1904-07-12

RESIGNATION OF LT.-COL. GREGORY.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia) moved for :
Correspondence and papers respecting the extension of the command of Lieutenant-Colonel R. W. Gregory, commanding officer of the 2nd Dragoons, his subsequent resignation, &c.
He said : These papers were asked for by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden). I have them here and, if the resolution is carried, will be ready to lay them on the table. I would like to say, in
[Stage Direction]
this connection, that, while I have brought all the papers relating to this matter, I hope this will not be considered as establishing a precedent, because some of the papers are of a confidential character, being reports by the commanding officer upon the efficiency, &c., of officers under him. It is not usual to lay such papers upon the table of the House. I think that in this case it is absolutely necessary that it should be done, but I should deprecate the suggestion, if it were made, that this should be done in every case.
Motion agreed to.
ARBITRATION WITH THE GRAND '	TRUNK.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 152) respecting an arbitration between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. He said : The object of this Bill is to confer upon the arbitrators appointed to inquire into certain troubles that have arisen between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the government certain powers mentioned in the Bill. These troubles arise under the contract respecting the acquisition by the Intercolonial of the old Grand Trunk from Riviere du Loup to Point Levis, or, rather, to a station called Hadlow, and to other difficulties that have arisen out of the operation, under the agreement made in 1898, of the line between Ste. Rosalie Junction and Montreal. These questions have been referred to arbitrators to be determined by them ; but it has been ascertaned that the arbitrators have not, under the deed of submission, the necessary power to examine witnesses under oath or to order the production of papers. In order to have a full and complete inquiry into the matters in dispute, it is necessary to have the powers mentioned in this Bill conferred upon the arbitrators.
Mr. KEMP.: It is, to some extent, in regard to freight traffic-division of earnings ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: The question of the division of earnings and diversion of traffic arises under the second contract that of 1898. the troubles that have arisen under the first contract, that of 1878, are as to the use of the portion of the line between Point L6vis and Ohaudi&re Curve. 1 may say that that portion .of the line is divided into two parts. Under the agreement, that portion between Point Levis and Hadlow is the property of the Grand Trunk, while that portion between Hadlow and ChaudiSre Curve is the property of the government. It is provided under the agreement that each party has the right to use the line of the other. But difficulty has arisen concerning foreign freight cars carried over these lines. The government claim that the Grand Trunk had no right to charge them for foreign freight oars-cars belonging to other railways- 206i
carried over the Grand Trunk portion. But the Grand Trunk have made a charge of a fairly large amount on each car. The question is whether they had the right to do that, and whether they have the right to do it in the future.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Is it provided that there may be an appeal from the finding of the arbitrators, or will that finding be final '!


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot answer that question off hand, but when the Bill is under consideration in committee, I will be able to do so.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I can understand how necessary it is, with reference to the charge of freight cars, that there should be an appeal to the courts, instead of leaving the matter to the final decision of the arbitrators.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The other matter is of even more importance-that arising under the contract of 1898 relating to the diversion of traffic. It was understood that the Grand Trunk was to hand over to the Intercolonial all the traffic intended for the maritime provinces. Instead of that, the traffic has been diverted and sent to other places.


Albert Edward Kemp: Sent to Portland.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And some of it to Sherbrooke ; I do not know exactly how it has gone.
Mr. MAC-LEAN. Does not all this go to show that the Grand Trunk Corporation is a rather difficult one to deal with, that it is hard to compel them to live up to their obligations ? We seem to be getting into a mass of litigation with this concern, and yet, it has been entrusted with the national transportation proposition. It does not wish to obey the Alien Labour law : it seeks to build up United- States seaports ; in every way a great deal of litigation seems necessary to compel them to carry out their obligations.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: All I wanted to know is whether in these Important matters provision will be made for an appeal, if necessary, to the Supreme Court and ultimately to the Privy Council.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot answer at the moment. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) is aware that the usual course is to appeal from the arbitrators to the Exchequer Court, and from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court. I cannot say, at present, what provision has been made with regard to these proceedings.


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

Mr. KEMP  I.@: he has gone through the necessary formalities with respect to the production of the papers relating to the harbour dues of Montreal, referred to by the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Mr. Tarte).


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think I shall be able to bring it down at an early date.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: An order of the House was passed on 30th May last for the production of certain papers in the department of the Minister of Agriculture. The papers are not yet down. It is to be hoped that the session will soon come to a close and so we would like to have these papers brought down as soon as possible.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: To what papers does the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) refer ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Papers relating to the chicken-fattening stations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will look it up. I thought the return had been laid on the table.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I inquired of the officials this morning and was told it was not down.



THE MILITIA ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada. Sir I red-erick W. Borden.
On section 68,
At or near as possible to, the headquarters of every regimental division, there may be provided a rifle range with suitable butts, targets and other necessary appliances ; and the Governor in Council may stop, at such time as is necessary during the target practice of the Militia, the traffic on any roads, not being mail roads, that cross the line of fire, and may make such other regulations for conducting target practice and registering the results thereof, and for the safety of the public, as are necessary, and may impose penalties for wilful damage to any such butts, targets and appliances ; and all such ranges shall be subject to inspection and approval before being used; and the owners of private property shall be compensated for any damage that accrues to their respective properties from the use of any such rifle range.
Mr. BOURASSA.: I propose an amendment to this clause by striking out all the words after the word ' used ' in the twenty-first line, and inserting the following in lieu thereof :-
His Majesty shall be liable to make compensation for the death of any person, or for any injury to the person caused by a bullet wound arising from the use of any rifle range for target practice, and for any Jnjury to property arising from such use; provided that there shall be no claim to compensation where the death or personal injury was due to negligence on the part of the person killed or injured, or where such person, at the time the death or injury was sustained, was at the rifle range for the purpose of taking part in, or in some official Mr. KEMP.
or other capacity in connection with or as a spectator of the shooting, or in the case of injury to property, where such injury was due to negligence on the part of the owner of the property.
I may recall to the committee a very sad case that occurred some years ago in the county of Jacques Cartier, at the CSte bt. Paul rifle range, I think it was, where a man named Larose was maimed for life. He sought compensation before the Exchequer Court, and I will read an extract of the judgment which shows a defect in the law in that respect. The judgment assimilated his case to a case of damage on government property. and was rendered under that subsection of clause of the Exchequer Court law.
Every claim against the Crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property on any public work resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown, while acting within the scope of his duties or employment.
Naturally the judge of the Exchequer Court held that the rifle range could not be considered a public work under this definition, and moreover it could not be proved that the man was wounded by a bullet coming from a rifle made by a militiaman, as it might have come from some amateui practising there. As the judge remarked :
Parliament has made provision for compensating persons for damages accruing to their properties from the use of a rifle range ; but not for personal injuries, and it is not for the court to add to or to extend the remedies that parliament has provided.
The case was taken before the Supreme Court and the judgment of Judge Burbidge was upheld. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Sir Elzear Tasche-reau who, quoting the article of the Exchequer Court law which I have just read, added :
Moreover it is not proved who fired the shot that wounded the suppliant. It may have been fired by one of the amateurs or volunteers not on duty, who were there practising on that day, with the men having what is called in the case, government practice.
Therefore I propose to supplement the present law so that persons suffering damages received from target practice may be compensated. There is no doubt that a person who stands on a rifle range is in a better position to prove from whose rifle the bullet came that injured him : but the peaceful man who may be ploughing his field a mile or two away may be hurt without knowing by whom he is hurt ; so there is no possibility of the latter being able to claim damages if injured. Therefore, while I think it is proper for the government, as I said yesterday, to organize these rifle ranges, at the same time I think parliament should see that persons who may be wounded while on their own property

should not suffer without compensation lining given.


Mr. MONK.: The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) seems to be a very wise one. He has recalled the case of Larose. It is a pity that this amendment cannot be made retroactive so as to give Larose the recourse from which he was debarred under the interpretation of the Exchequer Court judge and of the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, Larose was maimed for life. He is living to-day, but it is impossible for him to attend to his farm work in any way. I never could understand myself exactly upon what ground the Exchequer Court judgment was rendered. I understood the judge to hold that there was insufficient proof of the bullet having come from the rifle range ; but in law it seems to me that if Larose had established that the bullet came from a man practicing on the rifle range, and I think he did so, I do not understand how he was deprived of compensation. The government, taking into consideration all the circumstances, gave him an indemnity of $1,000, I think after the decision rendered in the' Supreme Court. But it must be evident that that indemnity could not possibly satisfy Larose for the injury which maimed him for life.
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him ? The department offered Larose $1,000 before he took his case into court at all, but he would not accept it. My hon. friend knows that, because he was in the House when that matter was discussed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Militia is right, Larose was offered $1,000. but he was advised by his lawyer, Mr. Charbonueau. I think, now Judge Charbonneau. as well as by others, that he had a recourse, and that $1,000 was entirely insufficient, and therefore he refused the proffered indemnity. I must say that after the case was decided he accepted the offer of $1,000, but that sum scarcely paid all the immediate damage that he suffered from the accident, there was no compensation made him for the life-long injury he sustained. It seems to me that he made sufficient proof to create a presumption that the bullet which hit him came from the rifle range, and that therefore it was incumbent upon the department to establish that upon the day when he was wounded and bullets were raining all around in front of the range, the accident was not attributable to the men practising on the rifle range. At any rate I think the sub-gestion of the amendment of my hon. friend is a good one and that it ought to be adopted.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice or the hon. Minister of Militia if there is no remedy now ? I
understand there is a remedy under the present law.


Mr. BO UR ASS  A.@: No.


Samuel Hughes: I was asking the legal authority.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Justice Taschereau is a legal authority.


Samuel Hughes: He is not the legal authority of this House.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am very happy to be able to agree with my hon. friend from Labelle for the first time, and I seize this opportunity. It is clear there is no remedy against the Crown unless it is expressly conferred by statute and all the court had to do was to ascertain whether the statute covered that particular injury or not. and it held that it did not. My hon. friend from Labelle asks us to frame a clause that will cover that point in case of future accident V I think it is a wise suggestion, I would support it with the greatest pleasure and I think his amendment covers the point entirely.


Mr. TISDALE.: I think the hon. Minister of Justice should look carefully into the whole question and see that the amendment is framed properly to meet the case, provided there is no remedy at the present time. He should be careful that it goes on general principles. I do not like to commit myself to an amendment such as that which has been suggested.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have no right here to assume that there is a remedy when the Supreme Court has decided there is none.


David Tisdale: There surely ought to be a remedy of some sort provided where a proper case is made out. I presume there will be no disagreement in regard to that. But the amendment must be very carefully considered, and not be adopted in such a shape that anybody who happens to get hurt has a ground for asking to be paid. It will have to have reference to the nature of the injury aud it will have to be carefully guarded so that the Crown will not be obliged to prove a negative. The adoption of a statute subjecting the Crown to damages is contrary to the first principle underlying most of our legislation. When we propose in any particular case to go outside of that principle as between the Crown and the subject there should be a special reason for it, because this is a line of legislation that I would not care to take the responsibility of pushing any farther than is necessary to cover a particular case. The law officers of the Crown ought to be responsible for seeing that the amendment is drafted in such shape as *will cover this case, provided the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence is prepared to recommend that some provision should be made.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I think that in so far as government-owned rifle ranges

are concerned, some provision of this kind would be very proper, but the government is assisting rifle clubs all over the country by giving small sums of money to help them to put up targets on ground which they themselves own or control absolutely. It seems to me that it would not be right to make the government responsible for accidents occurring under these circumstances, and if the clause is so guarded as to meet that contingency, I have no objection to it.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have not read that amendment and it would be impossible to read it carefully at this time. I assume that the amendment will go to the Department of Justice to be recast and put in proper language.
.Mr. FITZPATRICK. The amendment was first drafted by my hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) who then brought it over to the Justice Department, and it was referred to an official of the Justice Department, the Deputy Minister. I had nothing to do with the drafting of the amendment myself, but the amendment in its present form was drafted by the Deputy Minister. The amendment was first prepared by the hon. member for Labelle and submitted to the Deputy Minister and he sent it back in the form in which we now have it, but as to whether or not the amendment ' goes farther than my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence thinks it ought to go, I am not prepared to say.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Now you want the opinion of the Department of Militia and Defence on it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, when drafting a Bill I want to know what the party who has introduced the Bill has in his mind. My functions are limited to giving effect to the intention of the person introducing the Bill.


David Tisdale: As I understand the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence he is willing to assume the responsibility of having a proper clause inserted, whether this is such or not, in so far as rifle ranges which are under the supervision and control of the military authorities are concerned, but not in regard to private rifle ranges where individuals will surely he responsible for their negligence.


Frederick William Borden: That is it.


David Tisdale: Will the hon. Minister of Justice agree with the proposition that private individuals who have these private rifle ranges are responsible under the general law for anything happening on account of what they have done ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no question about that. The only object of this amendment must be to meet the special exception which exists in regard to government ranges. Private ranges come under the operation of the present law.


Frederick William Borden: 


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I want to have the question made clear by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence as to what he undef-stands by government ranges ? We know very well that rifle clubs are organized under the militia law, that rifles are supplied to them by the government, that the rifle clubs form part of the militia and that in case of an emergency they are called to the front just the same as other regiments. Therefore, I say that the government is as much responsible for the practice by rifle clubs as they are responsible for practice by militia corps. The hon. minister is perfectly right when he states that rifle ranges established by private individuals are not under government control. I am not prepared to say that this should apply to all rifle ranges, but when I expressed my view to that effect to the legal authorities I supposed'that the legal authorities when they worded this amendment thought that when they spoke of a rifle range it meant a rifle l'ange under the control of the Minister of Militia. We cannot legislate as to rifle ranges belonging to private individuals. We have nothing at all to do with those rifle ranges. I would like a distinction made between rifle ranges that are controlled by private individuals and those that are under government control. If all rifle ranges organized under the authority of the hon. Minister of Militia shall not be subject to this provision what would be the result ? Suppose tihe government, instead of buying a rifle range at Fraserville, for instance, should rent it, and then supply rifles to a rifle club, is the rifle club not organized on just the some footing as the rifle clubs who will engage in rifle practice at the Montreal range or at the Ottawa range which are owned by the government ? In that case this legislation should apply to all these ranges alike. I think I am not stating too much when I say that we cannot apply this amendment to anything except rifle ranges which are under government control because we cannot legislate in regard to other rifle ranges.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
David Tisdale: It would practically apply to all rifle ranges.


Charles Fitzpatrick: All that are provided by the government.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: I wish further light on the proviso which reads :
Provided that there shall be no claim to compensation where the death or personal Injury was due to negligence on the part of the person killed or injured.
So far that is right.
Or, where such person at the time of death or injury so sustained was at the rifle range for the purpose of taking part in the practice, &c.
It seems to me that if a person injured at a distance from the rifle range is to be compensated, very much more should a man be compensated who is taking part in that rifle practice, and who is performing his duty as a citizen in qualifying himself for the defence of his country. I do not think we would be opening the doors too wide if we were to include a provision which would enable the government to compensate any man injured while actually in practice, provided it be not due to his own carelessness.


Mr. TALBOT.: As an illustration, I may mention that in the camp at Levis last week, a man who was employed as a marker for my regiment was injured by a fragment of a bullet flying from a stone and cutting his wrist. In that case the injury was not serious, but had the fragment struck the man's eye he would have been deprived of his sight. In such a case, when a man is injured in the discharge of his duty, he should be sufficiently compensated.


William Findlay Maclean: Is not that the risk of war ? If you followed that up you would have to make provision for every accident on the field of battle, and where is it to end ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: You pension those injured on the field of war.


Mr. DANIEL.: Every military man who is wounded on active service is liable to compensation, and may I ask : Are men engaged on the rifle ranges considered as on active service ?


Frederick William Borden: He is provided for.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would take it that when a military man is wounded under these circumstances, he would come under the law which provides compensation for those on active service.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I doubt if the term ' active service ' is wide enough to
cover rifle practice on ranges. These injuries may occur out of camp altogther when men are practicing at the ranges. If the minister will assure us that the term ' active service ' is broad enough to cover these cases I am satisfied, but I am not satisfied that a man who is simply about his every day avocation should be compensated by the government, and another man who gives up his time to learn something for the defence of his country should not bo compensated.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite agree in that.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I think it is very likely that the Deputy Minister of Justice, in drafting this clause, was endeavouring to make the clause analogous to the general principle of the law, which embodies the doctrine of ' common employment.' The Deputy Minister of Justice, as a sound English lawyer, very likely had that in his mind when he was drafting this clause. But as the doctrine of common employment is a wholly irrational doctrine, and one which ought not be part of the law, we might very -well adopt the suggestion of the boil, member (Mr. A. T. Thompson) and strike out the limitation, which does not seem to be fair or reasonable.


Samuel Hughes: We have rifle ranges which are absolutely owned by the government, ranges which are leased by the government and ranges which are used privately all over the country. The regular corps, the volunteer rifle companies and private individuals practice on these ranges, if these ranges were being used by citizens, unorganized and acting without authority, then if this amendment carried the government would be liable to give them compensation for injury. In my opinion, individuals who practice rifle shooting without being duly under military authority should not be entitled to compensation by the government. It is only in the case of rifle associations and the organized militia, acting under the direction and control of the government, that damages should be allowed.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Men actually enrolled in the militia or rifle clubs.


Samuel Hughes: Yes; and practicing under the rules laid down. The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. A. T. Thompson) is a sound one, and I certainly think that a marker or a rifleman who is discharging his duty ought to be compensated, provided he has not been negligent.
Mr. GOUR'LEY. Under this Bill no spectator could seek redress ?


David Tisdale: He ought npt to ; he has no business to be there.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: mitted to go on the rifle ranges, it is very wrong that they should have no redress if they are injured.


Samuel Hughes: If a spectator were injured by a man regularly enrolled I think he should be entitled to compensation, but if a spectator on a rifle range were injured by a person showing off a revolver on the back of the ground, he should have no claim for compensation.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The injury I refer to is by one of the people engaged in practice at the target. In that case, it strikes me that if this Bill is to afford a remedy, it should afford a remedy to the innocent spec-ator. We are invited by the government to go and watch these public exhibitions, and if a remedy is to bo provided for anybody, the innocent spectator who goes on the ground should be protected. Otherwise you are providing a remedy against an almost infinitesimal chance,


Samuel Hughes: Speaking of the Montreal accident, the law requires that certain signals shall be set up, and that is supposed to indemnify the government, for any accident that takes place.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Within the area.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that that accident occurred within the line of the fire, not at one side.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand that in some unaccountable way the bullet went to the side of the butts.


Samuel Hughes: On the plan laid down by the department, I think it was shown to be within the line of the fire. I will give an instance in my own experience, in our county we were firing, and the bullets glanced off to the lake. A fisherman came into town in the evening and reported that a number of the bullets had passed by his boat. I told him that it was absolutely impossible, because his boat was four miles away from the ranges. He assured me two of the bullets had struck his boat. The firing was done by a novice, who, instead of sighting over the lower bar had sighted over the upper bar. That man would have been justified in receiving some compensation in case of accident. The incident shows that one cannot be too careful in these matters.
Mr. GOURLEY'. If the proposed amendment is to apply to accidents provided for in the previous part of section 68, the word ' any ' should be made ' such ' ; otherwise the clause is ample enough to apply to any rifle range. I think the Minister of Justice will see at once the necessity of that change.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There are a few general principles to be borne in mind in connection with this matter. The first is


Seymour Eugene Gourley: that generally speaking the Crown is absolutely free from any claim or damages. The principle has been departed from by an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act, which provides, speaking from memory, that the Crown is liable with respect to injuries done on a public work. That section has been differently construed in the courts, with the result that when an injury has occurred to an individual not at the time on a public work, there is no liability. The intention here is to extend the liability of the Crown to injuries suffered by individuals wbo are not on the rifle range, but to whom injury is caused by reason of something done on the range ; and in order to protect the interests of the Crown it is provided that that provision shall not apply to an injury which may happen to a person who is on the range. The case of such a person may or may not be provided for under the Act as we have it now ; but there is no intention to provide for that case.


David Tisdale: I would suggest that the provision be limited to a range provided or authorized by the department.
Mr, FITZPATRICK. When an expert draughtsman draws a clause like this, I must admit that I do not like to touch it without consulting him.


David Tisdale: As the section reads now, I think it would be much wider than is intended. Suppose a club of private parties provide ranges for themselves and go shooting ; if you do not qualify the clause, you take the responsibility of injuries from them and put it on the Crown. That is a case which I apprehend we do not intend to cover. Suppose men commence shooting on a range before it has been inspected and approved ; the individual who has violated the law would be free, and the government would be made responsible.
Mr. FITZPATRICK! I think that it would be a very great straining to make the government responsible for anything that might happen at these unauthorized ranges. But we might easily avoid any difficulty by making this provision applicable only to the rifle ranges provided for by section 08 and which are under the control of the government.


Samuel Hughes: If a government , range is being used by men who are not regularly enrolled in the militia or members of any rifle association, acting under the statutes of Canada, and an accident happens,
I do not think the government should be responsible.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why not ?


Samuel Hughes: Because these men practicing on that range do not belong to the militia or to any government rifle association.
(5477


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend has in mind strangers coming to a rifle range-


Samuel Hughes: Not foreigners.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would be quite right in using that word under certain circumstances.


Frederick William Borden: Outsiders.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is better.


Samuel Hughes: Do not use that word ' foreigner.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I could point out to my friend in the Patent Act and dozens of Acts passed in this House the application of the word ' foreigner ' to British subjects. In fact, it is the correct grammatical expression to use in certain circumstances. My hon. friend has in view the contingency that men not connected with the militia might use a rifle range and cause an accident, and he says that in such case the government should not be held liable. But a rifle range under the control of the government has to be regulated and controlled in some way, so that every passerby cannot make use of it. If my hon. friend has a piece of property, he does not allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to go in and use it at his sweet will. He controls his own property, and it would be the business of the government to control that rifle range in such a way that no one could use it except under certain regulations. I think there are guardians to these ranges.


Samuel Hughes: But there are other ranges which are not the property of the government, but which are subsidized by the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Do these come within the meaning of the section ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would such a range come within the meaning of a rifle range as described in section 68 ' at or near as possible to the headquarters of every regimental division, there may be provided a rifle range with suitable butts, targets and other necessary appliances.


Samuel Hughes: That covers it exactly. Take the case in my county. The government gave us assistance to establish the butts, but ninety dollars out of every hundred came out of the pockets of the boys.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is your headquarters near the rifle range ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes. In rear of these ranges there is a line of lire, and that line gets wider the further back it goes. We have to rent land from the farmers and give them notice every time we are using the range. And immediately in rear of the butts, where a wagon road crosses the line of fire, we station a man who signals us whenever
a team approaches. But supposing somebody, who does not know the rules should practice on that range and an accident happen, who would be responsible ? We cannot afford to keep a guardian on that range all the year round.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be easy to draw an amendment which would make the Act applicable to only one class of range.


Samuel Hughes: But I want it to applv to both classes whenever the range is being used by an official body. In such cases the government should be responsible.


David Tisdale: There are lots of rifle clubs which are not headquarter clubs at all. There are four or five in my county that have nothing to do with the militia but are rifle clubs coming under the Militia Act. I have had complaints come to me concerning these clubs under the impression that the Militia Departmnt had control of them. These clubs do the best they can, but as a rule they can only get short ranges, and if the government wish to encourage these clubs, they should put them under some control. But if you were to make the government responsible for anything that might happen at any of these ranges, that might have the result of making those using them more careless.


Frederick William Borden: I can only say I should hope not.


Samuel Hughes: Not unless they are taken over by the department.


Frederick William Borden: Because you can see at once what the result will be. If institutions mentioned by my hon. friend engage in rifle shooting on what may be called private ranges, they take every precaution to prevent injury to others. But if you make the government responsible, there will be much less care exercised ; there will be much greater danger to the people and much greater expense to the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I see a way to meet the difficulty-by omitting the beginning of the paragraph and making this apply to rifle ranges of a certain description. as, ' Headquarters ' ranges or other designation to be supplied by the Department of Militia.


David Tisdale: The hon. minister however, must not overlook this danger- and this is a matter rather for the Minister of Militia than for the Minister of Justice- if you are going to protect one class of legalized clubs and not others, you will kill the others. As I said in the commencement, this is a matter that requires very careful consideration. If the Minister of Justice is to prepare a proper provision on this subject, he must be seized of the facts ; he must know what sort of clubs are in existence and what sort of clubs the Minister of Militia intends to form. I do not see

liow we are going to make a distinction between one kind and another unless we make it a genera] principle of law. I agree with the hon. member for Labelie (Mr. Bou-rassa) that his amendment is in the right direction, that his proviso must be embodied in the law. But we must not make it too extensive, and we must protect the Crown against the negligence of those for whose conduct it is not properly responsible.


Frederick William Borden: It seems to me that certain words might be inserted which would make the section quite clear ' and ought to make it. satisfactory. For instance, it might read :
His Majesty shall be liable to make compensation upon the death of any person, or for any injury to the person arising from the use of any rifle range for target practice carried on under the regulation of the department of Militia and Defence.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: By this, it seems to me, the public will be assured that no practice will go on unless it is in accordance with the regulations laid down. In the case of every one of these clubs, there is some one who is responsible for carrying on the practice, and so the public will be protected against injury through the careless carrying on of rifle shooting.


Samuel Hughes: I think the minister has hit the mark. There is only one point and it is this-supposing a body were acting under the regulations of the department, that does not necessarily mean that the range would be accepted, though, I presume, that would be provided for. Troops should not be limited to one particular range, whether provided by the government or provided by an association so long as it is a range in accordance with the regulations of the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I must confess that, speaking off-hand, and, necessarily, without full consideration, I would not absolutely agree to that. After all, if the government own a property and permit improper use to be made of it, and, as a result of that improper use, an accident occurs, why should the government be relieved, any more than a private individual ?


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister keep a man on every range ? You get back to the difficulty with respect to the smaller ranges. Surely you are not going to make a law which will be against the interest of the people outside the large cities. If the people of a district, after going down deep into their pockets to pay for a swell range at Toronto or Ottawa wish to go deeper and provide a range for their own district, why should the government assume responsibility for one and not for the other ? Let all the ranges be treated in the same way, so long as they are in accordance with the govern-Mr. TISDALE.
ment's regulations, whether they are built by the people of Canada as a whole or are provided by the contributions of the boys themselves. Of course,' you have to observe the proper precautions,-fly your danger flag, see that all is clear beyond and so on. Why should not a man injured on one of our smaller ranges be just as eligible for damages to be paid by the government as one who is poking around one of the swell ranges near the big cities V


David Tisdale: I understand that the hon. minister is not objecting to the idea of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) but that he wants to go a little further than that hon. gentleman. The Minister of Justice, I understand, suggested that the government should be responsible even if persons use the range without leave. He makes this suggestion as I understand, on the ground that the government should be, as an individual is, responsible. But, it seems to me. he is carrying the government's responsibility further than that of an individual is carried. I do not understand that an individual is responsible-unless the case is covered by a special statute-for what a person may do on his property without his consent. In this case, I understand, the minister is ready to make the government responsible, in relation to the ranges mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria, (Mr. Sam. Hughes) even for people who would be illegally and improperly upon them.


Frederick William Borden: The great rifle ranges in Canada are under the eharge of caretakers, and everything is under lock and key. They are administered in the most careful way, and under such conditions that it is not to be supposed that injury can result to any one. It is only in the case of the smaller ranges that that could arise, and I am afraid that this legislation would have a very wide application.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is important to consider the interest of the militia ; but it is important also to consider the men who work on their own property and who earn their living without expense to or protection from the government. Assistance is given to rifle ranges for the benefit of the militia-


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: For the benefit of Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I agree with the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) in saying that we should offer every regimental division the right and advantage of having a rifle range without being obliged to go to one of the great ranges near the large cities. I agree also that the protection given to the public and to tbe militiamen should apply to the small as well as to the large ranges. We should not be stopped by the idea that damages may be incurred by the Crown through the use of a small range any more than through the use of a large one. The farmers who live near a small

range have the same right to the protection of their lives as those who live near the large ranges. We spend millions every year on the militia. It may be for the benefit of the country. Some people say it is not so much for the benefit of the country as we are apt to think, but that is a question entirely aside and need not be discussed here. The point I want to make is that as the government, or parliament, provides rifle ranges for the militia and the rifle clubs, it is clearly the duty of the government to take such precautions relating to these rifle ranges, whether small or great, whether near Montreal or near Woodstock or anywhere else, so that they may not be used by any people other than those for whose use they are designed, endangering the lives of persons in the vicinity.
Let the government authorize the organization of these rifle ranges, but take proper precautions to see that they are not used to the damage of people who live in the vicinity. Therefore I think the amendment should remain as it is. I cannot consent to any change that would have the effect of leaving people who are residing near those ranges liable to injury or death without the right of compensation. Of course my amendment only applies to those ranges that are under the control of the government, and for which the government ought to be responsible when they are used improperly. Whether these ranges are the property of the government or are authorized or controlled by the government, the government should be held morally responsible for their use. Of course I could not consent to strike out the clause of negligence. As the member for South Norfolk '(Mr. Tisdale) has said, it would be absurd not to make any reservation on account of negligence. But as respects injury to spectators, spectators have no business to be there, they are not in the position of people who live in the neighbourhood on their own property, they are not in the position of militiamen who go there to practice and perform their duty. Therefore there should be no compensation to spectators except such compensation as they have a right to ask for under the common law from a party that injures them. I wish to remind the hon. member for South Norfolk that spectators are in a different position from the class of people I want to protect. These latter are far away from the rifle ranges and are at work on their own property. Larose was ploughing on his land, and was not in a position to know who hurt him,


David Tisdale: Nobody is objecting to such persons being protected.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The spectator has no business to be there, therefore he must run his own risk. Besides, he has means of making evidence as to who injured him. But I am not adverse to the suggestion of the hon. member for Haldimand that this amendment should apply to militiamen, that matter I leave to the minister to settle with his own friends. But in respect to wounds or deaths arising from the use of the rifle ranges, whether under regulation or not, I cannot make any concession, and if forced upon me, I must protest in the name of peaceful persons who have a right to protection.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I do not know as I quite understand the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Suppose the case of a small range owned by a rifle club and am outsider goes there as a private individual, upon invitation it may be, and takes part in the practice. Does the member for Labelle mean to say that the government should be held responsible for the injury if it comes from a bullet fired by that private individual ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No. As the Minister of Justice explained, my amendment refers only to such rifle ranges as are organized under section 68, under which the government may provide a rifle range at the headquarters of every regimental division.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I am supposing the case of a private range such as was mentioned by the member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes).


Samuel Hughes: No. I had in mind a range accepted by the government, adopted and inspected by the government.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I assume it is under the control of the government. But suppose a case of negligence on the part of the department where the individual might go there of his own accord, a private individual who might go there as a marker, running his own risk. If he is injured or killed, does the member for Labelle mean to hold the government responsible ? I do not think that is right.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is a question of control. I do not quite agree with the member for Labelle. What he intends, I presume, is to make applicable to the government the rules which apply to individuals, and from which the government are exempt under that judgment of the Supreme Court. If the government does not control a range, why should it be responsible for accidents that happen there ? If the government approves of a range and subsidizes it, but, does not control it, is not in charge of it, if it is not government property, why should the government be liable for accidents happening on that range ? It seems to me the liability of the government should be restricted to those ranges which it controls, of which it is the proprietor, as it were. But to say that because the government has approved of a range and has even subsidized it, though the range is not under its immediate control, when the government has no keeper there and has no officers to su-



G483 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
pervise it, why should the government be responsible in that case ?
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The amendment which I move refers only to ranges that are under the control of the government, because the government has a right to stop the general traffic around them, to close roads, and so forth. This will apply only to such ranges, and I think even the member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will agree with me thatj it should apply to everybody else, because if the government retains control over such ranges as are reached by my amendment


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these ranges referred to by the member for Victoria continually under the control of the government ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly, there is no dispute about that.


Samuel Hughes: I know if we kill a cow the government is liable if the shooting is done at a regularly organized rifle range, and when we shoot a man, why should not the government be held responsible likewise ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I am beginning to understand the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle. I think he refers to the rifle ranges owned and controlled by the government, and that the liability of the government with respect to accidents arising from them would be the same as the liability of a private individual who owned and controlled a private property.


David Tisdale: If we confined the effect of the amendment to that extent, very well, but unfortunately some of the suggestions made go a great deal further than that.


Samuel Hughes: There is another matter respecting these rifle ranges which it is just as well to mention now. The county I have the honour to represent 'is a flat country, and it is absolutely impossible to get safe and satisfactory ranges there. Where you have a good big 'hill to fire into it is perfectly safe. But in a flat country where you have two or three miles of farm houses in the rear it is dangerous. I do not know more than two or three places in the whole county to which I refer where you will not have farm houses in line with the range fire. I am speaking of the vicinity of Lindsay, the headquarters of t'he regiment. 1 would suggest to the hon. minister, while I do not want to throw a damper on long range rifle shpoting, the establishment at company headquarters of miniature rifle ranges where men could get all the necessary training in shooting. The men from Algoma at the Ottawa ranges, and the Parry Sound men at Niagara gave a perfectly marvellous performance in shooting. These men were accustomed to the sporting rifle and to shooting at 300 or 400 yards. At the long rifle ranges they carried everything before them. At company headquarters miniature rifle Mr. MONK.
ranges of not less than 100 yards would give the men all the sport and training necessary to make them good shots. Every old rifle man knows that he learned his shooting in the olden days with the muzzle loading rifle using caps or candles. The main thing is to learn to sight the rifle and pull the trigger. You can learn that at the miniature range. You can take it into your back yard or into your barn and the boys can have lots of amusement. I suggest that the hon. minister should take this matter into his serious consideration.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I take it that this matter has been fairly well threshed out with the one exception of the point which I raised. This amendment reads as follows :
His Majesty shall be liable to make compensation for the death of any person, or for any injury to the person caused by a bullet wound.
etc., and then it proceeds to give some exceptions to t'he cases in which His Majesty shall be obliged to make compensation. Among these exceptions we have the case of a man who, goes upon the rifle range-
For the purpose of taking part in, or in some official or other capacity in connection with the shooting.


David Tisdale: Everybody agreed that that should be struck out.


Mr. BO UR ASS  A.@: T, THOMPSON. I would suggest that we strike out of the proposed amendment these words :	' For the purpose of
taking part in, or in some official or other capacity in connection with, or.' Then the amendment will read as follows :
Provided that there shall be no claim to compensation where the death or personal injury was due to negligence on the part of the person killed or injured, or where such person, at the time the death or injury was sustained was at the rifle range as a spectator of the shooting.


David Tisdale: I understand the hon. minister is going to redraft the clause.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I understood we were going to pass this clause now. I do not want it passed as it is.


Frederick William Borden: We will allow it to stand for the present.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 69-shooting privileges-


David Tisdale: What is the particular meaning of that section ?


Frederick William Borden: That is to enable the government to acquire privileges without actually buying.


Samuel Hughes: The word ' only ' belongs to the words 'shooting privileges ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.

On section 71,
The Governor in Council may make regulations for the management of existing rifle associations and clubs, and those hereafter formed ; for prescribing the constitution, objects and duties of such associations and clubs, and the conducting of their business and rifle meetings, and for furnishing rifles and ammunition for the training and practice of persons, whether they are, or are not, members of the militia ; and, in case of officers, whenever exercising any of the powers, functions, command or privileges of their military rank, the commanding officer for the time being and also the adjutant or acting adjutant shall at all times be subject to military law.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved an amendment to strike out the last five lines of the section.


David Tisdale: What is the object of striking out these words ? That is the old law is it not ?


Frederick William Borden: These words are not in the old law.


David Tisdale: Are these five lines added ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, they are new but they were thought to be undesirable.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 72,
In case of emergency the members of rifle associations and clubs shall become members of the militia and shall be under the direction and instructions of the district officer commanding ; and so long as the emergency exists, arid until lawfully discharged all members of such associations and clubs shall remain members of the militia, and shall be subject to drill, training and discipline to the same extent as other members thereof.


Frederick William Borden: That the word ' command ' be substituted for the words ' direction and instructions ' in the third line.


David Tisdale: What is the object' of that ?


Frederick William Borden: Members of the rifle associations are all under the obligation, at the time the associations are formed, that in a time of emergency they will be prepared to serve in the militia of this country, and we place them under the command of the District Officer of the District in order to utilize their services.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 74,
All cadet corps shall he subject to the authority and under the orders of the district officer commanding.
Mr. TiISDALE. Does that mean that the General Officer Commanding could take them away from school ?


Frederick William Borden: He would have to act under the regulations which are i carefully drawn in the public interest, and laid before parliament.
On section 77,
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: I move that the section be amended by adding the following as a sub-clause :
In time of war when the militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof a senior general officer of His regular army.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I regret that my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) is not here, because this is the clause under which he wished to restrict the power of the Canadian government. I may say that the clause in this Bill is a great improvement on the old one because it is more restrictive but at the same time it is not perfect. I agree with the minister that we should not restrict the power of the government in case of an emergency, but it seems to me that the control of parliament should come in at a certain period, so that the government cannot carry on war as long as they please without consulting parliament.


Frederick William Borden: They cannot carry on war without money, and they would have to get money from parliament.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, we have seen the government carry on war for two months without money and without the authorization of parliament. There should be a provision that parliament would be called within a certain time limit.


Samuel Hughes: The suggestion I made yesterday was that when the militia was embodied, parliament should be convened within ten days as is provided for in the English law.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before the section is carried I would like to know if the hon. minister is prepared to insert a clause providing that in case the government calls out the militia for war, parliament will be called ?


Frederick William Borden: I would not undertake to do that without first consulting the Prime Minister.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would the minister, then, let this clause stand ?


Samuel Hughes: That question does not at all affect this clause.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Parliament seems to be entirely disregarded in this matter. I am

ready to give large powers to the government for the defence of Canada, provided parliament Is to have a word to say with regard to footing the bill and approving or disapproving of the action of the government.


David Tisdale: The only power given to the government is to put the militia on active service. They cannot get any supplies without the action of parliament. That has always been the law, and I do not think it is different in any country in the world. In cases of emergency the militia may have to be called out immediately, but you cannot get parliament together in five minutes. Parliament must be called to vote the supplies, and if the supplies are not voted, what is the use of having a militia ? The power of the government to call out the militia suddenly is one of the greatest advantages to the country. Suppose a tremendous riot or something of that kind occurs, the government can call them all out for active service at once. If the propriety of the government's action is disputed, parliament can deal with it and may refuse to vote the supplies. That has always been the law.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) is not replying to my argument at all. Yesterday I maintained that the power to call out the militia for active service in case of emergency without having to wait the necessary time to call parliament, should be left in the hands of the government. I agree with my hon. friend on that point; but I say there should be a limitation to the arbitrary will of the government to wait for the sanction of parliament. When the hon. member for South Norfolk says that the government would not go on without parliamentary sanction, I reply that that was done five years ago. More than that, it was not even the active militia who were called out ; but a special military corps was organized, and money for the purpose was taken from the treasury of Canada without the consent of parliament. This went on for two months. In all the other British possessions where parliament was not in session, the governments refused to organize contingents without calling parliament. It was only in Canada that it was done. In England, where the sovereign has the right, on the advice of the government, to declare war, they immediately call parliament. They would not dare to spend a pound on armaments without calling parliament. I admit that an emergency might arise when the government should have the power to call out the militia immediately. I do not dispute that ; but suppose an occasion should arise on which Canada would be called upon to organize its militia and send a large portion of it outside of Canada, when in the judgment of a large number of the people and parliament of Canada it would be to the disadvantage of the country to have Mr. BOURASSA.
so large a number of troops sent out, parliament should be the final judge of that question, and the government should call parliament to deal with the matter. It might be that a weak government, not wishing to have public discussion on its action, would delay calling parliament together as long as possible, and would go on issuing money under warrants. It has been done for two months on one occasion, and why might it not be done for six months on another occasion ? A number of gentlemen who did not agree with me on the general principle of the Boer war, agreed with me that it was the duty of the government to summon parliament as early as - possible after an emergency of this kind.


David Tisdale: If the hon. gentleman will read the wording of the clause, he will see that the power of the government is very limited. They can only order the militia outside of Canada for the defence of Canada. They could not send it to a war like the Boer war. My hon. friend has a bogey that keeps him awake. He is so afraid that we shall become a military country that he is afraid to entrust the government, which he has never voted against, with this authority. If we are to have a militia force, we must have the means of putting it into the field in case of emergency.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend is putting in my mouth words which I never uttered. I said the very opposite.


David Tisdale: I understood the hon. gentleman objected to giving the authority to the Governor* in Council or to any one except parliament.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not at all. I said the opposite. I said I wanted the Governor in Council to keep that power ; but I wanted them to summon parliament as soon as possible to sanction their action. That is the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Victoria and by the hon. member for King's.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before we proceed to another clause, I wish to say that if there is to be a new clause making it obligatory on the government to call parliament within a fixed delay, after having made use of the power granted under clause 77, then i shall not propose any amendment. But it there be no such new clause, I wish to have it understood that I shall be at liberty to move some amendment to clause 77.


Frederick William Borden: That is agreed to.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Not for the defence of the empire ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this clause the same as the clause in the old Act ?


Frederick William Borden: Not precisely.	.


William Findlay Maclean: What was the clause under which the government sent out Canadian troops to South Africa ?


Frederick William Borden: They volunteered for service and were sent out as imperial troops pnder a special agreement with the imperial government, partly paid by the British and partly by this government, and * the Militia Department organized those vol-1 unteers. They did not come under the Militia Aet at all.
'Mr. MACLEAN. Then the active militia of Canada, under this proposed Act, could not be sent outside this country by the government to take part in the defence of the empire, except under a special contract as in the case of the troops sent to South Africa.
'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the hon. member for Labelle had no desire to be unfair to the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) but he sought to leave the impression that the hon. member for King's objected to troops going outside of Canada or taking part in the defence of the empire. What my hon. friend from King's wanted was some limitation to be placed upon the power of the Governor in Council with regard to the sending out of troops. I am satisfied that my hon. friend is prepared to have the troops go anywhere within or outside the British empire for the defence of the empire, but before the militia would be called out in this country and placed at the disposal of the government, he wished parliament to be called together at the earliest opportunity.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not wish to attribute anything to the hon. member for King's other than what he said. Here is what he said :
Whether for the defence of Canada or not, the militia of Canada should not be sent out of Canada without the authority of parliament. There can be no emergency arise under which parliament cannot be called together ; war does ;not spring up in a day or night. If the country were in danger of war, it would be an easy matter to call parliament, and then parliament could decide if it is necessary to send our militia outside of Canada. It
is a different matter altogether about permitting volunteers to serve in any portion of the empire.
That is the distinction which the minister has just made. Troops were enrolled specially to go and serve in South Africa, but what is meant by clause 77 is that our militia cannot be sent outside of Canada except for the defence of Canada. If, however, there should be an imperial war in which Canadians want to serve, there is nothing to prevent their enlisting into the imperial service.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend from King's did not raise that point. He is perfectly in accord with the idea that troops should go outside this country. There is nothing to hinder their going as volunteers outside to fight for the British empire, but if the militia of Canada should be called out by the Canadian government and the imperial authorities should choose to send out a call in this country for volunteers to put down these gentlemen, the allegiance of our militia would be to the British empire rather than to any power in Canada.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There is a distinct change in the Act, whether for good reason or bad. It is not a change of form or words, but a distinct change of public policy in connection with the militia, and therefore we should have the full and particular reasons for such a change. Canada is a part of the British empire, and the militia of this country is a part of the defensive force of the British empire, and ought to be used, in the case of emergency, in India, Australia, or Africa or wherever the necessity may arise.
The defence of Canada might be required to be fought out in Africa, and, to keep the militia in Canada, would be simply a betrayal of the empire ; for the empire might be beaten in Africa, or India, and Canada fall with the empire, without a blow being struck upon the soil of this Dominion. Any limitation of the power to send the militia abroad by a provision that this is to be done only in the case of emergency, weakens our power of defending Canada ; and. at this stage of imperial thought, and development, to have a narrow, and petty doctrine like this, engrafted upon the militia legislation of this Canada, is a reversal of the course of our national progress. When the public man of twenty-five or thirty years ago could engraft on the militia system of this country a broader and more generous policy, it strikes me that we should stand by the position they took, if we cannot improve it. I have under my hand the section of the Act of 1878. Comparing it with the present section, we can see that this is no meaningless change but, that there must have been design in the drafting. It is a

decided change of policy, and one of the most serious character. The section of the old Bill was in these terms :
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active seri'ice, 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.
So the militia could be called out wherever there was war, invasion or insurrection or danger of any of them-no matter where, the* militia were bound to go. And, surely, that is wise. What is the use of putting the militia under the command of a general officer in time of war, unless he is able to order them to the point of danger, whether inside or outside of Canada. There is, a distinct change in this proposed section, which reads :
77. 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.
We do not want the troops sent outside of Canada for the defence of Canada only, but. if necessary, for the defence of the empire, which may, or may not be, directly, the defence of Canada. The defence of India or of South Africa may be, ex necessitate, the defence of Canada. I must draw the attention of our friends opposite, and of hon. gentlemen on this side, to the extraordinary change of policy indicated by these words, incorporating a narrow doctrine that the Canadian militia and troops are to be used only in Canada for the defence of Canada-let the empire go to smash, but keep our troops at home. This is simply closing our eyes to the fact that the empire may be broken, and go to pieces without making necessary any direct defence of Canada, and yet. in that ruin, our interests will be completely sacrificed. We want the old section to stand, as it has stood on the statute-book for thirty years, that the militia are to be used wherever the necessities of the empire demand, whether in Canada or out of it. This is the most vital section in this Act; the rest are merely subsidiary.


William Findlay Maclean: Canada either is, or is not a part of the British empire. If the pact between us and the empire is to mean that the Canadian militia is only to be used for the defence of Canada, are we to expect, the army of England will be used to assist in the defence of Canada only to the extent that our forces shall go to their assistance ? That is how the arrangement works out as proposed in this section. Now. that is not an equitable arrangement and it is a decided change in the policy that has been accepted up to this time. To Mr. GOURLEY.
my mind, this is the most important thing that has happened yet in connection with the imperial relation-that this change should take place without any justification being given for it. I would like the minister to explain why this change in policy has taken place and what the object of it is.


Frederick William Borden: There has been no change in policy. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) will take the trouble to look at former Militia Acts and the discussion on Militia Bills he will find that the intention always has bee'n, whether expressed or not-in some of the Acts it has been distinctly expressed and in far more stringent terms than in the Bill now before the committee-that the militia of Canada or of the old provinces before the Dominion existed, should be only called fipon to serve within the territory of those provinces or of the Dominion. That is the intention. , What is the fact as to Great Britain ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) talks about the question of imperial defence. Is he aware that the British militia can only be called upon to serve on the soil of the British islands ? That is the law.
Mr. MiAiCLEAN. But this provides also for our regular force.


Frederick William Borden: That is the idea in the organization of any militia force -it is a home force for home service. When the troops were sent from Canada to South Africa, as I have said, it was not considered that the Militia Act which is now ,in existence, and the important clause of which an this connection the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has quoted, was suffi-'cient to justify the organization of a militia force to be sent to South Africa ; consequently, volunteers were called for and the force was organized purely as a voluntary service, and one in no way whatever connected with the militia law.


Samuel Hughes: That was an imperial force.


Frederick William Borden: It was a volunteer force.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: With the hon. minister's permission, I would ask him a question. If there is no change of policy will he allow the old section to stand ? It is far better worded than this new one.


Frederick William Borden: It seems to me that we have made clear in this section exactly what is understood as the object of a militia force in every country. In the mother country and in every province of this Dominion prior to confederation, this has been the rule. We are always able to meet times of stress and emergency. If it *becomes necessary to send troops to assist

the empire at distant points, we always have the means at hand of doing so. Parliament can be called and a special force organized, or the same thing can be repeated that was done before-volunteers can offer their services and those services can be availed of. I think it is very much better to leave the section as it is.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the matter is one, perhaps, of some importance. My own views rather coincide with those expressed by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gour-ley). The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) speaks of the English militia as a force whose services are confined to the British Islands. I think he must have forgotten that a number of militia regiments were sent out. to South Africa as a part of the regular forces of Great Britain.


Frederick William Borden: They volunteered for that service.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Possibly ; I will not say whether they did or not.
sir Frederick borden. well, t
know.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They were sent, they went, anyway. Now, with regard to our militia force, it is the only military force we have, it is our regular army, wre have no other army at all. In that respect the militia force of Canada occupies a position different from that of the old country, as dis tinguished from its regular standing army , and in making regulations for our militia force, its command, where it should be sent, and so forth, I think we should remember that it is our regular army, part of it is a standing army. The permanent corps is the only force of militia which is on service constantly, and in that way it might be termed our standing force. But it is simply a militia and nothing else in the world ; and our other active militia is just as much a militia as that is, because, by order from the proper authority, any corps we have in Canada could be put on active and permanent service. I quite concur with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) in regard to the wording of the section of the old Act and the wording of this ; and unless the minister gives us some stronger reasons for the change than he has given, I think it would be better to let the old section stand instead of adopting this new one.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I p ant to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for St. John :Mr. Daniel). The English people have a regular army which may be sent all over the world for the defence of the empire In the absence of that army, the country is destitute of defence except by the militia, and the militia may be brought in as a home force, when the whole regular army could he sent abroad for the defence of the empire. Consequently, there is no parallel whatever with our own case. If this government will 207
undertake to raise a regular army, two or three thousand men, and be prepared to send them abroad for the defence of the empire, I will waive my objection to the militia leaving this country. But, as the member for St. John has pointed out, it is the only militia force we have, and by this section we say we will not lend the only force we have in Canada to the service of the empire. It strikes me that at this time of day, when the empire is so vital to us, when we have infinitely more to expect from the empire than the empire has to expect from us-because to-day, if it were not for the opportunities of foreign trade which the empire offers to Canada, we would b.; desolate indeed-we need especially to foster a good feeling, a feeling of mutual help throughout the empire, and we cannot foster that better than by making our militia force subject to be used in every part of the empire. I urge this upon the minister, because I am persuaded the minister will ruin the militia if he permits this feeling to get abroad that we have changed our policy. I have no doubt that somebody has had a subtle influence in making this change. There has been a deliberate change of policy in changing the language of these two sections, there is no doubt about that. I am too much accustomed to scanning closely this language not to see the distinctions that are made. Consequently, the minister is going to create a strong feeling throughout the country, and I do not wish te - see cur militia made the subject of political feeling. Let us stand by the militia all over the country. But I must say that when that section is read and understood, it will arouse a most uncanny kind of feeling all over Canada. It is not a proper section to be introduced into a Canadian statute, or a statute of any country belonging to the British empire, to say that our poor contribution to the empire shall not be used except within the boundaries of Canada, and rhe empire outside can go to smash. I do not like that; it is a provision that deserves reprobation at the hands of this House of Commons. The old section is a splendid section, and I say let it stand.


William Findlay Maclean: I would ask the minister if it is not the case that under the old section of the law as it now stands the militia of Canada could be used for the defence of the empire and sent out of this country for that purpose ? But under the proposed law that is strictly prohibited.


Frederick William Borden: No. I am advised, and was advised at the time of the South African trouble, for instance, that under the law we <;ould not do that.


Samuel Hughes: Could not do what ?


Frederick William Borden: That we could not send the militia to South Africa for service ; under the law' we were not able to do so. The present law has been
REVISED EDITIOIt

changed, as I say, in conformity with that view, and in sympathy with the idea which, as I said, controls the militia of the mother country and the militia of every one of the colonies of the empire, where you will find precisely the same clause.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: All I can say is that the advice given to the Minister of Militia does not comport with the law as it stood at that time. The Minister of Militia refers to the old debates that took place when the Militia Act was passed. I am not bound by those debates. At that time men may have had a hard time to get this section passed, and language may have been used, as the Minister of Justice said yesterday, to conceal the thoughts that were in the minds of the people who were carrying this Act through. I say that under this clause the militia could be sent abroad at any time and anywhere that the emergencies of the empire required, and that is as it should be. I can easily understand that the strong and broad men who drew this Act, for it was drawn in the year after confederation, when the fathers of confederation, the big men of Canada, were here-I can easily understand that at that time these men desired to engraft that policy in the Act, and perhaps they were surrounded by little people who were not in sympathy with the measure, and consequently they may have used words to conceal their thoughts, and they were wise enough to know that if they got that section passed the power was vested in the Crown and government of Canada to send the militia anywhere. Not only so, but I say with all deference to the person who advised the Minister of Militia, that it was not legal advice, and if it were, I would have thought that the Minister of Justice would have taken the other horn of the dilemma. At the time of the South African war there was a doubt with reference to the power of this country to send our militia abroad. Let us wipe away that doubt, and let the government have power to send the militia abroad. Let us clear up the doubt on the other side, and make it clear that the militia of this country, upon which we have spent millions of dollars, may be used in the defence of the empire. Now, I ask the minister, if he wants his militia force to stand well with the country, to allow that old section to stand ; then if you have not the power, if the Minister of Justice advises you that you have not the power, no harm will be done. But Ministers of Justice change, as archbishops change, and archbishops very often have different policies in their dioceses, and a Minister of Justice could be given a different advice to that given to the present Minister of Justice.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask what the provisions of the English Act are with regard to the summoning of parliament when the militia are called out for active service ? Some reference has been made to that.


Frederick William Borden: 


Samuel Hughes: When they are ' embodied,' that is the official term.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be of use for us to have the provision submitted to the committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In anticipation of the suggestion coming from the hon. leader of the opposition I may say that during the adjournment, I, myself, in the few moments at my disposal, attempted to find the provision, but since that I have asked one of the officials in my department to look into this matter and get the clause so as to assist us in deciding what action we ought to take.


Samuel Hughes: I think the clause is contained in this book. Just wait a moment.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has called my attention to a provision in the Militia Act, 1S82, of the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland being chapter 49 of the statutes 45-46 Victoria sections 18, 19 :
(1.) In case of imminent national danger or of great emergency it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council by proclamation (the occasion being first communicated to parliament, if parliament be then sitting, or declared in Council, and notified by the proclamation, if parliament be not sitting) to order the militia to be embodied.
I suppose that practically corresponds to calling out our entire militia force for active service.
(2.) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty by any such proclamation to order a Secretary of State from time to time to give, and when given to revoke or vary, such directions as may seem necessary or proper for embodying all or any part of the militia.
(3.) Every such 'proclamation and the directions given in pursuance thereof shall be obeyed as if enacted in this Act, and where such directions for the time being direct the embodiment 'of any part of the militia, every officer and man belonging to that part shall attend at the place and time fixed by those directions, and at and after that time shall be deemed to be embodied ; and such officers and men are in this Act referred to as embodied, or as the embodied part or parts of the militia. *
Then section 19 reads as follows :
Whenever Her Majesty orders the militia to be embodied, if parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within ten days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued for the same day.
PePhaps there are some considerations in connection with the section which we have

been debating that might make it desirable for the government to allow it to stand so as to consider that provision. There seems to be the same rfeason for the provision as there is in Great Britain. Of course we have a separate system from theirs. They have a large standing army ; we have practically no standing army. Speaking offhand and without much consideration of the subject, I would think that while possibly we may not require a provision of that kind in respect to calling out the militia in this country, it would be desirable to have it in respect of calling out the militia for service outside of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Or for war ?


Robert Laird Borden: It could only be called out for service outside of Canada in case of war.


Charles Fitzpatrick: At the moment when my hon friend the leader of the opposition rose, I received a memorandum which gives me the different statutes under which this summons to parliament is issued.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be a later statute than that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that is the consolidation. I find! that formerly the period was 14 days during which parliament had to be summoned and that by the Consolidation Act of 1882 it was reduced to ten days. I think I should have an opportunity to look through the different Acts and see how far it may be necessary to adapt the provisions of the Militia Act of Great Britain to the Militia Act of Canada. We may be required to introduce a new clause. I think there is no reason why this clause should not go through with the understanding that a general clause which may be found proper to meet the difficulty shall be introduced into the Bill before it is finally disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: If this clause is proposed to be pressed at the present time, 1 desire to say I am not quite clear as to what the exact meaning of the proposed amendment is. It reads as follows :
In time of war when the- militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof a senior general officer of his regular 'army who shall be senior in rank to the General Officer Commanding the militia.
There may be some doubt as to what is
meant by the words ' serving conjointly with His Majesty's forces.' Does that phrase mean serving conjointly in Canada or serving conjointly in a general sense in the performance of duties connected with the defence of the empire ?
'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. It means in Canada.
207i


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that possibly even if they were not serving conjointly in the sense in which the hon. Minister of Militia speaks, there might be power given to His Majesty to put an experienced officer in command in time of war.


Frederick William Borden: I think the idea is simply this :	Assuming for the
sake of argument that Canada is assisting the mother country in a war somewhere else, outside of Canada, and not for the protection of Canada, when the Canadian troops would simply be going to assist the imperial anmy and there would be no question about the control of the commanding officer of the imperial army. But, a war might occur, an invasion might be attempted of Canada under which circumstances a large majority of the troops engaged would be Canadian troops. Still, there would be a certain proportion of imperial troops, and in view of the fact that imperial commanding officers have had greater experience it was thought proper t'hat in a war in which Canada would be engaged and in which the imperial army would be assisting, the command should be placed in the hands of an imperial officer. That is the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: All I am suggest-, iug is that perhaps the power might be extended so as to apply to a case even where they are not serving conjointly. Suppose that we had in Canada 100 regular troops stationed at Halifax and that the Canadian militia was called out for active service to the extent of 10,000 or 15,000 ; according to the definition of the hon. minister it would be within the scope of this statute to appoint a general officer, but would not exactly the same reason prevail if you did not have any imperial troops in Canada ?


Frederick William Borden: We have another clause under which an imperial officer can be appointed at any time. We are not giving up the authority to appoint a general officer to command.


David Tisdale: You did not change that clause ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


David Tisdale: I thought you were going to strike that out and substitute a council.


Frederick William Borden: This is one of the results of my attendance at the defence committee when that question was discussed and it was agreed that this special clause would be desirable.


Robert Laird Borden: If we have power outside of this clause, what is the object of this amendment 'i


Frederick William Borden: The object is that in the event of the militia serving with imperial troops we shall be under the

obligation to bave an imperial officer commanding. Otherwise it would be open to the Canadian government to appoint an imperial officer, or a Canadian officer as they chose.


Robert Laird Borden: If the militia of Canada should be engaged in the defence of this country without the assistance of any imperial troops, it would be quite possible to appoint a general officer of experience to command the militia although no regular troops would he associated with them.


Frederick William Borden: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: Apart from that there is the power conferred upon His Majesty when regular troops are engaged in this country conjointly with the Canadian militia, to appoint a general officer to command the whole force.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, from the imperial army.


Samuel Hughes: Does not the military council do away with the General Officer Commanding ?


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no. We could not do without the power to appoint a General Officer Commanding ; that still remains in the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: The organ of the new war lord says :
It is a fair prediction that ere the Minister of Militia has completed his list of reforms in that department, the practice of bringing General Officers Commanding from the British 'army to command the Canadian militia will he as dead as>
the family compact.
It is evidently the intention of the military boss of the administration that there should be no imperial officers brought to Canada.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It is quite clear that the old law contemplated that in case of war the militia of Canada should become imperial troops and be under imperial officers. The whole purpose of the old law seems to be to make the militia of Canada serviceable to the empire at any point wherever-their services were required. The minister says that this Bill introduces no change of policy, and if that is so why not retain the old law so that we may be sura of it ?


Samuel Hughes: Would the relationship that now exists between the Cnnaf dian militia and the imperial troops in time of war, be in the slightest altered by the passage of this Act ?


Frederick William Borden: Not in the slightest.


Samuel Hughes: It is held by some good heads that there would be a difference in the relationship existing between the two.


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: No.


Mr. OSLER.: What is the meaning of the words ' for the defence of Canada ? '


Frederick William Borden: Suppose that Canada were invaded it might be the very best means of defence to immediately send an army into foreign territory.
Mr. OSLER, Quite so, but is not the existing law better and more definite ; which says :
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active service either within or without Canada, at any time that it appears advisable to do so, by reason of war,
&e.


Samuel Hughes: I think there is no question as to the right of the government to send troops anywhere for the defence of the empire. If Canada wished her troops to take part with the imperial troops anywhere else than in Canada for the immediate defence of the empire, that could be accomplished as was done in England during the South African war, when whole regiments of English militia enrolled only to serve in the British Isles, volunteered for service in South Africa.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 78-period of service in time of war-
Frederick William Borden: I wish to add the following words :	' provided however that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the Permanent Force.' When we were considering the Bill in committee some time ago, the hon. leader of the opposition called my attention to the fact that, as the Permanent Force is a part of the militia, there would likely be confusion in two or three clauses unless the Permanent Force were expressly referred to. This is one of the clauses.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister seems to take for granted that on all occasions on which the militia would require to be called out, they would finish their work in about eighteen months at the outside. It seems to me that the authorities should have a little longer hold on the soldiers.


Frederick William Borden: This is the old law.	,


David Tisdale: This is a fair provision, because it must be remembered that these men are volunteers. Under other provisions of the Act, in case men are needed, we can get as many as we want; but the idea is that those who volunteer first shall be compelled to serve only for one year, after which others may be substituted. It is all very well to talk about putting on regulations ; but the great difficulty in this country, as in every other, is to get men to

volunteer, and we have to be careful in that respect. This has been the law for a long time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 79-Army Act, &c., to apply to active service-
Frederick William Borden: I propose to insert after the words ' United Kingdom ' iD the second line the words 1 the King's regulations.' In the first draft of the Bill these words were omitted, but the officers in my department advised very strongly that we should continue to use the King's regulations, and I thought the reasons they gave were very strong. These regulations are the result of many years' experience.


Samuel Hughes: I think this is not the same as the old Act. I object most emphatically to placing the officers or men of the militia force of this country under any disability as citizens. This clause makes every officer and man of the militia subject to this superior officer, ' while upon or within any rifle range or any armoury.' Do the words, ' while in the uniform of his corps,' apply to all these clauses, or do they not ? A man might happen to be on a rifle range or in an armoury on civilian business.


Frederick William Borden: That means in uniform.


Samuel Hughes: If it does, all right; but we have to teach the officers and politicians of the country that the officers and men of our militia are not to be subjected to the militarism of Europe or the United States. I believe the United States' regular army system is the most tyrannical in the world. We all know what the military systems of Germany, France and Russia are, with respect to the tyr-rany of officers. In England it is bad enough, but England in that respect is free and liberal' compared with any other nation in the world. We do not want to engraft on the Canadian militia a system that will put any officer, or man under any disability as a citizen. Why should any officer commanding a regiment or a company, when off duty, want to have the slightest control over any man under him ? If he cannot command the respect of his men without having this law at his back, he ought to get out of the force. Of course if he should be on duty or in uniform, the case would be different.


David Tisdale: It is very doubtful if this clause would not apply even while the [DOT]man was not on duty. We should have it well understood that a man has a right to say anything he pleases to an officer, provided he is not under him or on duty at the time.


Samuel Hughes: Once drill is over, the officer should not have any control over
the men under military regulations. Jit is a disgrace that in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto our militia officers are afraid to express an opinion. They will tell you, I am only a lieutenant in some tuppeny-ha'-penny regiment


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: In the permanent corps of course men cannot express their opinion, but there are officers in our volunteer regiments in the cities and towns who dare not call their souls their own, who dare not express an opinion even on the Militia Act, because they happen to be only a lieutenant or a captain.


Mr. LOGAN.: A provisional lieutenant.


Samuel Hughes: No, the provisional fellows talk sometimes.


Mr. FOWLER.: Why not strike out the woi'd ' also ' and substitute the word ' or ' ?


Samuel Hughes: Better add a subsection. I know that this has been used by senior officers to make the juniors believe they have control over them. A man who can command respectable men in no other way than this should not wear the uniform.


Frederick William Borden: Will my hon. friend draft a clause ?


Robert Laird Borden: Under .what dis-t cipline are the men of the militia while on active service ? For instance, in the case of mutiny, what Act would apply ?


Frederick William Borden: Our own regulations supplemented by the imperial regulations wherever ours are found wanting.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of regulations, but of the Act. In the case I have mentioned, would the English Mutiny Act apply ? That Act is re-enacted from year to year. It is brought into force by this section.


Frederick William Borden: The Army Act is what it is called, and although it is re-enacted every year, that is only a form.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a little more than a form, because parliament is at liberty not to re-enact it.
On section S3-provision for families of men killed, &c.


Frederick William Borden: I move that this be amended by inserting the words ' On active service ' after the word ' killed.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are troops engaged at the rifle range counted as being on active service, drill or training, or on duty ? If a man is wounded while engaged on a rifle range, is he counted as being wounded as being on duty, or not ? For this brings up


the broad question we had before us in discussing section 68.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) will look at the interpretation clause-No. 2-he will find these expressions defined.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I infer that a man attending at a rifle range is not on duty ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The interpretation clause defines ' on active service ' as applying to those enrolled, enlisted, drafted or warned for service or duty during an emergency, or when he is on duty or when he has been warned for duty in aid of the civil power. That appears to me rather complicated.


George William Fowler: Suppose that an officer is taking a course of equitation and he is killed, is he counted as having been killed on duty ?


Frederick William Borden: I think not.


Samuel Hughes: It has been ruled that he is not. An officer in Halifax was killed under these circumstances. I always claimed that that officer was killed while on duty.


Frederick William Borden: He was not at the school, but was drilling at his own house.


Samuel Hughes: That does not make any difference. Drilling should not be confined to the school, but if men will take an interest and perfect themselves in drill at their own places-however, we need not discuss the question now.


Mr. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria).: The case referred to is that of Major Maxwell. He was killed by being thrown from his horse. I always thought that something should have been done for his widow. It is well enough to say that the general regulations apply only thus or so, but the case was one in which something should have been done.


Frederick William Borden: The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) brought up the ease and my recollection is that we voted a gratuity.


Robert Laird Borden: I think not.


Samuel Hughes: I certainly did not notice any item of that kind in any estimates that were voted. I did not know the man or anything about him except what I learned of the circumstances of his death. As I understand the facts, he was attending the military school. Whether he was in barracks or not makes no difference ; he was under military law' from the time he entered the school until he would have left it- until he did leave it, for he was in attendance at the time of his death. I have always felt that the claims of his family Mr. DANIEL.
should have been recognized under the statute.
Mr. "FOWLER.	It seems to me that
' drill or training or on duty ' would cover such a case. It does not make any difference w'hether he gets his meals at barracks or at his own home. If he were on his wTay to the school his case would come within Ibis section. Of course, if he were taking a ride for exercise that would be another matter. But if he were on his way to or from the school at the time the accident happened, I would think his representatives should have the benefit of this section,- just as a volunteer is held to be under orders from the time he starts for the annual drill until he returns to his home.


Frederick William Borden: I looked into the case very carefully some years ago, but I am not certain whether I recall the facts accurately. I went into the case from a sympathetic point of view, because I was very anxious to take favourable action. My impression is that the report of the District Officer Commanding w'as that Major Maxwell did not come within the meaning of the section. He was mounting his horse to go for a ride but not to go to the school.
Mr, FOWLER. That is not the case I have in mind, but the case of one who was in attendance upon, including going to or returning from the school of equitation.'


Frederick William Borden: That would be different.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 84-provision for men permanently disabled. &c., penalty for false certificate.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the words ' drill or training or on duty ' be inserted after the words ' active service.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: I notice that, in the interpretation clause, the expression * on duty ' is not interpreted. I take it that it is utterly impossible for one to understand this law without some' interpretation of these words. Upon such an interpretation depends the meaning of several sections that we have discussed this afternoon.


Frederick William Borden: It is a well understood phrase in military parlance, and I am informed that in the King's regulations the explanation is given. I will look into it however, and if it is thought desirable we may add a phrase explaining it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 86-Militia not to be quartered in convents.
Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that after the word ' females ' we include 'and children.' You might come to a home where the man would be away on service, and it would be unfair to force soldiers on

his house when his wife might be left at home with children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 87-requisitions for transport.
George William Fowler: This only requires persons to place these things at the disposal of the department ; I think it ought to give the department the right to take possession of them.


Frederick William Borden: The Crown has that right.


Samuel Hughes: Some time ago I drew the minister's attention to the omission of the words ' horse and wagon ' belonging to a farmer, as these things are likely to be called into requisition oftener than railways and steamships.


Frederick William Borden: I think section S8 would cover that.


George William Fowler: My point is that the Governor in Council should have authority to take possession of all these things and use them and pay for them.	[DOT]


Frederick William Borden: This part of the Act is copied from the Imperial Statute.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty seems to be that section 88 goes a little beyond section 87. Section 88 provides that if they are lawfully required and are not furnished, there shall be a penalty imposed ; but they must be lawfully required. The two sections do not appear to work exactly on the same lines.	'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 13 goes a little further, it practically authorizes taking possession. The last words of the first paragraph say :
And may also impress any horses, mules, oxen or other animals required for military purposes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Section 13 is the one which I suggested to the minister as needing to include the words ' carts and wagons, and he said he would take it into consideration at the third reading.


Samuel Hughes: Every one knows that wagons and horses are the things that are most frequently commandeered.


Mr. KEMP  I.@: 30&DEN. This does not seem to me to be exactly intended to meet the case provided for in section 13. Section 13 seems to give the government the right at once to take possession of articles without requiring them to be furnished ; section 88 contemplates a requisition, and a failure to comply with the requisition. I hardly think section 13 is in the same line.


Frederick William Borden: One, I think, refers to a, case of emergency, and the other does not.


Robert Laird Borden: Very likely, but there is the same difficulty that has been pointed out already. Where no emergency
exists and where you make a requisition, you are entitled to have that requisition complied with under a penalty upon the person refusing. But the reference to wagons and so forth is in that portion of the statute which provides a penalty ; therefore probably section 88 would be inoperative in that regard, because 88 .merely provides that any person lawfully required under this Act to do something and who does not do it, shall be subject to a penatly. Then you must look outside 88 for some provision in the statute requiring the person to whom the requisition is directed to provide wagons, carriages and so forth. I mean in so far as these are not enumerated in section 87 or in some other part of the Act as articles which may be lawfully requisitioned, you do not get very much benefit from section 88.


Frederick William Borden: Section S8 might be required in the event of difficulty occurring as to transporting a company to the annual camp.	i


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the Minister of Militia understands me. Section 88 provides a penalty, but it says the articles must have been lawfully requisitioned. Therefore we must find in the Act some power lawfully to requisition them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would require to be amended to cover that.


Frederick William Borden: That the section be amended by inserting in the fourteenth line after the word ' vessel ' the word's ' wagon, carriage or pack animal.'


Mr. HAGGART.: Are not all these things provided for under the English Army Act ? Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: You bring the English Army Act into effect and, if so why reenact tips ?


Frederick William Borden: This is not under the Army Act. It is under the imperial statute governing the army and that is an entirely different thing from the Army Act.


John Graham Haggart: You only have power to billet under the Army Act.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 93, stricken out.
Section 99-offences and penalties-claiming pay for drill not performed ; ^returning men not duly enrolled ; claiming for drill with another corps.


George William Fowler: In the case of mounted corps it might happen that more horses would be claimed for than are really in camp. This section would not seem to include that offence.


Frederick William Borden: I think a regulation could be made to cover that.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of the proposal to largely increase the cavalry corps, if you are making that provision with regard to officers and men, it might be well to in elude horses.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Surely if an officer made a return representing a man to be present who was not present and received pay for him, it would be a distinct case of f o lse representation, and he would be amenable under the Criminal Code.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: It is not only the case of a man who is not there, but the case of a man who is there and who is enrolled in another corps.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He cannot be present in two places at the same time unless he is an Irishman or a bird.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But the regiments do not drill at the same time, and therefore he does not have to be an Irishman.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Criminal Code would cover any misrepresentation as to the number of horses.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, these suggestions might be very good arguments for striking out the words ' or claims pay for officers or men not present.' I do not think they are legitimate arguments for refusing to insert the word ' horses.' You should either depend on the criminal law, or if you do not depend on the criminal law, .make a special provision here, which should be exhaustive. Is there in the Criminal Code any special punishment provided for false pretenses ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, yes. But there seems to be a provision here for making a man guilty of an indictable offence, but without providing any penalty.


Robert Laird Borden: I should imagine that these clauses were originally drafted before the Criminal Code was revised. It might be a useful thing to look over all the offences created by this Bill and see to what extent they are already covered by the Criminal Code. Otherwise, you may have confusion by making provision in this statute lor matters already covered to a certain extent by the Crimianl Code or the English Army Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections from 100 to 107 agreed to.
On section 108-refusal to attend drill.
Mr. DANIEiL. I have in my hand several suggestions sent me by an officer who has had a good deal of experience in the militia. He suggests that at the end of this section the following should be added :
And the regimental orders o£ the corps properly issued and promulgated during the time of the annual drill or training shall he sufficient notice to such officers or men to attend.
Frederick William Borden: There will be nothing otherwise in the Act to show what is sufficient notice.


Frederick William Borden: Yes ; there is section 129, which says :
Every, order made by the commanding officer of any corps of the militia shall be held to be sufficiently notified to all persons whom i' concerns, by insertion in some newspaper published in the regimental division in which such corps 'is situated, or, if there is no such newspaper, then by posting a copy thereof on the door of every place of public worship, or of some other public place, in each company division affected by such order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It seems to me that is sufficient.
On section 112,
Every person who unlawfully disposes of or removes any arms, accoutrements or other articles belonging to the Crown or corps, or who refuses to deliver them up when lawfully required, or has them in his possession, except for lawful cause, the proof of which shall lie upon him, shall incur a penalty of twenty dollars for each offence ; but nothing in this section shall prevent such offender from being indicted and punished for any greater offence, if the facts amount to such greater offence : and such offender may he arrested by order of the justice of the peace before whom the complaint is made, upon affidavit showing that there is reason to believe that such offender is about to leave Canada, carrying with him any such arms, accoutrements or articles.


John Waterhouse Daniel: My military friend suggests that at the end of that clause we should add the words :
Or if he have neglected or refused to deliver or return such articles after being properly notified or required so to do.


Frederick William Borden: The clause in the present Bill has been found to work admirably for some thirty or forty years.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The fact that these regulations have been in existence thirty or forty years without change is, I think, one of the reasons why my friend makes the suggestion lie does.


Frederick William Borden: I should be very glad if my hon. friend will send me a copy of the proposed amendment, as we might take it up, if necessary, on the third reading.


Samuel Hughes: It is covered by section 112.
On section 113-refusal to aid the civil power.


Frederick William Borden: In copying this clause some words were omitted, and I simply wish to restore them, making the clause read the same as the clause of the existing Act. I move to insert, after the word ' penalty,' the words ' in an officer, not exceeding one hundred dollars, and if a man.'


Samuel Hughes: I do not object to the amendment. I presume that the other section referring to the troops called out to aid the civil power will come up to-morrow. I would call the minister's attention to one point now, so that he may think it over. I think it would be in harmony with the spirit of the times and with the wish of the people that there should be a clause providing that when the militia are called out to aid the civil power, the pay of the men shall be at least equal to that which it would be necessary to pay to special constables. These towns, rather than go to the expense of hiring special constables, call out the militia-the poor soldier has to serve them at 50 cents a day.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose we would have to fix the amount.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 116-procedure, recovery of penalties ; imprisonment if. not paid.


Samuel Hughes: I know that this is the same section as in the existing Act, but, I would draw the attention of the minister to a point which I asked him once before to consider. Is it fair-play to convict a man before one justice of a peace and upon the testimony of one witness ?


Frederick William Borden: I have not heard of any complaint. The whole thing is obsolete. I never heard of any of these sections being used, but, if it is to be in the law it should be in proper form. I am not a judge or a lawyer, but it seems to me that this section is not just. t


Charles Fitzpatrick: The penalties are not very great, and, of course, in many cases of offences similar to this, one justice has jurisdiction. In some cases it requires two justices of the peace, or one judge having the jurisdiction of two justices. I do not see why these proceedings should not be taken before one justice.


Samuel Hughes: And only one witness ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: One witness is as good as a thousand if he is the proper sort.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why not require that a man should be taken before the stipendiary magistrate ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There may be none in the locality.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But, suppose it is in a city where there is a stipendiary magistrate ? Can the party complaining take the man before any justice of the peace he comes across ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Speaking for the province of Quebec, a justice of the peace can be used to take bail. The court is presided over by a stipendiary magistrate and, in his absence by his substitute. The ordinary justices do not attend though they have jurisdiction. ,


John Waterhouse Daniel: But this would allow one of these soldiers to be taken before a justice of the peace even in a town where there was a stipendiary magistrate.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That would apply to any individual proceeded against under the law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not know whether the justices of the peace rank the same all over the country, but in some cases I should think this would be rather too great a risk.


Frederick William Borden: I think it is sound in this case.
On section 119-procedure-where actions may be brought.


Samuel Hughes: I drew the attention of the minister some months ago to the fact that he speaks of ' district ' in Quebec and 1 county ' in the other provinces, but he pays no attention to the Northwest Territories where they have not counties. I think the term ' judicial district ' would do.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would suggest that we add the words ' shall be held and tried in the judicial district where the Act complained of was done.' I will have this considered more fully, and if afterwards it is thought important to make any change we can have it amended.
On section 121-duty of jailor.


John Waterhouse Daniel: After the word ' commanding ' in the fourth line my correspondent suggests that there should be added the words ' or the officer commanding the corps during annual drill or training or on active service. That is, in addition to the district officer commanding.


Frederick William Borden: The words ' or any person authorized ' cover that.
On section 126-general provisions-property of corps vested in commanding officer.


Frederick William Borden: That the words ' commanding officer of the corps ' be stricken out and that the words ' His Majesty ' be inserted in lieu thereof.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 129-general provisions-notifying other orders.


Frederick William Borden: That the section be amended by inserting after the -word ' militia ' the words [DOT] other than the Permanent Force ' ; by striking out the words ' on the door of every place of public worship' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' in every post office,' and by striking out the word ' of ' before the word ' some ' and inserting in lieu thereof the word ' in.'
Section as amended agreed to.

Sections 132 ami 134 stricken out.
On section 135-Acts repealed.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the present militia law is only to be repealed
so far as the land force of the militia is concerned.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, I move to acid these words:
In so far as the active ana reserve militia- land force is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 79,-Active service-Army Act, &c., to apply to active service.
Samuel Hughes: The minister was good enough to ask me to suggest some amendments to this section, and I have suggested them with the assistance of the leader of the opposition who put them in legal form. These amendments make the section more clear.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Frederick William Borden: I beg to add as subclause 2 :
Officers and men of the permanent force and members of the permanent staff of the militia shall he at all times subject 'to military law.


Samuel Hughes: The members of the permanent force are subject to military law at all times. I do not like oppressive measures.


Frederick William Borden: The staff of the militia is not.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, but the minister does not want to try by court martial his deputy minister or his musketry instructor. or any other of the erratic members of his staff.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend is afraid of this clause.


Samuel Hughes: No, I am not under pay. It does not concern me personally at all.	.
Section as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 35-militia may be called out to suppress riot-


Samuel Hughes: This is the same as the old law, is it not ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, exactly the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sir F, W. BORDEN.
On section 36,
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the section be struck out and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof :
The district officer commanding, if he is present in the locality and able to act, or if he is not so present, or from! sickness or other cause is unable to act, the senior officer of the active militia in any locality, shall call out the same or any portion thereof, as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, when thereunto required in -writing by the chairman or custos of the quarter sessions of the peace, or by any three justices of the peace, of whom the warden, mayor or other head or acting head of the municipality or county in [DOT]which such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, shall be one, unless he has declined or is unable to act, which fact shall in that case be set forth in the requisition, and shall not be open to dispute by the officer upon whom the requisition is made : provided always that the permanent force, if, in the opinion of the officer upon whom the 'requisition is made, a sufficient number of that force is available, is to be employed upon this duty, before resort is had to other mill-tia corps.
Frederick William Borden: This section was drafted by the Department of Justice the officers of that department having carefully read the criticisms which were made here when this Bill was discussed in committee before.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think this clause is a much better one than the old one. Wherever I a permanent force is available, I think i should always be brought out, In case of riot or anticipated riot, in preference to the militia of the town, As we all know, the militia might be compelled to act against their own friends and companions. So that I think the provision is a very good one.


Mr. PUTTEE.: When this question was discussed on a previous occasion, the general feeling seemed to be that some measures should be taken to prevent the militia being called out before the civil power was exhausted. Our experience in recent years has shown that the militia have been called out before the civil power has been taxed to its full extent. I would like to know whether the Minister of Militia thinks that there is in this clause sufficient safeguard against any such abuse. It was suggested that we should put upon the municipal authorities the duty of engaging special constables, and only calling on the militia when such precaution proved ineffective. Take the case down at Sydney, there is much dispute as to whether there was any necessity for bringing the militia to quell the labour troubles down there, and I believe the municipality has repudiated the action of the justices of the peace who sent the requisition for military aid.


Frederick William Borden: I cannot see very well what greater obstacle you can provide against the unnecessary calling out of the troops than compelling the municipality interested to pay the cost. When the municipalities have to pay, they will be very careful about calling out the militia.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is it not a fact that they generally refuse to pay ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEiN. No.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: There are two points that occur to me in connection with this section. In the first line I would suggest that we substitute the word ' district ' for the word * locality,' because no one could tell what ' locality ' means in this section.


Frederick William Borden: That is the present law.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But we are trying to amend it. However, if the committee thinks that the language is clear enough, 1 shall not make a motion. But there is something at the end : ' provided always, that the permanent force is not available and in sufficient numbers for the purpose.' This could be construed to mean that, if in the opinion of the district officer commanding, the permanent force is not available in sufficient numbers, then the non-permanent militia should be called out. To my mind, what is intended is that the non-permanent militia should be called out to supplement the permanent force in case the later is not sufficient in numbers. In the discussion we had on this clause the general opinion was that the permanent force should be resorted to whenever possible.


Mr. WARD.: I think the objection of the hon. member for Haldimand is well taken. We should make it perfectly clear that the permanent force IS to be . called out to the extent to which it is available, and that only in the event of that force being insufficient should we call on the militia, and then only call on the militia to supplement the permanent force. That evidently is the intention, but we should see that it is clearly expressed.


Frederick William Borden: It would be rather dangerous to make the law too strin-gefft. It might be advisable, for instance, not to call out the Permanent Force, but to hold it in reserve for some other duty, and no one is in a better position to judge of the circumstances than the district or senior officer, who is on the spot. We must give him gome discretion in the matter.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that we amend the clause by striking out the words ' in the opinion of the officer,' and substitute the words ' so far as it is available.' The clause would then read : ' Provided always, that the permanent force, so far as it is available, is to be employed upon this duty before calling on the militia.' My own opinion is that the militia should be
called on first. I think that every locality should be taught to keep its own law and order. I believe in self-governing communities, and I do not believe in this system of calling in the militia from Quebec to go to Sydney or from Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie. That is one reason why I want the pay of the militia increased to that of special constables. That would teach the municipalities a lesson. I am told that the Sault disturbance could have been quelled by one good, sensible man acting in proper time, and nine out of ten of these disturbances, to quell which the troops are called out, could have been settled without having resort to that extreme measure.	.


Arthur W. Puttee: I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Justice in connection with this clause. You will see that the district officer commanding, very properly, has no power to refuse a requisition that is made upon 'him. And the clause goes on to provide that the requisition shall be in writing by the chairman of the quarter sessions, or by any three justices of the peace, of whom the warden, mayor, or other head of the muni-cipaliiy shall be one ; and if the mayor, warden or other head refuses to act. then the requisition is to state such refusal, and one other justice of the peace has to take his place. You will see that the warden or mayor is the only one of these three who is responsible to the municipality as regards expenditure. It seems to me, therefore, it would be a proper thing to provide that, if the mayor refuses to sign this requisition the signature of two other justices of the peace-that is, four justices of the peace altogether-should be required. It v ould be necessary to make the section read something in this manner :
-or by any three justices of the peace of whom the warden, mayor or other head or acting head of the municipality or county in which such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, shall be one, but, if he declines or is unable to act, then, by four justices of the peace.
It is pretty well understood that in many instances justices of the peace are too quick perhaps, to call upon the district officer commanding for assistance before the resources of the municipality are exhausted. That is the experience. Certainly, it was fihe experience in Vallevfield, I think it was the experience three years ago in British Columbia, and I doubt if it is not the ex perience in Sydney at the present time. This amendment gives a little more protection to the municipality which after alt must foot the bill.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 36 A-form of requisition provided for in section 36.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I see that the subsection allows this form to be varied, but to what extent It may be varied does not appear.


Frederick William Borden: To any extent.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is the case with all blanks in statutes. They are intended for the purpose of guiding the magistrate, and then he must act within the spirit of the section.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This form says at the end :
These are therefore to require you to call out the active militia present in	or
such portion thereof as you consider necessary for the purpose of suppressing (or preventing, or dealing with) such riot or disturbance.
The idea of the Bill is that the permanent force shall be called out4 in preference to the ordinary active militia.


Frederick William Borden: The permanent force is a part of the active militia.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am aware of that, but the permanent force is to be called upon first, and that permanent force must necessarily be stationed in the locality where it is expected a riot may take place. I am thinking of course of my own constituency. There we have some active militia, a regiment of artillery and one of infantry, and we have no permanent force at all. There is a company of infantry at Fredericton, and it would be easy to have that company in the city of St. John in a couple of hours after the order was sent. But I cannot see that this requisition, unless it is changed a good deal, would be suitable for such a case as that. ' These are therefore to require you to call out the active militia at present in '-they are in the locality.


Frederick William Borden: In the district.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The permanent force is a part of the active militia, and when requisition is made upon the district officer cOvinmanding he must consult the statute under which he is to act, and the statute says that the part of the militia which is first to be called upon is the permanent force. He has to read the statute in order to ascertain what his powers are, and he will find that the permanent force are first to be called upon, if they are available in sufficient number.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At all events, these words do not make any reference to the permanent force.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The permanent force is a part of the active militia, and the active militia includes the permanent force.


Samuel Hughes: At the present moment a Quebec permanent corps are in Mi PUI TEE.
Sydney, Cape Breton, some hundreds of miles away.	.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention that in case the permanent force are called out they are to be paid for by the government or by the municipality ?


Frederick William Borden: By the municipality.


George William Fowler: Why should their cost be a fine upon the municipality ? It may not be the fault of the municipality that this riot occurs, and I think they should be paid out of the general revenue of the country.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I think if that were so, every time a person got disorderly in the streets the permanent corps would be gent for.


Henry Alfred Ward: Would it not be better to alter that requisition in this way :
These are therefore to require you to call out the active militia in the district.
Instead of saying as at present in any particular place.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then that would mean that we have no permanent corps.


Henry Alfred Ward: If there are any permanent corps in the district, then they would be available in accordance with the terms of section 36.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But if there are not ?


Henry Alfred Ward: The active militia covers both, it seems to me.


George William Fowler: It seems to me a serious matter that the town of Sydney should have to bear the expense of taking the permanent force from Quebec to Sydney.


Frederick William Borden: They deposited the money in the bank before the force started, $10,000.


Samuel Hughes: I saw somewhere that the town of Sydney had notified the militia authorities that they would not pay a cent of this.


Frederick William Borden: They did not. Before we allowed the troops to start the money was put in the bank.


Samuel Hughes: I think the government cannot be too emphatic in impressing upon these municipalities that they must preserve law and order in their own community. I object to the ratepayers of Victoria county being called upon to pay one dollar of the cost of sending the permanent force to suppress riots in any part of Canada.


Mr. GILMOUR.: When the militia are called out by three magistrates. I do not see why the municipalities should have to

pay the cost. I think whenever a riot occurs and it becomes necessary to call out the militia-ancl they can only he called out by three magistrates-the government ought to be in some measure responsible for their expense. The militia are a government force, and it is unfair to compel the municipality to pay the expenses of the militia so called out. The magistrates are responsible to the town, or perhaps responsible to the county, they are competent judges of the necessity of outside aid, and I do not think it is fair that a little municipality should be called upon to pay the entire expense.


Frederick William Borden: Why should the Dominion treasury be made liable ?


James Gilmour: Because the militia are under the control of the Dominion government, under the control of the Minister of Militia as a member of the government, and if they are to go at all, they should go at the expense of the Dominion government.


Frederick William Borden: Each province or subdivision of a province is responsible for maintaining law and order, and it is only in extraordinary occasions, cases of emergency, that this power should be exercised by the local authorities in calling upon the central power for aid. I aja'ee with the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) absolutely, that municipalities should be discouraged as far as possible from exercising a power which is only meant to be available in an emergency. We should not offer too many invitations or too many facilities for having recourse to that power. I may point out that at the pre(-sent time, the militia are being used to perform police duty in suppressing a street row in the city of London. I object emphatically to any ratepayer of Victoria county, or of any other county in the Dominion of Canada, being called upon to pay police expenses, even though the Dominion troops are being used, or to pay one farthing of the expenses of suppressing a riot.


George William Fowler: It is the law abiding citizens in all cases who have to pay the cost of suppressing disturbances on the part of the citizens who are not law abiding. It seems to me that if the people of this country pay taxes to support this permanent force, they have a right to their services to suppress serious local riots.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Not as a police force.


George William Fowler: To maintain law and order within the boundaries of Canada as well as to resist invasion. You have authority to call upon this force in case of emergency. Here is an emergency ; by this very Act you define an emergency to be a riot and insurrection beyond the power of the local police force to suppress. It does seem to m# that in case the permanent force
are called out the expenses should not be saddled upon the municipality.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It is only when a local disturbance becomes a riot and the law of the country is set at defiance that the federal authority is called in. Therefore it is when t'he local police in the country break down that the militia come in. Under the general idea that the government must preserve law and order in the country when the authority of the local municipality breaks down this government should pay tor the suppression of any disturbance. But unfortunately this was settled at a time when the province of Ontario was settling everything on a very narrow basis. If the province of Nova Scotia wanted a wharf t'hey required that we should pay half the cost of it.


An hon. MEMBER.: We pay all the cost now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I agree with my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) because he struck the proper key and stated a sound principle both in morals and equity when he said that if the law makes it legal for the municipality, or some officials in the municipality, to call out the militia the charge should be upon the country as a whole, because the public law of t'he land is evoked and the local authority 'is in abeyance.


Samuel Hughes: When this matter was introduced first I took the ground that the militia force should not be called out for police purposes to put down a riot in a scrub town in w-hich the municipality do not know how to preserve law and order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I object to my hon. friend referring in so disagreeable a manner to Lindsay.


Samuel Hughes: We are a law abiding people there and do not require to call out the militia to keep us in order. I repeat most emphatically that no militiaman' ought to be called out to do police duty at 50 cents a day to be insulted and spat upon especially w'hen he is not in a position to arrest a man for disorderly conduct. The law should be so amended that if these men are called out they should be called out as policemen, given $2.50 a day and have the power to step out of the ranks and arrest a man if he is disorderly. I want to convert my hon. friend here. Nine out of ten of these riots are caused through some action on the part of local people, nine out of ten of these riots are caused by the residents becoming disorderly, they are the people Who encourage a riot and I say that no one outside of the municipality should be called upon to pay a farfihing of the expense of putting down a riot in that municipality.


George William Fowler: The difficulty Is that under the law two or three magistrates who are not responsible to the municipality can put a large expense upon the municipality.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: That is the municipality's own fault.
Mr.- FOWLER. How is it the municipality's own fault? They have no control over the magistrates. My hon. friend says that it is the fault of the municipality. Not at all. If you. give the power to the municipal council w'ho are responsible to the people, then it might be all right to make the municipality pay for it, but you allow irresponsible persons, and magistrates are not always responsible persons, to perform this duty and saddle the municipality with the cost.


William Ross: The municipal council in Sydney is composed of as able men as those composing any municipal council in this Dominion. The citizens of Sydney are as orderly as those of any city in the Dominion. A company has been formed there and a foreign element has been brought into the place.


William Findlay Maclean: Not Highland Scotch ?


Mr WM. ROSS (Victoria).: They are not Scotch. The Scotch know how to behave themselves in whatever part of the world they are placed. Even amongst savages they know how to behave themselves. But, that is outside of the question altogether. Here vou have a body of regulars down at Quebec. They are doing nothing, they have nothing to do because the cities of Quebec are orderly in every respect, and these regulars are sent down to Sydney to preserve order there. If their travelling expenses in going down and coming home are paid that is as much as could be expected by the municipality of Sydney.


Mr. INGRAM.: Those who are instrumental in the first instance in having the soldiers called out may have been the original cause of all the friction. A foreign element is brought in by parties who are engaged in carrying on a work. Ihej are brought in to serve these parties own interests in the first instance and because these men object to their being handled to the liking of the company, friction arises, the militia are called out and the country has to pay for it If the militia are cailed out let the municipality pay for them and when the municipality knows that they are responsible for the cost of bringing the militia in they will remove the cause of friction. I would be very sorry to support a proposition that the country as a whole should pay the expenses in connection with a matter of this kind. I think the bon. minister is quite right when he makes the law read as he proposes to do.


Samuel Hughes: 


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The main object of the permanent force is defined in section 30 of this Bill wlien it says :
The permanent force shall furnish schools of instruction for the ipilitia, and provide instructors therefor ;-
The hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia (Mr. Ross)


George William Fowler: Read the rest of it.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: It has other functions, but I said this was the main one.
-and it shall also be available, at all times, for general service.
The general service referred to there is something more serious than putting down riots. When any hon. member of this House says that this corps is idling all the time and that it might as well be employed tor the suppression of rioting, I think he entirely overlooks the fact that it is doing important work in instructing the balance of the force, and that this is the principal reason for its existence. It does seem to me that if this force which has been established mainly for the instruction of t'he balance, or the larger part of the force is removed from its instructional duties, that balance of the force is therefore losing its teaching in consequence, and it is only right that the government should receive pay from the municipality. It does seem absurd. I think, to charge this to the whole of Canada.	[DOT]	.


Henry Alfred Ward: It does not seem that t'he hon. minister has answered the objection of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel). I would like to have him state whether it is not possible to alter this requisition so as to make it more conformable with section 36. It seems to me that seme slight change was made there. There seems to be a portion that cannot be very well altered, but if the hon. minister would alter that provision so as to refer to thq active militia in the district, I think it would answer t'he objection of my hon. friend from St. John.


Frederick William Borden: The language used is that which exists in the present law. It has been found to work very well and I suppose it was followed by the draftsman who prepared this clause. One hesitates to depart from a phrase or from language which has been used for many years and which is found to work well.


Henry Alfred Ward: But the hon. minister must not forget that section 36 has been altered and it is only to make this requisition conform with the alteration that my hon. friend from St. John proposes the change.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If you insert the word ' district,' the permanent force could not go to the city of Halifax to suppress a

riot, because there is no permanent force in Nova Scotia. It is better to allow these elastic words to be used ; you have to trust to the discretion and good judgment of somebody, and it is better to leave that to the discretion of the district officer commanding.


Henry Alfred Ward: The whole Dominion is divided into military districts, and there is a permanent corps in each district.


Frederick William Borden: Not in Nova Scotia.


Henry Alfred Ward: Even so, I do not see what objection there can be, because the words [DOT] active militia ' do not refer to the permanent corps if there is no permanent corps in that district. I am sure the Minister of Justice could suggest a wording of the clause that would meet the case.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
Frederick William Borden: I cannot see any objection to that word ' district.'


George William Fowler: Instead of allowing the militia to be called out by three magistrates', why not say that it shall be done by a majority of the municipal council ?


Frederick William Borden: That might take too long.
Mr. MAC-LEAN. They might refuse to make a quorum.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: When the original Act provided that three magistrates might call out the militia, we had no county or municipal .councils in the greater part of the Dominion. At that time the magistrates were members of the sessions, and they had the authority that is now vested in municipal bodies. In moulding our Act to-day. we should give recognition to the representative institutions as we find them : and, as the magistrates have ceased to have any civil authority, we should substitute for the three magistrates of the old law the mayor and two or three municipal councillors, who can just as readily be gotten at as three magistrates.


George William Fowler: Apparently the sentiment of this committee is against the indiscriminate employment of the militia to aid the civil power ; and, that being so, it seems to me that it would be better to have the municipal council called together, or that a majority of the municipal council should sign the requisition to call out the militia. If you allow it to be done by three magistrates who are not responsible in any way to the people, the militia could very easily be called out when the occasion was not serious enough to demand it.


Samuel Hughes: My own opinion is that the militia should not be called out for
this purpose at all. Instead of ordering the boys out and paying them 50 cents a day, let the municipal authorities swear them in as special constables and pay them $1.50 or $2 a day. When the militiaman stands there with his uniform and his rifle, every pup in the town can spit on him and he dare not leave the ranks, whereas if he were a special constable he could take that fellow by the scruff of the neck and put him in the lockup. The munclpal authorities ought to be taught the idea of providing for the peace and order of the municipalities, and pay for it.


Robert George Macpherson: Although I am not a militiaman. I will venture to say a word on this question. The suggestion has been made that the militia should only be called out by a majority of the municipal council, tut I would point out that in many districts of the province of British Columbia there are no municipalities, and consequently the militia could not be called out at all under such a law. For instance, on the Skeena river, where a strike is feared, there are no municipalities, and so the justices of the peace must be the authority to take action in such a contingency. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that the machinery for calling out the militia should not be made too easily available, and further, that when the militia is called out in aid of the" civil power, the municipalities should be made to understand that they must pay for it. If the government were to pay the militia every time they were called out for such duty, then the militia would be at the beck and call of every person in the country, but if the municipality is obliged to pay it is a very great safeguard. Let me say that I am very strongly apposed to the militia being called out to suppress riots in towns where the members of the militia force themselves reside, because sometimes they are called upon to act against their personal friends, and that is a condition that should be avoided if possible. I repeat that in the province of British Columbia, where there are no municipalities, the power to call out the militia must be in the hands of the justices of the peace.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The more we discuss this matter the more apparent it becomes that the body representative of the people who pay the cost should have the authority to say when the militia shall be called out. In provinces where municipal councils are incorporated you could say that the mayor and three of the town council-I do not think a majority of the council is necessary -should have the power to call the militia out, and as these gentlemen know they have to pay the cost they will be rather chary about exercising the power except in case of great stress. I think that would solve the whole difficulty. If you leave it to three magistrates, a big company like the Steel Company at Sydney could easily pick up three magistrates and get them to call out

the militia, whether it was right to do so or not. X am not speaking of magistrates as a whole, hut a company like the Steel Company might have three or four magistrates in its employ; whereas if it had to go to the city or town council, which had to pay the bill, it would meet with a different order of things. I deprecate the calling out of the militia on all occasions, and I think that would be the better plan to adopt.


Frederick William Borden: Let me say to my hon. friend that although this law has been in force for forty years, there has never been a ease in my knowledge-and 1 have looked over the cases carefully- where it has been abused. The law has worked well for forty years, and 1 think before that in the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and why not leave it alone ? I might point out one ease on the other side, the case of Valleyfleld, where the mayor absolutely refused to act. Will any one say that it was not necessary on that occasion to take the action that was taken '! I think not ; and yet under the proposal of my hon. friend, it would be impossible to get the aid of the militia in similar conditions. The law has worked well ; why not leave it alone ?


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: In the case of Val-leyfield, could not the civil authorities have sworn in enough special constables to have preserved order without calling out the militia, if they had not found it easy to do so ?


James Gilmour: What is the meaning of the word ' municipality ' as used in this section ? We have a county municipality, which embraces incorporated villages, towns-ships and towns, each and every one of which is a municipality. Would you seek to recover pay from an incorporated village, or from the county ? I am inclined to think it would be from the county as the language stands here.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be from the particular municipality directly charged with the maintenance of peace within the district where the riot occurs. These occurrences never take place in the country parts. This legislation is designed to meet actual cases that arise, not imaginary cases that have not arisen and are not likely to arise. Outside of the case at Valleyfield. no such emergency has arisen in the province of Quebec outside of a town or city, and I am sure the same thing would apply to Ontario.


James Gilmour: But in the event of your endeavouring to recover from the municipality the cost of the militia being called out, would it not be as well to define what is meant by the municipality- whether it is meant to be the county or one of the local municipalities, such as the village, town or township ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Has not a city, a town or a village a separate municipal existence from a county in Ontario ?


James Gilmour: Not entirely. Cities have, towns may not have, villages and townships do not have. They have to pay their statute taxes to the counties, and they are controlled in that measure by the counties.


George William Fowler: It strikes me that you are violating the principle of no taxation without representation when you allow these magistrates to call out the militia. I am surprised that the hon. member for La-belle, who is a stickler for constitutional liberty, has not seen this point, and come to the assistance of those who are fighting for constitutional principles.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend is doing it better than I could.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) stated that in the district which he represents it was necessary that the law should be retained as it is- why V Because there are no municipalities there. In that case, if the three magistrates called out the troops, who is to pay for them ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I like to proceed on tne principle that it is a good thing to deal with one thing at a time; We shall be called on to deal with the question my hon. friend raises when he comes to sections 39 and 40.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In the case of the Val-leyfield riots, has anybody paid for the militia other than the government ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The municipality has been sued, and we got a judgment against it.


Arthur W. Puttee: After the views which have been expressed by a number of members of the committee, I think they will see the reasonableness of the suggestion I made a few minutes ago. What we have done is to provide that a requisition to call out the militia must be signed by three persons, two justices of the peace and the mayor of the town ; if the mayor refuses, his refusal is to be noted, and another justice of the , peace may take his place. The mayor is the only one who represents the people who are to pay the cost, and if he refuses, the requisition should be signed by at least two more justices of the peace. It seems to me that this is a reasonable compromise proposition, and one that should be accepted. I remember the case at Valleyfleld, to w'hieh I gave a great deal of attention at the time, and in my opinion that is one of the exceptions where the power was abused. The mayor of Valleyfleld refused to sign the inquisition, and three justices of the peace called out the militia over his bead. The whole people were scandalized. There was

a strike on at the time, and everybody connected with tlie strike decided' that they would do no work until the militia were withdrawn, and they had to be withdrawn before a settlement could be effected. There was no fear of any disturbance which local constables could not control. Because a large company in a small district can control enough justices of the peace to secure a requisition if it is in its interest to do so, it seems to me that if the mayor refuses to sign, it should be necessary to have four justices of the peace, and not three.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
On section 38-duty of officers and men who shall be special constables.
George William Fowler: Is there not in this a contradiction of terms ? You make the militia special constables and at the same time they are only to act as a military body under orders of their superior officer.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They will act as a military body, but shall have the jurisdiction of special constables.


Samuel Hughes: That is the absurdity of the whole business. No man can step out of the ranks to arrest anybody. After the Riot Act is read, all these men can do is shoot or bayonet.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They can arrest.


Samuel Hughes: In practice they never arrest. If the crowd do not disperse they charge with the bayonet or shoot.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I know of my own knowledge where a sergeant and two men were detailed to make an arrest, and they did it very well.
On section 39-aid of the civil power, payment by municipality, &c..


Charles Fitzpatrick: If this Bill is not going out of the committee t(>-night, this clause ought to be recast to provide for the difficulties suggested with respect to the unorganized parts of territories where there are no municipalities.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I would ask the Minister of Militia whether this d'llar a day pay would apply to men on the permanent force as well as to those in the nonpermanent force when acting on this duty?


Samuel Hughes: It should.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Decidedly it should. It is a most miserable duty to perform and ought to be paid for.


Samuel Hughes: I think it should be distinctly understood that when the permanent corps are on this very offensive duty, this dollar a day should be paid, viz., the excess of the pay they get as soldiers up to a dollar a day.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
20S
On section 41,	*;
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 41 as it appears in the Bill is to be struck out and the following inserted instead :
41. There may be appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military command of the militia, and such officer shall have the rank of major-general in the militia and shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding $6,000 per annum, as may be prescribed.	.


Samuel Hughes: Some time ago, I gave the Minister of Militia notice that I proposed asking him to agree to the amendment of this section. I propose to add this to the qualifications :
Who shall have the military education, training and experience of an imperial major-general.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: M ho is to judge of the degree of training and experience f


Samuel Hughes: He has to pass an examination in the imperial service.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You would require an imperial service commission ?


Samuel Hughes: Every Canadian officer to-day can get an imperial service commission if he chooses. A number of them already hold such commissions, and have passed examinations in the imperial service for lieutenant-colonel. There is nothing to prevent a Canadian militia officer going over and passing his examination.


Frederick William Borden: I think that is a matter that should be covered by the legulations. There is a good deal of force in what my hon. friend says, but I think the regulations would cover it. They would certainly demand a certain standard of education and experience for an officer holding that position; I should certainly require it. But that is an unusual thing to put in a statute. I do not think that it is to be found in any statute, I have read most of the militia laws of the colonies of the empire and the British militia law, and I have never seen a provision of that kind in any of them. The regulations have the force of law, and they have to be laid upon the table of the House. This law cannot come into force until there are regulations. I think if the hon. member for Victoria would consent to leave that to the government, he will find the regulations satisfactory ; if they are not, he will have his opportunity at a later date.


Samuel Hughes: I want it distinctly understood that there shall be no separation between the imperial military policy and the colonial military policy ; in other words, that while we undoubtedly have Canadians who, if they had the proper training, are



fit, not only to take command of the Canadian militia, but to take command of the imperial forces, still we must require me a of experience and training, and we cannot get them unless we give our officers a chance to go over there or somewhere else and acquire practice. A number of our young officers have already the certificate of lieu tenant-colonel, they have gone over and passed their examination, and passed very successfully, some of them, I believe. But I do not think that even a lieutenant-colonel's training would be sufficient to guarantee that' a man should be placed in command of the militia of the Dominion of Canada. On the distinct assurance of the minister that he will give this his serious consideration, and that when the regulations are brought down, if they are not satisfactory, we will have the privilege of holding a field day over them, I will let this clause pass.


Frederick William Borden: Referring to this same section 41, there is subsection 2 in the Bill, as originally brought down, which was overlooked in the amendment. Subsection 2 reads as follows
In the event of a* vacancy in the office of iGeneral Officer Commanding, or in the absence of that officer from Canada, the command of the militia shall devolve upon the next senior combatant officer on the HeadQuarters Staff.
I propose to change that so that it shall read as follows :
In the event of no General Officer Commanding being appointed, or in the absence of that officer from Canada, the Governor General in Council may detail an officer of the Headquarter Staff to assume the command and military discipline of the militia.


Samuel Hughes: That is rather a beautiful sentence to put in a statute. What does the Minister of Justice think of that sort of Bill drafting ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There is nothing wrong with that.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps this form would be preferable to the other. I beg to move that the following clause be inserted :
In the event of a vacancy in the office of General Officer Commanding or in the absence of that officer from Canada, the Governor General in Council may detail an officer of the Headquarters Staff who shall be charged with the military command of the militia.


Samuel Hughes: I thought that the control of the militia under a section of this Bill rested with the Governor General alone.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Somebody must act under him. He will not go out and take care of the militia himself. He must appoint somebody to take his place.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: I do not object to the amendment especially but I might aS well discuss the point which I am about to mention here. I may illustrate what I mean by taking England as an example. I want to know if it is the intention of the hon. minister to bring about an interchange in the headquarters staff along these hues. At the present time the headquarters staff are fixtures.


Frederick William Borden: No, they only hold office for five years.


Samuel Hughes: There never was a change in any of them.


Frederick William Borden: There will be.


Samuel Hughes: In England after a man spends a few years on the headquarters staff he is sent out to his regiment, or brigade, or division in order to get sharpened up in his duties in the service. In other words, being office men for a term of years, they get rusty in their work. Is it the hon. minister's intention to carry out that system ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, already we have passed a regulation limiting the term to five years. That was passed three years ago. I would be inclined to follow the English rule limiting it to four vears, and before an officer could return to the headquarters staff again, make it necessary that he should serve a year in some of the districts or in England in the way of exchange. Not only that, but I propose in the regulations to require after a certain numbei; of years that every officer on the Headquarters Staff shall have passed through the English Staff College. An arrangement has been made whereby two officers of the militia of Canada are permitted to attend the Staff College every year, and it is very obvious that at the end of four or five years we shall have a considerable number of officers, if advantage is taken of this opportunity, possessing the qualifications which are considered essential to the performance of staff duties of this kind.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any intention, having regard to the fact that there will be an interchange of officers, to bring about a gradual infusion of the two forces ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad of that.


Frederick William Borden: That is one of the things that was discussed at the meeting of the defence committee which I had the honour of attending, and it was agreed that so soon as Canadian officers were technically qualified by active service or by being graduates of the Staff College, an exchange would take place. It was agreed that if an imperial officer were re-

quired in this country, or if we saw fit to ask for an imperial officer for instance to take charge of the Royal Military College, we should get a quid pro quo, we should have the privilege of sending the same number of officers over to serve in the imperial army.


Samuel Hughes: Of course the minister has the full authority of his government witli that regard.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: That being the case r shall not take up time drawing attention to some interesting pictures in the Montreal * Herald.' There is an editorial in that paper whic*b I am sorry to have to place on the records of the House, but it will show the absurdity of the minister of war. Tlie organ of the Minister of Agriculture who is the minister of war at times, and superintendent general of the whole business says :
The Canadian militiaman is eager to learn something of actual use during his short time of learning, and in his search for that he is apt to neglect the niceties of military etiquette to such an extent that British officers are horrified at his lackness in saluting according to the regulations of the drill book.
We are told that the Minister of Agriculture is most punctilious in his own department. I do not know how low he makes the civil servants bow to him, but they certainly must approach him in fear and tliem-bling. They require to stand some distance from him, especially if they happen to be bigger than he, and pay him all due homage. In one of these pictures the Minister of Militia 'is standing in front with his hat off showing that beautiful profile which we all admire so much, and a little to the right we find the Minister of Agriculture, or war, with his hat doffed returning a salute. In the next picture the Minister of Agriculture is standing in an easier position chatting with some officers. I shall not read the whole article as the minister has promised to carry out these interchanges with the imperial service. I assume that the Minister of Militia is taking up his position again, and that he has sent the Minister of Agriculture to look after the hens and the eggs. I am informed that it has appeared 'in the newspapers that amongst the officers this gentleman was instrumental in forcing on the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, two of them are no credit to anybody. One of them came into the Laprairie camp with a pair of gaiters and a little spur screwed into the heel of the gaiter so that he could not ride, and be had two swords, one on his right and one on his left and one splendid black eye. He remained in camp long enough to make an exhibition of himself and then he was returned home. I may be wrong but I under-208J
stand that these are the facts. Another of the Minister of Agriculture's officers for some offence was brought before the civil authorities and fined $20 or some other large sum for a breach of the civil law. T'hese are two of the men that the Minister of Agriculture held up the Scottish Light Dragoons to appoint, and as a result of which we have lost the best General Officer Commanding that ever stood on Canadian soil. One of his officers came into camp with a sword on each side, a little spur fastened into a heel of a pair of gaiters and a black eye ; the other was not very long in camp before he was hauled up before the police court and fined $20.
On section 41.
There may he appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military command of the militia, and such officer shall have the rank of major-general in the militia, and shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding $6,000 per annum, as may be prescribed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 41 (a).
There may be appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military inspection of the militia, and such officer shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding $6,000 per annum, as may be prescribed.
Section agreed to.
On section 41 (b).
41(b). The duties and authority of each. of the officers respectively referred to in the two next preceding sections shall be defined by the Governor in Council.
Section agreed to.
Section 42-appointment of adjutant general.
Samuel Hughes: I gave the Minister of Militia notice that these officers must be of the highest qualification.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the very highest qualification.
ill-. SAM. HUGHES. And it is the minister's intention to retain an imperial officer.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I do not wish to seem extravagant but every military man knows that an officer occupying one of those positions in the permanent corps or at the headquarters staff is called upon to do a great deal of entertaining and that he has besides to provide a very expensive uniform. It is impossible for such an officer to get along without entertaining, and as it is now, he must do it out of his own pocket.

They have to entertain to a greater extent than other deputy ministers and in my opinion they are underpaid. There is not a day of their lives that these officers do not meet officers from other parts of the country whom they have to entertain. I do not think the minister need be a bit afraid to pay them higher salaries.
Section 43 agreed to.
On section 43a-appointment of master general of the ordnance.
jutant-general, and will have charge of recruiting, pay, discipline, awards and peace regulations. The third military member will be the quartermaster-general ; he will have charge of supplies, clothing, remounts and transports. The fourth military member will be the master general of ordnance, and will have charge of armaments and lortiti-cations. Then there will be a civil iuerol:ei% the deputy minister, I presume, and another civil member, the financial secretary, the chief financial officer of the department.


Samuel Hughes: This is the same ^office as is held now by the inspector general.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 44,
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the section be struck out, and the following be inserted in lieu thereof :
The Governor in Council may establish a General Staff, Headquarters Staff, and District Staff, and may appoint a chief of the General Staff and such officers to the respective staffs as may be deemed necessary, and shall define their duties and authority.
Amendment agreed to.
On section 6 (a).
The Governor in Council may appoint a Militia Council to advise the minister on all matters relating to the militia, which may be referred to the Council by the minister. The composition, procedure and powers of the council shall he as prescribed
Mr
WARD. What does that mean ?
Frederick William Borden: It is proposed to adopt the system which has been adopted in England, as a result of the report of the commission which is known as the Esher Commission, composed of Lord Esher, Admiral Sir John Fisher and General Clarke. The council, which is called the Army Council in England, we propose to call the Militia Council. In England the Secretary of State for War is the chairman.


Samuel Hughes: Formerly the English militia were not under the Secretary of State for War, but were under the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.


Frederick William Borden: For the last ten years it has been under the Secretary of State for War. On the Army Council there are four military members called, respectively, the first military member, the second military member, the third military member and the fourth military member. The first military member has charge of military policy in all its branches, war staff duties, intelligence, mobilization, plans of operations, training, military history, war regulations ; he is chief of the general stuff. The second military member will be the ad-


Samuel Hughes: Who is that officer in England ?


Frederick William Borden: The financial secretary is a permanent office:'. The parliamentary Under Secretary is the fust civil member.


Samuel Hughes: That is not the permanent Under Secretary ?


Frederick William Borden: No, the permanent Under Secretary is the secretary of the commission. In England there is no deputy minister, and the financial officer of the department corresponds to our deputy minister. We are not in a position to follow the English system exactly ; but the Minister of Militia as chairman, and the four military members will correspond exactly with the similar members on the English board. The chief staff officer-


Samuel Hughes: There is no chief staff officer now.


Frederick William Borden: No. but we propose to have one, and I am taking a vote for that purpose.


Samuel Hughes: Would the duties of our quartermaster-general correspond with those of the English quartermaster-general ?


Frederick William Borden: To a large extent. It is difficult for me to explain, in as great detail as I would like to do, the scheme, because we have not yet been able to get the regulations. I do not know that they are yet completed. Sir Edward Ward, with whom I have been in correspondence, very kindly offered to send them to me as soon as they were published : but in the meantime I can only give such information as I have been able to get from reports which I have read in the newspapers, and correspondence which I have had with some eminent military authorities there.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the chief staff officer will largely have control of the militia ?


Frederick William Borden: Operations, intelligence, and so on.


Samuel Hughes: Would he be interfered with by any of the civil officers ?


Samuel Hughes: 


Frederick William Borden: No. Each man has his own department to himself. But they will discuss matters as a council, the Minister of Militia being in the chair, and having the advantage of these officers face to face in his presence discussing all important matters affecting the welfare of tlie militia. Perhaps I am too enthusiastic, but it Seems to me that the adoption of this system will be the dawn of better days for the militia. I believe it must result in the different branches of the militia being in very much better touch with each other than ever before. It will result in the minister at least having the opportunity of be-, coming acquainted with every branch of his department, and it will result in continuity in the service which we have never had in this country. Each conclusion at which this council may arrive will be a matter of record, so that each minister will have the opportunity of seeing in writing the results of the conferences which took place previous to his coming, and the reasons underlying the different policies adopted from time to time.


Samuel Hughes: In Britain I have every reason to believe that this committee or council will work well. The matter was agitated for a long time, and there was a series of very able articles in the Ron don * Times,' written by its editor. Mr. Amery, who wrote a history of the South African troubles. Mr. Amery educated the public along these lines very thoroughly, and I an; satisfied that the scheme will work well there. I do not see any reason why a similar scheme should not work well here, provided the council be composed of men of independence of character. Of course, it will be said that men can be had in Canada equally as independent as you can find in England, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that many of the officers occupying the highest positions in England are men of wealth and in a better position to talk straight to the government than would be the officers employed in the civil service here. One reason I have urged against any officer of a Dominion force being under the Army Act is that it prevents his giving that free expression to his views which we should encourage in our men. While I occupied the position of command in my regiment I always encouraged every officer under me to give expression to his views, even when they were critical of my own policy, but talk in confidence to members of the force and they will tell you that they dare not say a word. I say to'the minister, wipe away all these restrictions, wipe away this Army Act in so far as it applies to our men, and let our officers approach him like men and give both him and the public the benefit of their views. I had a long letter sent me from Kingston the other day complaining of some officer in the military college for having expressed sympathy with Russia, and asking me to
bring the matter up in the House. Why, I commend that officer. He was not talking to his cadets, but was on his holidays, and he had a perfect right to express his opinion on the Russian and Japanese war. And to say that because he happens to side with Russia we should drive him out of the position of professor in the military college is utterly absurd. So long as he does not talk this sort of thing to his cadets, no one can have anything to say to him.' He has a perfect right to express his own opinions outside the college, just as any man should have connected with the militia. The minister need not be afraid to trust the officers of the permanent force. He will do the country a service if he will wipe out from the statute-book all these restrictive resolutions, and tell the officers of the permanent force that they are at liberty to express their views on any question. If he will only encourage the members of the council to be independent and fearless, he will benefit the service, but if they are to be only timeservers the service will suffer.


Frederick William Borden: Under the King's regulations the utmost possible independence wall be given each member of the council.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has brought the headquarters staff under the Army Act. Go around and talk to these gentlemen, and they will tell you they dare not say a word. I would rather encourage them to come out like free men and do iiway with the dark-ages tyranny of Germany, France, the United States and other countries.


Frederick William Borden: The question of military rank is to be allowed to remain in abeyance, and the members of the council will practically be in the position of Lords of the Admiralty, so that the highest possible freedom will be given them.
On section 68,
His Majesty shall be liable for compensation for injury to persons and for damage to property arising from the use of any rifle range under the control of the Department of Militia and Defence for target practice, carried on under regulations prescribed by this Act, provided that there shall be no claim for compensation for any injury due to negligence on the part of the person injured, or if such person, at the time the injury was sustained, was at the rifle range as a spectator of shooting, or in the case of injury to property where such injury was due to negligence on the part of the owner of the property.


Samuel Hughes: The only criticism I would make upon this proposed section is with regard to the part referring to spectators. I do not see why a spectator injured by militiamen should not be compensated.


Frederick William Borden: He would have his remedy under the civil law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the section does not provide for those who are using the range and receive injury.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, that is provided for.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have no objection to have any new draft made of my proposal, though, I must say, I do not think it exactly complimentary to the Department of . Justice that the Department of Militia should re-draft a clause which was prepared under the direction of the Department of Justice, without consulting the legal officers of the government. I still maintain the point I made this morning. These rifle ranges are organized by the government for the benefit of the militia or for the benefit of the country, according to the point of view you may take. They are managed under government regulation. The government allows people to go there-not only militiamen, or members of rifle clubs, but others-and practise shooting as long and as often as they like ; and the people who have properties alongside these ranges and who have certainly as much right to be on their own private property as these people have to be on the government property are liable to injury or death. Yet, because the people whose shooting causes the injury or death are not there under government regulation, the government will not hold itself responsible to give compensation. If the amendment is accepted as it has been re-drafted without the advice of the legal advisers of the government, the result will be that compensation will accrue only when injury is caused by shooting that is practised under government regulation. If, then, the government does not take the proper care to prevent people from being injured, there may be injuries for which there is no compensation. I have no objection to accept the amendment of the Minister of Militia, provided another clause is added which will make it imperative that the minister shall prevent shooting at the rifle ranges by others than those who shoot under the government regulation. Otherwise I cannot accept it. If my protest is not listened to, it will show what care the government have for those peaceful people who may be killed or injured on property alongside the rifle ranges. I think we pay enough for the militia that compensation should be provided for the case of people, possibly poor farmers, who are killed or injured as a result of this rifle practice. I am sorry to see that the militiamen seem to have adopted the habit of laughing at the farmers. Well, it may be that the farmers may resent their laughter as well as their bullets.


Samuel Hughes: Why, the hon. gen tieman (Mr. Bourassa) takes that seriously. What is it that the hon. gentleman wants that is not already covered by the amend-Sir F. W. BORDEN.
ment that is proposed by the Minister of Militia ? Is the government to put a caretaker on each range to prevent pigeon shooters


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, if necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all. It would be perfectly absurd for the government to attempt to keep a man on every rifle range. And, in any case, why should the government be responsible for shooting by persons who have no right to be on the ranges ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Mere trespassers.


Samuel Hughes: Yes ; why should the government be responsible for injury done by such men, any more than it should be responsible for the accidental shooting of a man while out deer hunting ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not see how this amendment of the minister covers such a case as that of Larose. I do not think it does cover it. In that case, I have reason to believe, the men were practising not under government regulation.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think so. It seems to me that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is right. We ought to give full protection, and this section does not give it. The ranges have been removed from my constituency, but I am as much interested in the constituency where they now are. I do not think this amendment covers the cases at all. .


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very important question, and I think that perhaps, the committee would do well to take time to consider the purport of the amendment proposed. I think, for my part, that there is something in the observation of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). We have erected these ranges-very properly so. They are made use of by the militia -very properly so. But we know that the modern rifle is a very dangerous instrument, and that great precaution should govern the use of it. The spirit of the amendment is that if the militia are practising rifle shooting and any casualty arises or any damage to property is occasioned, the government should be responsible. That is one of the responsibilities, I think, that the government should assume. But I understand that there are parties who go to shoot on these ranges quite irrespective of the militia. There may be a few of such men who go there and practice, which is a desirable thing in itself. But one hon. gentleman says that in such cases the government will not be responsible. 1 agree with him. But I say it is too serious a matter, and human life is too valuable, for anybody to be allowed to go on these ranges to shoot except under government regulations. If five or six young men want to go on the rifle range and shoot, it is quite pro-

per that they should do so ; but they should carry on their shooting under regulations of the government, and, if any casualty takes place, the government should be responsible.


Frederick William Borden: That is exactly the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand there is some difference of opinion as to whether the amendment which is proposed is sufficient to cover these contingencies. Under these circumstances, and as my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) has done a good day's work, I would suggest that he should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the Department of Justice should be asked to look into this matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: To draw an amendment, we must know what it is desired to effect by the amendment. If you create a rifle range and attract the public there for the purpose of practising rifle shooting, and the people do go there and use the rifle ranges in such a way as to cause injury to persons in the neighbourhood, I fail to see why there should not be responsibility upon the people who first established and who own the ranges. I do not see why we should stop half way. It seems to me it should be either one thing or the other-ei 1 her do not allow the rifle ranges to exist, or. if you allow them to exist, control them so that the public cannot be injured as a result of the use made of them.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows the nature of these things. He possibly has in mind a range like that down here at Rockeliffe. But nine-tenths of the rifle ranges in the country are vastly different from that. Going upon them you would not know that you were on a rifle range, unless you saw the flag flying or came across a little mound that the people had prepared at their own expense, with government assistance. Ranges are established by people at their own expense, with a little government assistance, and when these are taken over by the government they are just as much government ranges as any of these fancy ranges down here. When a man is injured in rifle shooting in one of these ranges, should not he be just as well treated as when he is injured in one of these headquarter ranges ? The men who were shooting on the Montreal range were city volunteers ; they had their flag flying, and they were practising.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We do not know whether they were practising under the regulations.


Samuel Hughes: They had their flag flving, they had their markers there. They did not need to be in uniform at all, in fact they should not be in uniform. But this accident happened, and undoubtedly
the man was entitled to consideration, and I am surprised he did not get it. The reason was that some lawyer in Montreal adviseu him not to take the offer.


Wilfrid Laurier: The government was not responsible for it.


Samuel Hughes: I remember well where a regiment was out rifle shooting, and bv accident they shot a cow which was peacefully grazing on the hills a mile or two in the rear, and the government had to pay for that cow.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Supreme Court said the government was not bound to pay in the Montreal case.


Samuel Hughes: On a technicality, the lawyers befuddled the case. There is a certain danger limit in the rear of all these rifle ranges, and if a man goes there knowing that he is in danger, he should run his own risk, and I do not think he is entitled to compensation if he gets hurt.


Frederick William Borden: I think we might change slightly the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle, to section 68. Where it reads, ' arising from the use of any rifle range, ' why not put in the words ' Under the control of the Department of Militia and Defence for target practice ? '


Seymour Eugene Gourley: In order to make that section of any value you must have a clause defining what is meant by a rifle range under the control of the government. You would simply defeat every man who brought his action, from the fact that this rifle range was not a rifle range in the meaning of the law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It appears to me it will be necessary to make it a criminal offence for a person who is unauthorized to use one of these rifle ranges ; otherwise I do not see how you can deal in a just and equitable way. As I understand this amendment, it will make the government liable for compensation to any one who receives injury from a rifle shot fired from the rifle range, whether the range has been authorized by the government or not. But there is nothing to allow the government to inflict a penalty on any one who shoots over that range without permission or authority. I do not see that you can proceed against the person who uses that range without authority, and I presume there are regulations forbidding any one to use a rifle range except those who are authorized by the regulations to do so.


Samuel Hughes: I think we had better adopt the suggestion of the Prime Minister and let this matter stand over. Some members are absent who would like to discuss it.


Frederick William Borden: I was anxious to get it settled.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I sjrmpathize with tlie Minister of Justice. I know that these gentlemen are after a remedy, and I sympathize with their object; but legally a remedy is no good unless you define it within strict terms ; otherwise you will entrap the suitor to bring an action, and you will defeat it by a technical objection. The headquarters of the rifle ranges dealt with in this Act are the headquarters of rifle ranges only ; you must have a section describing what a government range is, headquarters or no headquarters. That amendment as it stands now would not be worth a straw to anybody.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the minister if rifle clubs have a right to use those ranges ?
Mr. SAM,. HUGHES. Rifle clubs organized under the Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are a number now who receive free ammunition, I understand.


Frederick William Borden: They get assistance towards the construction of ranges.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Are injuries inflicted upon these rifle ranges, as well as injuries inflicted upon headquarters' rifle ranges provided for in this particular amendment ?


Frederick William Borden: They are included if the shooting goes on under the regulations.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does section 75 still stand in the Bill, providing that the cadet corps should be furnished with arms, ammunition and equipment under the conditions prescribed ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. that is there.


Andrew B. Ingram: Take our high school cadet corps for instance. They use what is called gallery ammunition and the department have been selling this ammunition to these cadet corps for $3 a thousand. I understand that recently an order has been issued cancelling that arrangement and that the department will not now sell it to them.


Frederick William Borden: Unfortunately we do not have it to sell. The quantity of that ammunition is dependent on the number of empty shells which are returned to the factory and we are not able to get anything like one quarter of the quantity we require.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister will see that the department is charging these corps $3 a thousand.


Frederick William Borden: It costs $5 a thousand.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think a good many were under the impression that the department made a small profit even at that price.


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: No, this ammunition costs $5 a thousand and we were selling it for $3.


Andrew B. Ingram: The rifle clubs are composed of men of all ages, men who are getting certain advantages from the Department of Militia and who will never be called upon to serve their country in the militia force. They are getting certain privileges that the boys who will be men in the course of a very few years are debarred from now.


Frederick William Borden: We are able under this law to give them ammunition if we choose.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman furnish the cadet corps that belong to the high schools with free ammunition?


Frederick William Borden: I should think it would be a very desirable thing to do, but I would not like to state off-hand that it will be done.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have some efficient cadet corps which are a credit to the districts to which they belong and I think the department should encourage them in this way. I think that in this appeal I will have the sympathy of the hon. member for La-belle who is strongly in favour of the boys becoming better shots.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister promised to take two or three little suggestions.into his consideration to-day. I spoke of the drill and pay of the cadets corps.


Frederick William Borden: I will consider that although I think that to pay young men in schools and colleges might not be desirable.


Samuel Hughes: I refer to those who are permitted to go to camp. Paragraph (c) of section 73 of the Bill reads :
The minister may authorize senior cadet corps, or any portion thereof, to be attached to any portion of the active militia for the purposes of drill and training.
I presume that means training in the camps.


Frederick William Borden: No it does not; it means that they may be attached to a regiment but not in camp.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am advised that the cadet corps are looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to being permitted to attend the camp even for one day. The cadet corps even in my own district are looking forward, as other cadet corps are in No. 1 military district, to being able to attend the camp at London for at least one day.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-ADJOURNMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. TAYLOR.: No, it is eleven o'clock.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have a notice to appear at a committee at 9.30 to-morrow morning. Does the right hon. gentleman expect that we can come here at eleven o'clock in the morning, remain here performing our duties until eleven o'clock at night and be here again at 9.30 to-morrow morning ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That seems reasonable.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Wednesday, July 13, 1904.