. member of this House upon them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who said anything against them V


William Alfred Galliher: It was read this afternoon.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not a word.


William Alfred Galliher: I know whereof I speak, I heard it. I say that no statement of that kind should be made. Of course if it is done for political purposes-I will not say it is, for I suppose it would not be parliamentary for me to say it is-but if it is for political purposes, it may be one way of playing the game. Perhaps it is justified, but at all events it is unfair. The hon. member for Colchester differed with the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence as to the interpretation of the section of the old Act with regard to the meaning of the phrase 'either within or without Canada.' It appeared to be in his mind if I understood him correctly that under the Act as it stands now, the government could send soldiers to any part of the empire. There may7 be many others not only lawyers but laymen who may hold

the same opinion as the hon. member. If there are such men is it not well that we should amend the section so that there can be no doubt upon that subject, so that whereas the government can order out the militia for the defence of Canada yet when it comes to deciding the question of sending the militia outside of Canada to take part in a war between Great Britain and a foreign power, parliament should have the right to decide as to whether those troops should be ordered out or not ? Lawyers do not always agree.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. member a lawyer 7


William Alfred Galliher: Well, I play at it sometimes. I do not agree with the conclusion reached by the hon. member for Colchester, because I take it we are legislating on matters pertaining to Canada and to Canada only, and I think reading this section and keeping in mind the fact that this legislation has regard to our own country, that these are the statutes of Canada, not statutes affecting Great Britain in any way, the meaning of the words ' within or without Canada ' would be and could only be that something directly affecting Canada not indirectly affecting it, was involved. He may be correct and I may be wrong : I,am simply stating that there is that difference of opinion between us, and with that difference of opinion existing between us, it seems to me that the government are acting wisely in placing that beyond question, by carrying this amendment. I do not think because we make this amendment that any feeling should arise that we are striking a 'b'low at the loyalty of the people of Canuda towards the British empire. I think if we do, we must think in our minds that there is a sinister motive in doing this. If I correctly apprehend the feeling of the people of Canada towards the mother country, neither this government nor any other government in Canada could have a sinister motive, which I take it was almost imputed by some members who spoke on the other side of the House.
If I gauge correctly the feeling of the people of Canada towards the mother country, it is absurd to charge this or any other government with any such sinister motives such as were almost imputed to this government by some hon. members who spoke on the opposite side. I cannot imagine that any government could make this change with any such motives in view. It is certainly drawing a very strained conclusion to charge any government, considering the relations that now exist between Canada and the mother country, with wanting to alter our status in any way so as to weaken those relations. Were I on the opposition side I should be sorry to think such a thing possible, and being a supporter of the government and also a British subject, and I


William Alfred Galliher: proud of the fact, I would be doubly sorry to imagine that any such motive could actuate the present administration.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher) has imputed to me sentiments to which I certainly gave no expression. I did not say anything to advocate that we should contribute to the support of the British navy or army. What I said was that I met with the reproach on the other side of the Atlantic that we held our loyalty very cheap and that it cost us nothing. I would like to be able to point to the statutes of Canada and say : here is our legislation, this is what we are doing and are prepared to do by our militia. There is no use disguising the fact, we may boast as we like about being a great country and a great nation, we are a small nation, but live in the hopes of becoming a great one some day. But we are great to-day in this, that we are in close unity with the empire and therefore every tendency which has the slightest appearance of weakening that union should be avoided as much as possible. On the contrary it would be better for Canada to strengthen her own position and strengthen the empire by giving moral support to Great Britain in every cause she adopts. We should not go back but take a step forward, and if necessary legislate ahead of what the other colonies have done in that regard. We want no standing army, but there is no reason why we should not to a certain extent give a larger sphere to the militia of this country than is given in the old country or the other provinces. It would be to the benefit of Canada to do this. Of that there can be no doubt. It is to be deplored that we would do anything which would have a semblance of weakening the ties which we believe do exist between Canada and the empire. Let us feel more and more tnat we are an integral part of the empire ; and being proud of our citizenship, we should be willing to do our share in defence of it.
Mr. GALLIHER, I wish to set myself right with my hon. friend. I did not intend to impute anything to him that he did not say. I merely referred to him for the purpose of saying that when such statements were made to him, as he said were, the answer to them was-and I think it a sufficient answer-that the best way in which we could contribute to the defence of the empire was by improving in Canada our own forces and our own resources. I did not intend to say anything further.


William Stevens Fielding: After a somewhat protracted debate, it seems pretty clear that our differences are merely in form and words and not in substance. In the early part of the discussion it was assumed that some material change was proposed in the clause ; but as the debate proceeded it was made clear that such was not the case. My

lion, friend the leader of the opposition suggested that if we would permit the law to remain exactly as it is, its effect would be precisely the same as it would he under the amendment proposed. I believe my hon. friend is right and that the difference is only in form and in words ; and that being the case, it is a pity we should any longer protract the debate. I would ask my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia to go on with the other clauses, reserving this, and see if some other form cannot be adopted which will carry out equally well what we all desire.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that that is a very good suggestion. For my part I am convinced that it is after all a question of what determination the executive will come to. If they come to any particular determination, they can be only checked by parliament no matter which rorm of words you adopt. As the Minister of Militia himself has said, I think in an earlier part of this discussion, the most effective way to defend Canada might be to strike somewhere outside of Canada, and the. government can always take that view, for which of course there would be responsibility to parliament. For that reason, I thought there was no need to make any change in the words of the old law, because after all the change proposed is only in the words and not in the practical effect of the section. I think therefore the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is a good one. Might I be permitted also to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia, because he seems to rely upon the English practice in this regard, the section he placed in my hands .iust now, to be found in the manual of military law issued by the War Office in 1899. On page 812 there is a provision that the militia, if they see fit, may volunteer for service out of Great Britain and His Majesty may accept their services. Would it be out of place-I am putting this forward as a mere suggestion-for us to adopt some legislation here to provide that our militia may, if they see fit, volunteer for service out of Canada and the Governor in Council may, if he sees fit, accept their services ? I would qualify that by the same provision with regard to parliament which we have already adopted. If we are to follow the English system in the one case, does not the minister think it would be proper to follow it in the other? There would be more reason to follow that course in this country. In Great Britain they have a standing army and we have not. Our whole defence is in the militia. And if there be reason for this in the United Kingdom. is there not more reason in this country ?


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion is worthy of consideration. There is just this difference possibly that when the English
militia volunteer and go abroad, they would of course be subject to the English militia Act which is made in harmony with the British Army Act. It would be inconvenient, if we sent orvr militia from Canada for service abroad, to attempt to operate them under the Canadian military law. It would be perhaps necessary that they should come under the operation of the British army regulations rather than the Canadian Act.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a mere matter of detail. The suggestion is one I offer for consideration and I cannot say that I am absolutely wedded to it. I was led to make the suggestion by having placed before me this particular provision, which restricts the sending of militia out of the United Kingdom.
Sir B'REDERICK BORDEN. I was about to say that I think there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out such a provision. Under existing conditions, our militia, if sent on service abroad, would have to be under the British army. No other service abroad would be recognized. We found no difficulty whatever, during the time of the South African war, in organizing about eight thousand men in Canada for service in South Africa, by making a special contract with them and enlisting them at once for service abroad in the imperial army. There can be no difficulty in the future. It has always been open to the young men of Canada to serve abroad, and we can at any time repeat exactly the method that was adopted in 1899 and 1900.


Robert Laird Borden: Probably the minister is quite right as to that. Possibly the only difference would be that you could send the militia in units or regiments, as they are now organized, and perhaps that is not a very important thing. But one difficulty the hon. gentleman speaks of does not seem to exist. Our militia, when called out for active service within Canada or out of Canada are subject to the King's regulations. Therefore, if you called them out and sent them abroad, they would be subject to the same discipline and control as soldiers in 'the British army.


Samuel Hughes: In proposing that the Canadian parliament should be called within a reasonable time as the English parliament is called within ten days, I thought that was all the safeguard that was required. I have already expressed my views of these word, ' for the defence thereof.' I think they are aggravating, and I believe they were put in, not with that intention possibly, but at the instance of certain gentlemen who had made it their boast at the time the troops went to South Africa that it would never occur again. Our friend from British Columbia said that a certain portion of the community had been classed

as disloyal. I did not class any as disloyal. What I do say is that the severance of the link is going on, not only on the part of my hon. friend from Labelle, but on the part of men who boast the good English names, and I regret to see it. I proposed an amendment this afternoon, but in view of the statement of my leader, X will withdraw it on the understanding that something will toe substituted in lieu of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: :	Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friends must not be too ready to say hear, hear, to everything that tends to dismember the empire. We want them to understand that there are gentlemen in this House and in the country who have view's on this subject that they are not afraid to express. On the understanding that this section is held over and will come up again, possibly till to-morrow morning, 1 will withdraw my amendment at the present time.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: In view' of the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, I want to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the w'ording of his amendment. In the event of the empire being at war, this amendment will not enable you to call parliament, because under it you are only to call parliament in case the militia are called out for active service.


Frederick William Borden: The government always has power to call parliament.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But the amendment is being inserted to justify you in calling it in a certain exigency ; but you cannot call parliament until the militia are called out for active service, and you need not call them out in case of a war not immediately affecting Canada. Therefore this amendment is perfectly illusive. The government would say, we will not call parliament because we have not called out the militia for active service, and we do not think we will. This amendment will never do. Wrhat you want is power to call parliament within ten days whenever the empire is at war. I am the most peaceful man in the world ; but I want to see this country prepared, when the necessity arises, to take a strong part. I only want the interests of the empire conserved. I have no quarrel with the French people. I rather admire them. If men like Champlain and Cartier were in this country to-day, they would be leaders in expressing this sentiment.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Leave the French alone ; they will take care of themselves.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The French people in Quebec, I believe, are thoroughly loyal and straight. If there is any thing wrong with them, it is simply that some of their leaders want to make votes. I want this amendment changed so that -when there is war in M. SAM. HUGHES.
the empire, a proclamation will call this parliament to decide whether we shall send troops to that war or not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It seems to me that the government have some disposition to rely oh the instructions of the hon. member for North Victoria, the hon. member for Colchester and the hon. member for East Y'ork, in framing their policy, instead of relying on the support of their friends. As they seem anxious to have Conservative ideas on the subject, I am going to quote them a Tory authority in support of their position. The very strange assertion has been made that the position taken by the Minister of Militia in the wording of this clause is a new one, that this introduces a new spirit Into the organization of the Canadian militia. But I wish to remind the House that in the Militia Act of 1855 the restriction was very stronger than it is now. Section 61 of that Act provided :
The Commander in Chief may call out the militia or any part thereof, whenever it is in his opinion advisable so to do, by reason of war, Invasion, or insurrection, or imminent danger of any of them.
And section 75 was as follows :
The militia so called out may be marched to any part of the province, or to any place without the province but coterminous therewith, where the enemy is, and frdm which an attack on this province is apprehended.
So, under the law of 1855, not only could not the militia of Canada be sent abroad to defend the empire, but if the empire had beeD at war with Mexico it would have been impossible for the Commander in Chief to send troops to defend Canada against nil attack from Mexico. Under the working of the new clause, there is ample room to send the militia anywhere for the defence of Canada. According to that clause the Minister of Militia, no doubt, could send troops to tlie shores of Newfoundland for the protection of Canada, or in case we should be threatened with attack from Mexico, the minister cculd send troops, if necessary, even to meet the Mexicans in their own territory. But the restriction in the present has very properly been made, according to the spirit of all our militia laws with the idea that tlie militia is organized for the defence of Canada. It may be very disloyal for us to assert that principle, but I must say that I have not been very deeply touched by the display of loyalty given by the hon. gentlemen from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) and from Colchester (Mr. Gourley). Of course these hon. gentlemen are not like hon. members on this side. They have to make up by their ultra-loyal protestations now for sentiments to which they have previously given utterance. I do not know of any hon. gentleman or>
this side-and I would like the government to remember that before they take the advice of such gentlemen as the hon. mem-

ber for Colchester in regard to proposed legislation-who has said a man required to be an idiot before he could be elected to the British House of Commons. None of us have gone to the point of saying, when it suited our political purposes-our narrow party purposes-that because the British minister thought proper, by his own authority, to call back a subordinate who is under his orders, that he is a coward. We respect ourselves as Canadians, and we respect the British as they should be respected. We know where we stand. We do not make our loyalty to serve our party purposes, ready to put it aside when there is any party advantage to be gained thereby. I do not know that any member of our party belongs to a powerful organization*-a so-called religious or social organization-[DOT] which, according to its Grand Master is essentially a political organization. The predecessor of the present Grand Master used to lecture us in this House, the French Canadians especially, but English speaking members also, upon their loyalty. Yet he once advised a certain element in the United Kingdom to go into rebellion under arms against the authority of the Queen because the laws sanctioned by the Queen did not suit his particular political views.
1 thought this amendment was prepared by the government of Canada. I thought the government of Canada knew that it could rely upon the faithful support of its followers upon this occasion. I fail to understand why the government should now stop the passage of this section in order that the extraordinary lights of the opposition

the legal, military and loyalty lights, such as the hon. member of Colchester and the hon. member for North Victoria-might be called to the aid of tne government in order that we may have a proper law. I do not know whether I am expressing the sentiments of the Liberal party, but I must say that I do not understand that we have been sent here to be led by the hon. member for Victoria and the member for Colchester. We have been sent here to stand by the government and the Liberal party as long as they stand by Liberal principles and as long as they have faith in the support of their followers. But X may say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and to the government, that if we have reached the point where they must get their inspiration and direction from what I may call the narrowest section of the Tory party, then, I think there will be much difference in the sentiment of the Liberals when the next election comes.


Samuel Hughes: I am delighted that we have at last unmasked the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He has shown himself in his true light-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Exactly. What X have always been-a Liberal.


Samuel Hughes: He has been masquerading up and down this country, and it is an open secret that the boast has been made that these objectionable words had been put into this clause at the instigation of the hon member for Labelle, and that this is the condition upon which he allowed the Bill to be brought before the House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I deny that absolutely. I read the clause for the first time in the draft Bill. I never saw the Minister of Militia about it. I had several conversations over other clauses of the Bill, but not over this one. The hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) must take those words back.


Frederick William Borden: I wish to endorse absolutely what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa). I never consulted him, anid he never made a suggestion to me with reference to this clause.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Samuel Hughes: The statement has been current that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) was behind the scenes in this matter. Did the hon. minister draw thalt clause himself ? No, he did not.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is obliged to accept the statement of the hon. member for Labelle.


Samuel Hughes: Lot me inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) that I have not disputed the word of the hon. member for Labelle.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is bound to accept the statement made by the hon. gentleman for Labelle.


Samuel Hughes: I have nothing to do with his statement. I make the statement that the report is current.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) must accept the statement.


Samuel Hughes: I will not accept the statement; it has nothing to do with what I said. I say the report is current in this country. Why, it has been published in the papers throughout the length and breadth of Canada.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) must know the rule-that when a statement is made in reference to another hon. gentleman and that hon. gentleman denies it, that denial must be accepted by the hon. gentleman. Wnether he believes it to be true or not is another question-but he must accept it.


Samuel Hughes: I thank you Mr. Chairman.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will state to the committee that he accepts

Silo


Samuel Hughes: I am not disputing the statement of the hon. member for La-belle, I have nothing to do with it. I make the statement that I have seen this report in the public press.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) denies it that ends it.


Peter Macdonald: No. when the hon. member denies the statement that does not end it. The hon. member speaking must accept the statement.


Samuel Hughes: I will accept the statement the hon. gentleman has made* but he did not touch the question I was dealing with. He says that he never consulted the Minister of Militia on this subject. I did not say he did. I will not retract what I did not say.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I tell the hon. gentleman not only that I did not speak to the Minister of Militia on the subject, but that I .had no communication with him at all and the first I knew of the clause was when I read it in the draft Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) to say that he did not communicate with the Minister of Militia on this subject or anybody else ? I accept that statement. But he has gone up and down this country boasting that Canadian soldiers shall not serve the empire, and it has been stated only a moment ago by the hon. gentlemen themselves that they did not intend that Canadian militiamen shall serve the empire, that they are only to be a force for the defence of Canada, in other words, that Canadians will never again take hart in imperial wars. Let me tell the hon. gentlemen that whenever Britain needs assistance, Canadian troops will give it; and if the hon. gentlemen opposite happen to be in power and decline to send them again, as they did decline to send them the last time, mark my words, they will send them or they will get out of power ; they will send them as they sent them the last time, at the point of the bayonet of public opinion. We are told that the record of sending those troops has not yet been made public, and the statements that have already been made public by the Prime Minister and his colleagues on that occasion can be quoted to prove that this government sitting opposite never, directly or indirectly, intended that one man or one rifle should leave Canada for the defence of the empire. I want to tell the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the hon. gentlemen opposite, that whether they are willing or not, though they do put in the statute book that this militia shall only be used for the defence of Canada and shall not go abroad- I want to tell them that there is no power in the government and no power in this
country to prevent the loyal men of Canada from standing in defence of the empire.


Mr. ARMAND LAYERGNE.: They are all loyal.


Samuel Hughes: No, they are not ioyal, they are lip loyal when it suits their convenience here to be so ; but when it suits their convenience elsewhere, in whispers around the clubs


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Who are disloyal ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know that the hon. gentleman has a commission to stand up and ask me questions. I shall tell him when it suits my convenience.


Louis Lavergne: I want to know if the hon: gentleman could give me an answer, and I see he cannot.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I can give a very satisfactory answer. I can say that the agitation which the press of the hon. gentlemen opposite is conducting in the city of Halifax, in the city of Quebec, and in the city of Montreal, is along the identical lines of the agitation which led up to the revolution of 1S37. I hold in my hand a history written by a good Liberal, a man who lived and died a Liberal, John McMullin. of Brock-ville, every one knows of him. I will not read it here, but I refer my hon. friend from La-belle to the pages of that history ; and he will find there-I daresay he has taken his inspiration from something of that kind-lie will find that the same plan of campaign was carried on before 1837 that we see going on around us to-day. They may just as well understand it, if the agitation is to sever one after another the links between the colonies and the empire, they may just ns well understand that the people of Canada will have to be reckoned with, and that they cannot succeed in their operations. If these words do not mean anything, I care not what the law on the statute-book may be, whether parliament is called or not, the sentiment of this country will be as strong as it was in the Transvaal war, and will again drive any government, even though it be in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite, to take action to allow young Canadians; ' to permit'-I believe that is the term used- to permit young Canadians to go and fight for the empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Peter Macdonald: Section 68 has not been passed. It will read section 59 in the reprinted Bill.


Frederick William Borden: I move the adoption of clause 59 in the reprinted Bill. But before that is put I would like to read what I propose as a new clause, 59a.
His Majesty shall be liable to make compensation for the death of any person, or for any injury to the person or to property arising from the use of any such rifle range, or of any


Peter Macdonald: rifle range under the contrpl of the Department of Militia and Defence for target practice, carried on in accordance with the regulations of the Governor in Council in that behalf ; provided that there shall be no claim to compensation where death or injury to the person is due to negligence on the part of the person killed or injured, or where such person at the time death or injury was sustained, was present as a spectator of the shooting or for the purpose of taking part in the shooting, or in some official or other capacity in connection therewith ; or in case of injury to property, where such injury is due to negligence on the part of the owner of the property.


Robert Laird Borden: On looking at the amendment I see it is provided that-
There shall be no claim to compensation where death or injury to the person is due to negligence on the part of the person killed or injured, or where such person at the time death or injury was sustained was present as a spectator of the shooting.
Would not that take away from the Crown liability for a spectator who was injured through the negligence of some person authorized to use the rifle range ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Voluntarily, yes.


Frederick William Borden: In that case you leave a civil action to the party in respect to the injury against the person who is guilty of the negligence ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly.


Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. Then follows another branch :
Or in some official or other capacity in connection therewith.
* Is not that possibly going a little too far ? I am not sure but that the Crown should he liable in a case of that kind. Perhaps the principle may be quite right, but it would exclude the Crown from liability for compensation in the case of the death of a person engaged in an official or other capacity in connection with the rifle range.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right, but if by negligence an accident happens or if a man voluntarily exposes himself to this risk he has no claim.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, you are following the principle of law. until the law was amended by statute, of a workman knowingly entering upon a dangerous task and who would not be entitled to any compensation by reason of the danger.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Samuel Hughes: Two thousand yards beyond the rifle range is controlled by the government. In case a person were on the property in rear of the rifle range controlled by the government and were injured, would he be compensated ? He must not be off the property controlled by the range in order to be entitled to compensation ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: An accident occurred some years ago in which a man working on his farm was killed and he could not get any compensation from the courts. This is to cover a case of that kind.


Samuel Hughes: He was not killed ; he was only wounded.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He was only wounded. The courts decided that under the statute there was no compensation.


Robert Laird Borden: 'There is only one suggestion I would like to make to the hon. Minister of Justice. I do not know whether it would be necessary or desirable to save the rights of any person injured against all persons other than the Crown. You may have circumstances under which the Crown would not be liable ; for example if the shooting is not carried on under the regulations of the Governor in Council. That is a condition precedent to liability under the Crown. The injury might occur where the shooting was not so carried on and there might be an argument made that the statute is exhaustive and that it comprehends all claims for injury in respect to a rifle range. I do not know that it could be so construed, but it might perhaps be guarded against.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You might let the amendment go through and we may consider it before the third reading, and if there is any point in it we will remedy it by a further amendment.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Frederick William Borden: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: There is one amendment to which the hon. minister drew attention clause 72 of the reprint.
The Army Act for the time being in force in the United Kingdom and the King's regulations, &c.
In this case I might point out that there is no ambiguity whatever in the law as now amended. The question was asked of the minister the other night and I do not think he need have any hesitation in believing that the principle of the English law is that when a man joins the militia force he loses none of the rights of citizenship, and except when in uniform or on duty the English militiaman, the volunteer officer and man, the yeomanry officer and man, each and all of them, are absolutely independent of the King's regulations and the Army Act, but the officer and man of the regular army and militia officer are subject to the King's regulations and the Army Act in England throughout the year.


Frederick William Borden: What page is that ?


Samuel Hughes: The pages are 522, 523 and 219, section 88. Briefly stated, the situation is this. Those who are subject to military law throughout the year in England, that is who are subject to the King's regulations and the Army Act are officers and men of the regular service and officers of the militia. The reason that the officers of the Imperial militia were brought under the operation of the Army Act some years ago was that more than three fourths of the officers of the militia are also officers of the regular service, men who are on the retired list or half-pay or officers who had attained the rank of lieutenant or captain and then retired to their home towns taking commissions in the militia. Then too the adjutant of every militia regiment in the old country is an officer on the staff of the regular service. But the militiamen and noncommissioned of the militia force are not at any period under the operation of the King's regulations and Army Act except when on duty, using that term in a general sense, nor are the officers and men of the volunteer force, nor are the officers and men of the yeomanry except when on duty. The exceptions then to the operation of the King's regulations and the Army Act are officers and men of the yeomanry, officers and men of the volunteers, and men of the militia. My leader prepared an amending clause which was accepted by the minister which had reference to the control over a man not in uniform who is on duty. It was intended to remove the ambiguity of the present law in regard to such a man. I think the case it was intended to meet was that a man might for instance go down to watch his corps drill, refuse to put on his uniform and stand in front of the corps and try to Sir F. W. BORDEN.
create dissension. I think it was to try to meet such a case that the present clause was put in the Bill years ago. I want to go further than this. The Bill at the present time makes it absolutely clear that the commanding officer has no authority over his men when they are not on duty, and I was sorry to see that three officers, two of whom have commanded and one of whom still commands a regiment in Toronto seem to be impressed with the idea, as I have frequently pointed out in this House, that they had some unseen or hidden control over these men when off duty. The first principle of the militia system is that it is a free system, it is a system for the defence of the country, and a system for free men, and once a man in the militia is off duty he is independent of his colonel and can treat that colonel in any way he chooses, subject of course to the restrictions of the Civil Law. I am proud to say that the men of the militia force generally show that respect to their officers which is due them, and that it is absolutely unnecessary to apply any law in this respect. Discipline is training, not repression. The minister knows from his long experience in militia affairs-and I am bringing this up in all kindness-and any one who has had experience with the permanent corps knows, that again and again the men of a force can give very excellent suggestions for the benefit and improvement of that force. At the present time it is as much as the life of one of these fellows is worth to run foul of a senior. I am not speaking of the minister, and I am sure he understands that I am not making any special reference. Suppose for instance that a lieutenant should undertake to make some suggestions to a captain who was disposed to tyrannize over him. He would be subjected to what in the army is called the devil's clutches. That is the term used in the army for bringing a man under the tyrannizing clauses in the Army Act for no offence whatever. I will give an instance. During the South African .war after the battle of Colenzo, a major in comand of a militia corps in England made the statement that the British officers had not their individuality sufficiently developed. He enunciated that idea one evening at a meeting of a committee of ladies and gentlemen formed in the city to take up sub-cription for the ' Absent-Minded Beggar Fund. He had nothing whatever to do with the meeting but he simply in conversation made this remark. This gentleman was brought under what is called the devil's clutches. He was retired from his command although he was one of the best officers in the service. He never had an opportunity of being heard and only that he happened to be a prominent officer who was able to fight the matter and to have it brought up publicly he would have been dismissed with ignominy from his corps which he had raised to a very high state of efficiency. I

do not see any harm in this amendment, hut in this case the remark happened to he made to an officer who had power and who wished to tyrannize over this major. I wish to submit an amendment and I would be pleased if the minister would change it in any way to meet the requirements. I believe that under the new system in England to which the leader of the opposition has referred, officers and men are encouraged to take hold of these matters, and that a magazine is to be published whose columns will be open to those who wish to contribute articles and that those who contribute articles are to be paid for them whether or not their views agree with the views of the government, if their articles are worthy of consideration. That is the principle I want. I want to have the officers of the permanent force to whom of course this particular refers, relieved as far as possible from the tyrannous clauses of the King's regulations and the Army Act, or what is termed in the imperial service, the devil's clutches. The amendment I would propose is as follows :
Nothing in this Act shall at any time prevent any officer or man of the militia except when on parade or on duty from temperately expressing his views on questions affecting the welfare of the militia force, and communicating suggestions, criticisms and statements thereon to the public of Canada.


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: The minister has not shown any specific case in which diffw culty could arise. I am not proposing to interfere with discipline. If a man becomes intoxicated or disorderly, he can be dealt with ; but I want men to be free to speak and make suggestions for the good of the force. It has only been within the last two weeks that an officer sent me a private and confidential and registered letter, in which he said, for Heaven's sake do not let anybody know that I have written to you ; and yet he only wished to make a suggestion in regard to the pay of officers and staff sergeants in camp. He had the notion of some city colonels that he was subject to the King's regulations the year round. I am satisfied that very many excellent suggestions could be made by men in the permanent force : but they are afraid to go to the minister himself. I have said to some of them, why don't you bring that before the minister or the general ? They would shrug their shoulders and say, we have not any authority. It is to meet that class of cases that I make this proposal. I have been thirty-seven years connected with the force, and I have never had to place a man under arrest in my life. I am not at all impressed with the idea that discipline means restriction. On the contrary, it means education, training, self-control, not control by others. Discipline is the exact reverse of oppression and tyranny. I would commend this matter to the minister in the hope that he will give it his very best consideration.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be very glad to do that. I would like to say one word further. I think there is a great deal of force in what the hon. gentleman has said, and I think it is possible in the regulations to provide in some way that intelligent men who take an active interest in the welfare of the force should be asked, perhaps once a year, to express their opinion in regard to any subject relating to the force on which they wish to speak. I think that might be useful.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that among the best suggestions which I received last year in regard to pensions were some which came to me from a non-commissioned

officer. I dare not let his name be known, although there was nothing wrong in what he wrote to me ; but it was contrary to the regulations for him to write. The minister adopted a good many of his suggestions in his Bill. Why not adopt the policy which the British government is pursuing, and have some centre to which these men could send their expressions of opinion ?


Frederick William Borden: That is a very good idea.
On section 84,


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is proposed to substitute the 1 may ' for * shall ' in this section.


Samuel Hughes: What is the object?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Do not criticise me too closely. But if the hon. gentleman reads the clause he will see that ' may ' is a good substitute. In this case, I think,
' may ' will be read as ' shall.'
On section 110,


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is proposed to amend this by adding, after the word ' penalty- ' the words ' If an officer, to twenty-live dollars and if a man to ten dollars for each offence.' This distinguishes between an officer and a man.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: But they are punishable by the Army Act. It opens 'every man of the militia ' and ' man ' is specifically defined at the beginning. The hon. minister had better say, ' every officer or man ' at the beginning.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will look at the interpretation clause he will find that it includes warrant officer and non-commissioned officer as well as private.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, but neither of these is an officer.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This must be for militia authorities to decide, but would not the hon. gentleman distinguish between an officer, a non-commissioned officer and a private?


Samuel Hughes: ' Every man of the militia who disobeys any lawful order of his superior officer, or is guilty of insolent or disorderly behaviour towards such officer, shall incur a penalty,' if an officer, of so much, and if a man, of so much. I think it should be clear this could only apply when they are on duty, or in uniform.


Frederick William Borden: It only does apply then.


Samuel Hughes: But the 'lawful order ' covers the order part of it. Now look at the second clause, ' Every man of the militia who disobeys any lawful order.' That is all right because it is not a Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
lawful order unless he is on duty. But the next part ' or is guilty or any insolent or disorderly behavious towards such officer shall incur a penalty of $10 for each offence.' Why not put in the words ' such officer or man while on duty ' ?


Frederick William Borden: Because section 72 controls that.


Samuel Hughes: That is the King's Regulations and the Army Act, in section 72. This is a civil court offence under the Canadian law.


Frederick William Borden: But 72 fixes the time when the man is under the control of his superior officer.


Samuel Hughes: But 110 is an old Army Act, this is a statute of Canada, and it brings the man up for punishment. I suggest that it read ' or is guilty of any insolent or disorderly behaviour towards such officer or man wTien on duty.' What harm can it do.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Does the hon. gentleman not admit that the second part applies to the, first ?


Samuel Hughes: I am asking the hon. Minister of Justice-he is a lawyer and I am not-what the interpretation of that might be. Would the hon. minister look at it and see 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The first part is all right. If it is a lawful order and if he is guilty of any insolent or disorderly behaviour to his superior officer he would be liable to a penalty, but the question would come up that the officer would not be an officer unless he was on duty. He would be merely a citizen.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How would it do to make it read this way :
Every man of the militia who, when on service, disobeys any lawful order, &c.


Samuel Hughes: I do not mean the first part. The word ' lawful ' covers that.


Frederick William Borden: That means surely that it is a lawful order ?


Samuel Hughes: I want, to make it clear. It is the same old wording in the original Act, but it is under the Army Act and refers to a condition of things in which, with the permanent force in England, the men are always on duty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How would it do to inake it read this way ?
Every man of -the militia who disobeys any lawful order of his superior officer, or who, when on service, is guilty of any insolence or disorderly behaviour towards such officer, shall incur a penalty, &e.


Samuel Hughes: That will cover it.


Frederick William Borden: I think that is ail right. I move :
That the words ' who when on service ' be inserted after the word ' or ' in the second line.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has raised the point: Would it be a lawful order if he was not on service ? I do not think it would be.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was the contention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence the other day that any order of his superior officer, whether he was in uniform or not, would be a lawful order.


Samuel Hughes: No.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the case of Cole vs. Cook that point was decided.


Samuel Hughes: That is right.


Frederick William Borden: The title is to be changed back to what it was in the old Act :
An Act respecting the Militia and Defence of Canada.


Peter Macdonald: That can be changed on the third reading.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let us finish it up to-night.


Samuel Hughes: We will drop all the amendments and I think it will be satisfactory to us if the hon. minister will accept' as section 69 the following :
The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada for the defence of the empire.


Frederick William Borden: No, that will not do.


Robert Laird Borden: What clause has replaced this in the original Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Clause 79 when the Bill was introduced.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is any great object in keeping it in committee, if it is desired to get it through to-night, and if there can be further discussion on the third reading.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps you might reconcile the conflict of view on it by making it ' for defence ' instead of the word's# for the defence thereof.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be the same thing in effect.


Robert Laird Borden: In effect I think it is the same thing now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So do I, absolutely the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: Because after all the responsibility is thrown upon the government in power.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A mere play upon words.
Mx\ R. L. BORDEN. The only reason 1 have for objecting to the language is perhaps a sentimental one.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You might let the section go through in its present form, and if on the third reading there is any suggestion we can deal with it then.


Hon.   I..@: I am agreeing to this in the belief that every one is here who wanted it to stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there was permission given to amend it on the third reading it would be all right.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There cannot be any undertaking given to amend it on the third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have this disadvantage that on the third reading we are out of committee and you only speak on it once.


Frederick William Borden: That is one of the advantages.


Robert Laird Borden: After all I do not see, when you already have a provision fixing the terms upon which you can call out the militia why you require to repeat these terms in the amendment.
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia of Canada or any part thereof on active service anywhere in Canada or beyond Canada for the defence thereof.
That is already covered. Why not have it.
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia of Canada, or any part thereof, on active service.
You have already limited the calling out of the militia and this is a mere repetition.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Robert Laird Borden: It would meet uiy sentimental objection. Then it would read:
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia of Canada, or any part thereof, on active service, the parliament of Canada shall then, &c.


Peter Macdonald: I shall read the section as it was and as it is.
69. The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Then the amendment as first proposed was as follows :
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia, or any part thereof, on. active service anywhere in Canada or beyond Canada for the defence thereof, parliament, if parliament be then separated by such adjournment,-



and so on. Now the proposition is that the words
Anywhere in Canada or beyond Canada for the defence thereof,
be struck out.


William Mulock: I would suggest that you put in the word 'so,'-'whenever so called out.'
iMr. FITZPATRICK. I took about a day to draw that clause and I would like to have as little emendation as possible.


William Mulock: Whenever the Governor in Council so place* the militia, or any part thereof.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You will make it as bad as ever.


William Mulock: It is intended to meet the preceding state of affairs.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister going to accept my suggestion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let us get through with one suggestion at a time ; they are coming in so fast now, that we will not have time to deal with them.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the
word ' so ' is necessary.


William Mulock: Very well, probably it does not.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister going to accept the amendment to have the word ' thereof ' changed to 'empire.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Do not start another row.
Bill as amended reported.
Amendments read the first and second times, and agreed to.



RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 157) respecting the payment of certain railway subsidies.-Mr. Emmerson- was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to amend section 1 by a slight verbal change. I would move to add the words ' difference between the ' before the word ' amount ' on the 25th line and to strike out words ' over and above ' on the same line.
On section 2-' cost ' defined-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This would put it in the power of the minister on the chief engineer's recommendation to increase the subsidy considerably.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This gives power to fix the subsidy beforehand on data furnished by the chief engineer. This change is favoured by the Auditor General and by Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
the department, as it will avoid a great many difficulties, and it will be very much easier to reach a conclusion beforehand. In all cases this course need not necessarily be followed. It will only ,be when a company applies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They will always apply.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some may not. I can well understand a company in certain circumstances not desiring to be limited to a certain amount, hoping to get the full $0,400. The amount in this instance is dependent upon the chief engineer's report, which would naturally be on the safe side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While it might be more convenient to the Auditor General and the department in some respects, because it would give them less trouble in going over the accounts, still it leaves in the hands of the Minister of Railways power to make the subsidy what he likes between $3,200 and $0,400 a mile, with the aid of the engineer, who is always available, and who can no doubt be got to make a certificate to suit the minister's purpose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman does not know the engineer.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The position is this. Under the law every subsidized railway is entitled to $3,200 a mile. If the cost of construction exceeds $15,000 a mile, it is entitled to an additional subsidy of one-half the cost exceeding $15,000 a mile, but potj to exceed in any ease $6,400 a mile. Assuming the road costs $18,000 per mile, that would entitle the contractor to $3,200 per mile and an additional $1,500. When the government enter into a subsidy contract, as provided ,by this section, the company will not get the whole of the subsidy until the whole of the road is completed. They will get the ordinary subsidy of $3,200 per mile and only 70 per cent of the extra subsidy, the 30 per cent being retained by the government. If the road costs the sum estimated by the chief engineer or an additional amount, the company then get the 30 per cent. Otherwise they forfeit the 30 per cent. The government make themselves absolutely sure, and I do not understand what benefit or advantage there is to the contractor in this measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is this, .that he has during his progress estimates so much more money from month to month.


James Clancy: Is there not also this advantage ? Suppose the road cost $14,000 a mile, under the present law the contractor would get $3,200 and no more. But if the engineers' estimate was $18,000 per mile, he would be in pocket 70 per cent on the extra $1,500.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is that possibility. If the engineer estimated the cost,

say $18,000 a mile, the contractor would get $3,200 a mile and 70 per cent of the extra $1,500. If on completion it was ascertained that the average cost was under $15,000 a mile, he would be in that 70 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: That is if the estimates
were unreliable.


Robert Laird Borden: There is that danger, which possibly should be removed by providing that if the subsidies paid were after wards discovered not to be earned, the money should be recovered. Suppose the engineer estimated the cost at $18,000 and it afterwards turned out that the c.ost did not exceed $15,000 per mile.


William Mulock: Could he err that far ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is possible. Does the contractor get his $3,200 per mile before the completion of the work ?
question. It does not depend upon circumstances which may afterwards arise.


Robert Laird Borden: I must confess I do appreciate very much the argument of the hon. gentleman. How he can say that it is in the interest of the department and the country to pay an additional subsidy of $1,500 per mile passes my comprehension. We are basing our arguments upon the case of a road estimated to cost $18,000, but which turns out to have cost $15,000 per mile. In one case the company is entitled to $3,200 of a subsidy, but in the other case it would be entitled to $4,700. Why pay the additional amount ?


Robert Laird Borden: Then, you go on and pay a subsidy accordingly.


William Mulock: No. The bonus
is fixed.


William Stevens Fielding: As it progresses.


Robert Laird Borden: He gets $3,200 per mile as the work progresses and then he gets 70 per cent of $1,500 per mile additional, assuming the road to cost $18,000 per mile. When you retain from him 30 per cent, do you retain it on the $3,200 as well as on the $1,500 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, he is entitled to the $3,200 absolutely.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be well to amend the statute so that the government would retain 30 per cent of the whole until they had the final statement of the chief engineer as to the cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me that in the interests of the department this is a very desirable measure, because you fix the amount and there is something determined. It is not left to what I may term the haggling that results thereafter. I can very well understand that it is not merely in the interest of the contractor that you should fix a definite sum, but it is certainly in the interest of the country. The monied interest, the banks, are interested, and the fact that you have a subsidy determined in the first instance is based upon the theory that inquiry has been made by the chief engineer into the conditions and surroundings of the proposed road.
' Mr. CLANCY. I am afraid the hon. minister is taking some of the risks the bank would take under the present law.


Henry Robert Emmerson: By no means. For the department, through its engineer must have a thorough survey-the quantities and all the data-to enable them to fix the amount.
I recognize that it is advantageous to the department and to all concerned, but I think it is more to the advantage of the department really than it is to the others, because you can have the amount fixed beyond all 2584


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, gentleman is right

I think the hon.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It estimate of the engineer.
all turns on the


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it would be the fairest way to let the matter be controlled in the end by the actual cost of the road.


William Stevens Fielding: The advantage gained is, to some extent, the purpose of the Bill- certainty. It will be an advantage to the railway man. If we aid a railway it is because we believe it will benefit the country, and we want, within reasonable limits, to help the contractor. Of course he is certain of his $3,200 a mile, but he desires also, within reasonable limits, to know what surplus subsidy he is entitled to. If he goes to the bank and says: This railway is going toi cost a sum which will entitle me to $(>,-400 a mile, and I want you to finance accordingly, the bank may say :	It may be
that you will be entitled to that subsidy, but what guarantee have we of that 7 We have the guarantee of the $3,200, and you ask us to advance large sums on the theory that this road is to be a costly one, but we have no guarantee. So, the contractor says to the government:	Make an estimate of
the cost and put me in such a position that 1 can tell the bank how much I am to get. That is a legitimate request. The engineer who is called upon to make bis estimate will bo aware that his estimate will be subject to comparison and examination when the road is finished, and that if it proves to be seriously wrong, he will be discredited. His natural tendency therefore, will be, in the first instance, to make a careful, safe, conservative estimate, for his own reputation

unless we assume that he is a man who wants to be dishonest. But, going on the fair assumption that he is a man who wants to do his duty, his tendency

will be to make a careful, safe, conservative estimate. Taking that, you then allow a margin by paying only 70 per cent of the estimated surplus subsidy. You have two checks which give a reasonable assurance that there will be no abuse. Abuse can follow from only one of two assumptions-either that the engineer is incompetent I'll making his estimate and that his errors more than counterbalance the margin of safety, and the other-which we need not assume-that he is dishonest and wishes to deceive the government. I think it will be found in practice that the engineer, for his own reputation, will make a moderate and careful estimate,, iuid I think that no cases will be found where the actual cost will be less than the engineer's estimate.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the exper-if nee of the roads generally subsidized as to earning this $6,400 of a bonus ? I imagine there are only a few cases.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the minister has the figures on that point. When I was in the department my attention was called to the fact that there were several. They did not ail get that amount by any means, but there have been several that have got it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There have been cases where parliament has fixed the bonus at


Robert Laird Borden: The contractor takes a certain risk, because it may turn out that the road cost more than the estimate made by the chief engineer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He forfeits his right to the additional amount.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate that.
I do not know whether or not there would be anything in the experience of the government to indicate that possibly the contractor might in that case come along with a claim.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not take much ground for that.


Robert Laird Borden: It might possibly work out that, whenever the cost had been overestimated the government would recover nothing, and when under estimated the contractor would put in a claim and say that, though he had no legal claim, yet, in all fairness he ought to be paid.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The word 'may' is there.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I must say that I have not yet known of a contractor who was afraid of the word ' may ' or of any other. There is this to be observed also -that the surveys, plans, and profiles, I suppose, will not be made by the chief engineer, but will be furnished by the contractor.

Mr. FIELDING, in under this Act.
They would not come


William Stevens Fielding: He will not do it personally, but he will have to send his engineers.


Robert Laird Borden: The language is :


James Clancy: If I understand the Bill, the effect will be that all roads costing less than $15,000 a mile will get an additional subsidy.


William Stevens Fielding: No, not an additional subsidy.


James Clancy: They get 70 per cent or 50 per cent of the additional cost and to that extent, it does mean an additional subsidy to the road.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not mean an additional subsidy to what they would otherwise receive. If they do not receive it now, they would receive it at the end of the | undertaking. But, if the road cost the sum fixed they would have no assurance in the meantime that they would receive it. They would have to speculate on the engineer's ultimate report. The effect is to reach a conclusion, with a margin for safety, at an earlier stage and to give the company the assurance at once.


Robert Laird Borden: The government is taking the risk of the correctness of the estimates instead of the person who is to advance the money.


William Stevens Fielding: Except, that the contractor takes the risk of the road costing more.
Mr. FIELDING
Upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, and his certificate that he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profiles of the whole line so contracted for.
I do not know what is intended ; but would there not be some little risk in taking the surveys, plans and profiles submitted by those who are to -build the road ? And does it not mean that?


William Stevens Fielding: It is capable of meaning that.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not call for examination, except of the surveys, plans and profiles made by those who are to build the road. There is certainly a looseness in the statute in that regard. I think the statute would be satisfied by the examination of those surveys, plans and profiles. Possibly: the government might consider whether there should not be some additional safeguard in that respect.
Mr. BARKER, I would suggest to the Minister of Railways that seventy per cent on half the estimated cost over $15,000 is rather risky ; the government might find it had paid a larger subsidy than it intended to pay. It seems to me a more reasonable proposition would be to allow fifty' per cent absolutely and hold twenty per cent for final

settlement. You would then run no risks. Take fifty per cent instead of seventy as a positive advance that the hank could count upon, and leave the other twenty per cent in suspense.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman said the other twenty, it would be the other fifty, would it not ?


Samuel Barker: I understand you propose to give them seventy per cent absolutely.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Seventy per cent on the excess.
Mu1. BARKER. Do you ever pay the balance of the half of the excess?


William Stevens Fielding: Not if he accepts the seventy per cent.


Samuel Barker: The seventy per cent if accepted by him is taken as a settlement ? The danger is that you may have an overestimate which will cause you to pay him too much. For example, you would pay him too much if the estimate was 819,500 a mile and it actually costs $17,500. I suggest that instead of allowing seventy per cent on half the excess you agree to pay him fifty per cent, you are safe in doing that ; and if in the final settlement he is entitled to more, pay him the other twenty per cent as a final adjustment. Give him a right to collect the other twepty per cent.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is substituting fifty for seventy.


Samuel Barker: Pay him finally exactly the sum of money as if under this proposal you gave him seventy per cent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why would not sixty and forty per cent be right.


Samuel Barker: I think seventy is too high.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Put in sixty and forty, and retain forty per cent for safety.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Some documents were placed on the table with regard to the report of Mr. Justice Britton along with the Order in Council, cancelling the concession. Some suggestion was made this morning that these documents should be printed, but that was not acquiesced in. Then the Minister of Justice was to give some information or a report as to the diversion of traffic from the Intercolonial. The minister will not forget that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will give my hon. friend a copy of the letters I have received ;
that is all the information I have. In addition to that, I have a statement of claim that I will hand to my hon. friend in the morning. I may say that the measure of damages and the mode of estimating the damages are not here. That will depend on correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up in the morning the resolution respecting the Canada Eastern, and perhaps other resolutions on the Order Paper ; and later in the day, supply will be moved. The Postmaster General will move, the third reading of his Bill, and after three o'clock, the Militia Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And my Election Bill. I stated to-day in the absence of the leader of the opposition, that I intended to drop the reference to Algoma so far as Ontario is concerned, and confine the Bill merely to British Columbia and the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m.-Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 2, 1904.