1913-05-27

PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 236, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Sir WILFRID LA  CRIER@: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY :: This Bill relates to three matters in connection with prisons and reformatories. The first clause amends the law relating to Ontario and enables an indefinite sentence to be inflicted of not more than two years. It is most important that there should be power in the case of persons sentenced to reformatories to either shorten or extend the sentence in accordance with the condition of the prisoner, so that where a person is speedily reformed
he may be at once released and put in a position where he can establish himself as a good citizen, and in other cases that the sentence should be prolonged within reasonable limits so that reform may be effected. The principle of this has already been established, for instance, in the case of British Columbia in the Act of last session 1912, chapter 43, section 146.
The next amendment relates to the province of Prince Edward Island. In that province there is no reformatory, and this clause is" to enable the province to make an agreement with the adjoining provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the care and custody of offenders sentenced to a reformatory.
The next clause is the addition of part 9, which is to cover the case of a Protestant reformatory for girls which is on the point of being established jointly for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This legislation does not provide anything with respect to this reformatory that has not already been established with respect to the reformatories for other provinces.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Lenore Power. -Mr. MacNut-t.
Bill No. 235, to incorporate The Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio, and other States.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Doherty, it was ordered that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend The Penitentiary Act, ana to provide that the salaries payable to officers and employees of penitentiaries shall not exceed the rate in the following schedule, namelyWarden, with quarters heated aiJl lighted, $2,800:	deputy warden,
with quarters heated and lighted, $1,800; surgeon.. $1,700; superintendent of insane ward, $1,000; accountant, chief clerical officer, $1,600; clerical assistants, $1,200; chaplains, to give exclusive service to the prison, $1,200; chaplains, with permission to take outside work, $900; chief keeper, $1,200; chief watchman, $1,200; steward, $1,200; assistant stewards, $900; hospital nurse, $1,000; assistant hospital nurse, $900; matrons, with quarters heated and lighted, $700; engineer and electrician, $1,300; assistant engineers, $1,000; chief trade instructor, $1,200; industrial guards, to act as instructors, $1,000; watchmen, $900; guards, $800; day firemen, $800; night firemen, without uniform, $900; temporary and probationary officers $100 less than the schedule rate for permanent officers.
Provided, that the above schedule shall not affect _prejudicially the existing salary, or the eligibility to gratuity ,of any officer in the
[Stage Direction]
1091.5
[Stage Direction]
penitentiary service at the date of its adoption.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. VERVILLE:: Has_ the Government
any information respecting the fifty-five Russians who were ill-treated at Moosejaw?


Mr. BORDEN:: In replying to the hon.
member for Moosejaw, who referred to this some time ago, I inadvertently fell into an error. I stated that no communication with respect to the matter had been addressed to me. I found afterwards on inquiry that a day or two before, a resolution had been sent to me, and it had been transmitted at once by my secretary to the Department of Labour for inquiry as to what they knew about it, and whether there had been any investigation. I have since learned from my colleague, the Minister of Labour, that the department did make some investigation through their officials as to the facts alleged, and I believe the circumstances as detailed in the resolution are, according to the information which has come to me from the Department of Labour, exaggerated. I shall' ask my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to make a statement to the House with regard to it to-morrow. I regret that I have been guilty of inadvertence in replying to the hon. member for Moosejaw, but the fact that the resolution had come to me was not present in my mind; as a matter of fact, I think it was sent at once to the Department of Labour without having been specially laid before me.



EQUALITY OF FREIGHT RATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Right Hon. R. L. Borden for Committee of Supply:
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I intend to bring before this House a matter of supreme importance to this country and especially to the people of the West; that is, the present inequality of freight rates that exists as between the West and the East. I have spoken on this matter three or four times this session, and I had expected that a Bill amending the Railway Act would have been brought down and that an opportunity would there be presented of having an amendment, declaring for equality of railway rates and of other railway charges, within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, inserted in the Act. I had also hoped that probably some of the members from the West might have made a proposition in this direction on going into supply. But, as the House is now approaching prorogation, and as the question is of supreme importance to the people of the West, I propose not only to bring the attention of the House to this condition of affairs but to ask the House to declare that it is of the opinion that there should be no discrimination as between the East and the West. I am not going into Mr. DOHERTY.
the details of the question now, for they have been presented to the House time and again. I have presented them on many occasions, and so have other members, and the journals of public opinion in the West have expressed their views, and a very prominent declaration of opinion has recently been put on record by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg.
I think I can bring the matter to the attention of the House in a very few words by saying that in my view legislation and progress are sometimes a matter ot strategy, and that inasmuch as the Canadian Pacific railway has taken advantage, as I believe, of Parliament, and advantage of the Government in increasing its capital stock as it did last year; and inasmuch as the Grand Trunk railway have been here for relief, and inasmuch as I believe there may be a proposition in connection with the Canadian Northern this session, to my mind in such opportunity Parliament should assert itself and secure from these great companies concessions in the direction of equality of railway charges in the West with the charges now imposed in the East. The Canadian Pacific railway is enormously rich; its charges are high and it can well afford to reduce them. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway wTas built for the very purpose of creating competition and reducing rates; the same policy was announced in connection with the construction of the Canadian Northern, and when we have them before us in Parliament, asking favours of one kind or another, we should demand that they should give some concessions to the people. The people of the West feel that they are not getting justice because the railway rates in the West are higher than they are in the East. Our railroads are national roads; they have been subsidized by all the people and therefore all the people should be treated equally. To my mind, even if the cost of operation were higher in the West than in the East, I would still be of the opinion that there ought to be equality of charges. These people have contributed as much in the West as they have in the East; all the proposals for relief that may go through this House will have to be made good by the people of the West together with the rest of the people of Canada. Citizenship in Canada ought to involve equality of treatment in a national proposition, and especially where the national funds are called on or have been called on to aid any proposition. If the proposition is within the jurisdiction of Parliament, if it is subsidized by Parliament, if it is relieved time after time by Parliament, then I say Parliament should say that that corporation ought to give equality of treatment to all the people of Canada. To make that clear I shall read from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Friday last. I am also going to read a short extract involving the declaration of

the Winnipeg Board of Trade. The Winnipeg Free Press of last Friday says:
The Free Press has all along contended that as the first step towards the remedying of the injustice of the railway rates in the west the Dominion parliament should in a formal enactment establish the principle that there must be equality in the rates in all parts of the Dominion, save and except where the railway companies show that in any section of the country there are differences of density of traffic and of costs of maintenance and operation, justifying higher rates. This applies equally, of course ,to express and telegraph rates.
I do not accept that principle of the Winnipeg Free Press that because there is density or absence of density of traffic there should be discrimination. I have already stated there should be equality of treatment, inasmuch as all the country contributes to these railways and that citizenship should involve equal treatment throughout the entire length and breadth of the Dominion. The Free Press then goes on to deal with the matter that I brought up in this House a short time ago, namely, the proposal of the Minister of Railways to increase the salary of the Chief Commis

sioner of the Railway Board. I said that I was in favour of that; but I took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the inequality of railway rates. The Free Press goes on to say:
The laying down of the principle of equality would not be a complicated business at all. ft would be simplicity itself. The thing could be done in a couple of dozen words. All that would be necessary would be to draft a declaration of the principle of equality and have it incorporated in the Railway Act. The principle has been set fortb several times in the Free Press during the past few years.
It is very well set forth in the closing paragraph of the resolution recently passed by the Winnipeg Board of Trade in regard to the reported application of the Canadian Northern to the Dominion Government for further financial assistance to the extent of some $35,000,000. That resolution, after stating that the rates in the West are higher than the rates in the East, and are excessive charges for the services performed and constitute a heavy burden on the people of the West, concludes as follows:
I want to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) and the members from the West to what the finding of the Winnipeg Board of Trade is in regard to this inequality of treatment:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Winnipeg Board of Trade hereby petition the Government of Canada and respectfully urge (without expressing any opinion as to whether aid should be given by the Government or not) that in the event of it being considered expedient by the Government to grant the Canadian Northern Railway Company financial aid in connection with the construction of its lines, such assistance be given only on the
346i
condition that the rates charged for the carriage of freight between points upon the Canadian Northern west of Port Arthur be reduced to an equality with rates charged by railways in Eastern Canada for similar services, except in so far and to such extent as the railway company may be able to establish higher cost of operation in the west.
That is the resolution of the Winnipeg Board of Trade. While it specifically deals with the case of the Canadian Northern railway, it asserts the principle that there should be equality. The Free Press goes on to say:
What the member for South York urged on the Miniver of Railways and the Government was simply the insertion in the Railway Act of a clause in general terms, declaring that the priniple enunciated in the closing lines of the above closing paragraph of the Winnipeg Board of Trade resolution in regard to Canadian Northern rates shall apply to all railway rates. It would be no Herculean labour to draft such a clause. There would be no need to consider a single item in a single railway rate, much less 230,000 railway rates.
I believe this resolution expresses the views of all the people of the West. The western roads have been built at smaller cost rather than at higher cost. I do not believe the cost of operation in the West is greater than in the East. If this resolution expresses the opinion of the people of the West, it ought to be put before the House, and the opinion of the House taken on this great question.
I have no faith, nor has the Winnipeg Free Press faith, in any general relief coming from the Board of Railway Commissioners. They are engaged in examining 230,000 individual tariff rates; they are taking months to do so, and they will take months more. If they do anything this year, all that they will give will be small measure of relief. Parliament ought to come to the assistance of the Railway Commission and declare that there shall be equality as between East and West. When the Board are in possession of that principle, they can easily find what fair and equitable rates should be, and then they can apply them to the whole country without discrimination. The railway policy of this country is not to be framed up by the Board of Railway Commissioners. The jurisdiction is in Parliament and Parliament ought to lay down this principle of equality in treatment. When that principle is declared by Parliament, it may be necessary for the Railway Commission slightly to increase rates in the East in order to give fair treatment to the West If that is to be done, it should be done immediately. Why should this stigma rest upon the people of the West that they must pay higher rates than the people of the East pay.? No member from the West will say that it is fair treatment for the West to be under the bondage of paying higher rates than the people of the East pay. My motion does not involve any loss of rev-

enue to the railways, but it says that the railway rates as imposed shall be e(R*ai 7 distributed as between East _ and west. Therefore it involves no unfair treatment to the railways. This principle of ity in charges applies not only to
telegraph and telephone charges but to
express charges as well as other tolls. Railway passenger rates to-day are on an equality. The maximum rate to-day by a declaration of the Railway Board is three rents 9. mile. Why not have the same thing inserted in regard to freight and all these other charges? The railways are making more money at the present time m the West than in the East. None of them are complaining of lack of business^ they are all overworked. I am not arguing for lower rates in the West; but, if it should be the case that the two weaker roads would be at a loss by a reduction of rates in the West, Parliament ought to find some means of making up the loss to these roads in order to work out this principle of equality.
I cannot put the case more clearly before the House than I have done. I have spoken about it time after time and session after session. I have been waiting to see the relief come, but it does not come. The question of freight rates has been sent to the Board of Railway Commissioners and they are probably dealing with it as best they can, but they are dealing with it without the guiding principle before them. _
We have delegated to them the question of dealing with railway matters in a large measure, but we have not delegated to them the right to frame the general policy of the Railway Act and of the Railway Commission in regard to equality of treatment. _ I trust to have the support of the entire House in this declaration of equality of treatment in connection with railways. My motion is very short. I have made no arrangements with anybody, and I do not know whether I shall get a seconder or not. I hope some member from the West will second .my motion. It is a hard thing for a member in my position to bring up a question, which has such a widespread interest, and on which there may be a wide divergence of opinion between the two parties. I beg to move:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: ' That in the opinion of this House there should he no discrimination as between Ease and West in the tolls for freight or any other service within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.'


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I shall be glad to second the motion.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I quite appreciate the courage of my hon. friend in ploughing a lonely furrow so far as his own side of the House is concerned. As he knows, I have been supposed to have done some little work in that line myself Mr. MACLEAN (S. York!
and it is not always an agreeable position. He says it is a hard thing for him to move an amendment like this in his present situation. I have always thought my hon. friend's situation was a little illogical, because he is a natural born radical. He reminds me of the "well known character of one of Moliere's plays, Jourdain, who was talking prose all his life without knowing it. I can quite appreciate that it is a hard thing for him to have come to the help of the western farmers in his own present-political Egypt. We are, as he recognizes, suffering under a disability in the West in. this matter of freight rates. I would point out that it is not the only disability under which we suffer, and I am afraid that we are -so used to being called on to make bricks without straw that- we shall cease to repine from sheer inanition if we are not stirred up occasionally by some radical like .my hon. friend. I have great hope of my hon. friend, he is a man with his eves wide open and watches the turn that political events have taken. He has good blood in him. I believe it is a, fa.ct that his father was the pioneer, from his point of view, of the protective policy in this country. He saw what they were -doing in the United States and he said: from our nearness to the United States, protection, if it is a good thing there, must be a good thing here. I am* quite sure my hon. friend has his eyes open and sees that United States are going the other way now and h-e will not be dishonourable to his father's memory if he becomes the pioneer of free trade in Canada because United States are going in that direction. I interject these remarks in the question of railway rates in order to point out that there are more kinds of bondage than one. We may be in bondage to the railway companies, but we have another kind of bondage and I want my hon. friend to give free play to his radical proclivities and show that he is a man of independence and a good Canadian, and to cross the floor of the House and join another radical like himself and then we radicals will go all abreast like the horses of the sun.	.	.
At this stage of the session I do not wish to hold up the House for any length of time, but I should say it was so plain that a wayfaring man, though a foo-l, may see the truthfulness of it, that there ought not to be any -difference between freight rates in the East and in the West, there should not be any discrimination. The way to build up a great empire is not to divide Canada whether on a naval question in the provinces or a fiscal and railway question in the provinces. The wray to get imperial unity is by means o'f Canadian unity, and if we can have Canadian unity in re-o-ard to freight rates I am sure the western

members will give my hon. friend any credit that is coming to him for having been the pioneer on the subject. I wanted to say these few words to encourage my hon. friend in the development of very hopeful symptoms which I see breaking out in him.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I wish to support the motion of my hon. friend, and give him all credit for the course which he has taken, so far as he has taken it. I think, however, he was hardly fair in giving the impression that the western members in the House had not taken due interest in this matter during this session.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the hon. member will pardon me; I did not attempt to impute any such thing. I appreciate what he said -and the speeches that have been made in that direction.


Frank Oliver: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I wanted to say that this question was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), and supported in the House by several other members, in the only manner in which it could be brought before the House at that time and in that condition of the business of the session. It has been a long and very strenuous session up to date; it is not possible to attend to every matter that may require attention even during the period of a very long session, and I think it will be generally agreed that at this particular stage of the session, if there is not a larger representation of western members present in the House and prepared to take part in this debate it is not to be imputed to them as blame. The western member, by reason of his distance from home, absolutely sacrifices his business during the period of the parliamentary session, whereas the member who resides in the nearer parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is able, under stress, to keep up his own business at least to some extent while attending to his parliamentary duty. Therefore, the length of the session is not so material to, say, one half the members of this House who live within a twelve or fifteen-hour run by rail from Ottawa. The length of the session is not so serious to these gentlemen in the discharge of their business as it is to the gentlemen who come from the far western constituencies and particularly from the prairie west where t.heTe are just two seasons, spring and fall, and if a man is not on hand to attend to his business in the spring and fall he has not any business in the intervening season. So I say if we have not that fuller discussion of this matter that my hon. friend would like on this occasion, from western men it is a condition of circumstances that cannot be avoided. I do not wish to impute
to my hon. friend any blame. He has brought forward the matter probably as early as it was possible to bring it forward and for my own part I am entirely in sympathy with the idea of bringing it forward as a substantive motion. I am further in favour of actually voting on it. I do not wish to recriminate, but the House will remember that when my hon. friend brought a similar motion before the House at the last session it was not brought to a vote. However, there is no question about the importance of this matter to the western people and to the eastern people as well, and it is from that point of view that I wish to discuss it for a few moments.
On the great products of the West the export rates, I think, are generally admitted to be reasonable or measurably reasonable. They are special rates especially provided so as to enable the great products of the plains to be marketed profitably_ to the producer and also to the transportation interests. It is not in regard to those rates that complaint is being made at the present moment, it is in regard to the rates on merchandise and produce-on what might be called the interior rate on merchandise and produce. But as the carriage of freight under those rates consitutes a large part of the business of the railway companies and these rates give them a very _ considerable amount of revenue, the question of what those rates are to be is important both to the people and to the railway companies. Let it not be misunderstood; it is not a question of export rates on wheat or cattle that is at issue.


William Findlay Maclean: Except on the ocean.


Frank Oliver: It is principally the interior rates that are in question at the present time. The contention is that the interior rates in the West are higher than the interior rates in the East. On that point my hon. friend calls for a declaration of principle by Parliament. I had the honour to say, at last session of Parliament, that I believed with him that Parliament was the proper authority to make that declaration, and that it was a responsibility that Parliament had no right to lay upon the Railway Commisison. But there is this view: Does not the Railway Act as it stands to-day declare for equality of rates? Is not that the specific and fundamental principle of the Railway Act?


William Findlay Maclean: I think
so.


Frank Oliver: Then, if that is the fact, and I believe it to be the fact; and I certainly am aware that it was the principle that Parliament believed to have been embodied in the Act at the time it was passed -then, there has been a failure on the part of the commission, or of the Govern-

ment, or of the commission with the Government, in not seeing to it that the principles of the Act were enforced. Now, I am not going to blame either the commission or the Government because that has not been done. A certain condition did exist, and they found it in existence. Western rates were higher than eastern rates, and the Administration with the _ commission has acknowledged that condition without undertaking to remedy it; they accepted that condition and carried on under it, though it was contrary to the principle of the Act. But, I say the time has come, in my judgment, when Parliament can no longer consider that it is discharging its responsibilities to the country if it does not by declaration compel the Government -if that is the proper word-and instruct the commission as to what Parliament intends shall be done in this matter.
What should interest eastern Canada in this question of Parliament and the railway rates, and nondiscrimination in railway rates,-the (traffic that is really important in relation to the business of Canada considered as a whole-is not altogether the export rate on products from western Canada; it is not altogether the internal rate either in eastern or western Canada. May I suggest to our eastern friends that to them more especially the important question of railroad rates is the question of rates that carry the products of their industry and their merchandise to the markets of the West. Let me suggest that as the question of railroad rates of greatest interest to them. It is that feature of the railroad rates that either builds up a united Canada or breaks Canada in half.
Now, let me show my manufacturing friends and those engaged in merchandising here in eastern Canada that under existing conditions the railway company-there is only one at the present time, but we hope to have two more very shortly, though when we have two more the condition will be just the same as it is to-day, unless Parliament exercises its authority-the railway company charges transportation rates on eastern goods to western markets adjusted with a view to the railway company absorbing as large a proportion of the tariff protection as it is possible for them to do and still keep the business going. I say to the manufacturers of eastern Canada that the protection that they see in the tariff as it stands to-day is absorbed in large degree, as a matter of system and principle, by the railway company; the railway company gets it, and they do not. I hope I have been able to impress that idea upon our friends here.


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: They share it.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but the manufacturers think they get it all now. They do not get it all; I doubt very much if they Mr. OLIVER.
get half of it. I say it is a matter of principle, it is one of the foundation facts upon which the railway companies establish their tariffs, that they take the benefit of as much of the customs tariff as they are able, to take. And there is no way by which our friends in eastern Canada are able to protect themselves against that condition, except by the exercise of the authority of Parliament.


Mr. LALOR:: Is there any discrimination between the freight rate coming East and the freight rate going West for the same distance?


Frank Oliver: I could not say as to that. But my friend will understand that the rates on the great export products of the West are fixed on a special basis for export purposes, and eastern Canada has the benefit of these export rates on these great products.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It was not to the export rate that I alluded. For instance, would the rate from Toronto to Calgary on the same commodity be the same as from Calgary to Toronto? I was wondering if there was a discrimination in that.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman's comparison does not hold, because the -article that is the product of Toronto is not the product of Calgary. Therefore, a tabulated rate that would show the same for the Toronto product to Calgary as for the Calgary product to Toronto would have no meaning or effect. I am taking this opportunity to state the fact, the outstanding fact, which I do not think our industrial and commercial population of eastern Canada understand, I am taking this opportunity of placing it before them strongly- that the railway company as it exists at the present time fixes its rate with a view to absorbing to the benefit of the company as large a share of the tariff protection in regard to each particular industry as it is possible for them to absorb. The result of that is that, especially in heavy manufactures or heavy goods which are produced in the United States in territory very much farther west than eastern Canada and therefore much nearer to the markets of the prairie west, these manufacturers in the United States get an advantage over the eastern manufacturer because of that adjustment of freight rates. I want that great outstanding fact to sink into the minds of our friends from eastern Canada on both sides of the House, because they may have been at some loss to know why they were hit, as they have been hit, by imports from the western states into the Canadian Northwest. That is one important and outstanding reason, and the higher the tariff is raised the higher the railroad rate will be raised. The outstanding feature that I want to keep before the House is that as

regards trade between eastern and western Canada, the tariff means tariff for the railroad, as much as for the eastern manufacturer, and probably a good deal more.
In regard to the question of the rates on railroads in the West, I would think that the question of density of population is not a factor to be considered. I would consider that cost of construction or cost of operation might fairly be considered, but I do not think that density of population should be considered. Where the population is sparse, is where there is an opportunity to build up, and in order that business and population may build up in those regions there must be reasonable Tates. To establish high rates simply gives the railroads running through unoccupied country the means of keeping that country unoccupied, which is not the intention of the constructors of the road, or the desire of anybody concerned. I do say that where there has" been excessive cost of construction, or where the cost of operation is excessive, that the railway company might reasonably be entitled to greater rates.
However, I desire to support the motion of my hon. friend because I believe it is an established fact that the foundation principle of the Railway Act as it stands to-day is not being lived up to, so far as western Canada is concerned, and without blaming the Railway Commission, without blaming the Government for that, I say that here and now is the time and place for the people of Canada to assert, direct, and give their mandate that the principle of the Railway Act in regard to equality of freight rates shall be maintained. That principle has already been established in regard to passenger rates; it is more important that it should be established in regard to freight rates, and it is upon the shoulders of the members of this House of Commons that the responsibility rests, and not upon the shoulders of the Railway Commission.


Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: In the matter of equality of rates, there is certainly room for complaint and for a remedy, but the inequality of rates is not, I think, the only and most serious inequality. The inequality of treatment is perhaps more serious than the inequality of rates. I am not quite prepared to say that we should have uniform rates in all parts of say eastern Canada as against western Canada. In the unpopulated parts of this country it would be hardly reasonable to expect the same passenger rates as in the settled parts of the country where there are large cities. What I desire to speak of however, is the inequality of treatment, as between competing points on railways and noncompeting points. I am connected with several industries, the lumber trade
and the pulp trade, and consequently am a very heavy shipper, and my experience is, and I shall speak from experience just now, that the great grievance, is in the treatment given to shippers at non-competing points as against competing points. If we want two cars or a dozen cars to ship from a competing point, we would not have to go and ask the railway company for them. They are out catering for the business at these competing points, and there is no season in the year when they are not prepared to furnish cars on twenty-four hours' notice, or less. But at other points, where there is no competition, we can wait a month for cars. Personally I am a shipper of timber, and square timber, when ready for shipment, is almost as perishable as fruit because if left long exposed to sun and weather it becomes cracked and weather beaten, is not merchantable when it reaches the market. The only remedy we have is to say to the railway companies unless you give us cars to ship our goods you will not get any business from us at competing points. By using this threat we generally succeed in getting cars, but I do not know how it is with the poor fellow whose business is entirely at noncompeting points. I think that this is a question that the Government of this country should take up and deal with. There does not seem to me to be any reason why a railway company can supply cars on twenty-four hours' notice at competing points, and cannot supply them at noncompeting points within a reasonable time. This is a point which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has not touched upon, but it is a condition from which the public are suffering more than from the inequality of rates. For my part, I would quickly pay one or two cents additional per hundred if I could get a car when I wanted it in preference to having goods damaged by delay in for cars. When goods are not merchantable when they reach the market, it becomes a serious question.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster). It is one of the advantages of a periodical change of Government that translation from right to left in this House brightens the minds of so many hon. gentlemen and makes them conscious of long outstanding facts of which, for a long period, they appear to have been utterly unconscious. I am delighted indeed to hear a member of the late Government (Mr. Oliver) champion equality of treatment between East and West. I am all the more delighted to hear it because it has always seemed to me strange that any western minister, like him, should have been content to rest so long in control of the administration of affairs, particularly with regard to the West, and to pay no attention to the representations made to
i0967

1096S
him and to his colleagues in the Government for equal treatment.
With respect to the amendment now before the House, I may say that it was not because of any lack of sympathy with the suggestion that the hon. gentleman who has moved it found that he was ploughing a lonely furrow. He would have had no difficulty at all in securing a seconder, or supporters for a resolution of this kind, if it. had been made at a time^ when it seemed to be with serious intent, instead of for the purpose of advertising. This is no new thunder which has been sprung upon the House to-day. This matter of the equalization of rates, and the securing of justice to shippers to and from the West, so far from not having received attention, has been receiving the most elaborate attention and is now before the Railway Commission, it having been presented in a most thorough way through the efforts of the boards of trade of British Columbia, in co-operation, I believe, with the boards of trade in various parts of the prairie provinces. We have strong hopes of success in our efforts before the Railway Commission, because we believe that if the Railway Commission find that the representations which we have made to them in an orderly and regular manner are justified, and that they lack the power to make such order as they desire to make, they will apply to Parliament in an authoritative way and ask Parliament for the necessary power. If they do, I am in strong hopes that such a request shall receive the support of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has been rather careless in his concluding statement to the House, that passenger rates have already been equalized. If he had given the attention to the subject which anyone who was earnestly interested in the success of this movement might have been expected to give, he would have known that on the contrary passenger Tates have not been equalized, but that the province of British Columbia suffers still from a disability to which it was subjected very many years ago, and that the railways are permitted to charge, and do charge, the extortionate rate of five cents per mile in British Columbia, whilst in eastern Canada the rate is three cents per mile. I would press upon the attention of the Government the advisability of removing the permission which the railway companies have to make that discrimination; and, further, the advisability of dealing with the subject of American railroads crossing the border into our Dominion and taking advantage of the Canadian law to charge in Canada rates which are double those charged on contiguous portions of their lines in the United States. I have in mind particularly the Great Northern Tailway line from Mr. TAYLOR.	'
Seattle to Vancouver, running for about twenty miles through the district that I represent. The company charges the full five cents per mile on the -Canadian side of the border as against two cents per mile on the American side, notwithstanding the fact that the traffic is quite as great in Canada as it is in the United States, and notwithstanding the fact that the railway has no justification at all for this increase in the charge, except that the Canadian law permits it, and it takes full advantage of the law without any other reason whatever. I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that these abuses do exist, and I would suggest to him that this matter might very well be made the subject of serious consideration at the first opportunity on which Parliament can consider it. While we do not expect a change of this kind to be made as an amendment to Supply, we from the West are strongly in sympathy with the principle's laid down by the mover of this amendment.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, before we leave this subject, I have just one or two words to -say. First of all, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Taylor) has not in my judgment added very much to the case that has been made out in reference to the question that is before us for consideration. I do not think that I ever heard the hon. member for New Westminster rise to address this House that the chief substance of his argument was not this: You did not do it; why should you expect us to do it? The hon. gentleman says that this is no new question that is before us. The hon. gentleman is right; it is not -a new question; it is not any newer than the oriental question in which m-y hon. friend was so interested when he sat on this side of the House, instead of where he sits at the present time. The railway question and the oriental question were questions upon which the hon. gentleman raised his voice very frequently in this House, but with reference to the oriental question the hon. gentleman has not -a word to say. Perhaps -it is too much to expect to hear from the hon. gentleman on that question now. Probably his voice gave out when a change of administration took place. His views changed with the change of position that his party made in this House.
With reference to the- question brought up by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), hon. gentlemen know perfectly well that the question is one of vital interest to the people of western Canada and to the people of Canada at large because that which affects the welfare of the West certainly affects the welfare of the East. If we are discriminated against, if the railways are taking away the prosperity of

the people of the West, it is going to reflect very greatly upon the welfare of the manufacturing and other interests in eastern Canada. I am still of the opinion that the proper tribunal to deal with this question is the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is before them at the present time.
I think that the present railway legislation does not give that board authority to deal with this question. If it does not give them that authority, then I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is the duty of this Parliament to give them the necessary power. I do not think it would be in the best interests of the House and the country that we should undertake the expert investigation necessary to determine the truth of this matter, the grounds upon which railways discriminate as between one part of the country and another. It is a matter for expert investigation. I have faith and confidence that if it is demonstrated that there is unfair discrimination in the freight rates as between the East and the West the Board of Railway Commissioners will deal with the matter in a way that will be satisfactory.
My complaint against the present Admin- istration is' that, as this matter has been referred to in this House before, they are not forcing the case forward for the consideration of the commission in the way they ought to. It has been discussed already and I do not propose to go over the same ground, but I do submit that if this Government were as anxious to see this ease determined as they ought to be in the interest of the public, they would see that this now almost interminable delay in dealing with the question by the Railway Commissioners does not exist any longer. The hon. member for New Westminster speaks of the discrimination in passenger rates as between British Columbia and the rest of Canada. My hon, friend knows very well that about three years ago 'the McBride Government came into office as the result of a contract between them and the Canadian Northern Company. I wonder if the McBride Government, as political friends of my hon. friend, took precautions, when they were making that contract, to safeguard the rights and interests of the people both as concerning freight and passenger rates in that province. There is no question of doubt that the McBride Government have had their share of responsibility if there is a discrimination in that province as to passenger rates in British Columbia as compared with other provinces.
The hon. gentleman also complains of the fact that the American roads running into Canada charge a higher rate in Canada than they do in the United States. Of course they do. When they cross the boundary they are not under American law, and certainly if the Canadian railways are compelled to reduce their passenger rates the American roads in Canada will be compelled to do the same. I see no point in referring particularly to the American railroads and the differences in their charges in Canada as compared with their charges in the United States, because any change in tariff that is brought to bear on the Canadian railways, will affect the American roads operating in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Our Canadian roads to-day are carrying people in Michigan, and other American states for two cents a mile while they are charging Canadians three cents a mile in Canada.


David Bradley Neely: I am quite aware of that fact, and I agree that if they can carry for two cents in the United States their rates in Canada are too high. The population is I believe denser in the states referred to by my hon. friend than in western Canada. I am not defending the tariffs in Canada on any of the railways, hut 1 am simply pointing out in reference to the argument of the hon. gentleman from New Westminster that if the tariffs on the Canadian roads are altered, that will necessarily affect American railroads operating lines in Canada. This is a live question and my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) deserves the support of tne House in the object he has in view, namely, the lowering of freight and passenger tariffs in Canada and the bringing about of equality between one part of Canada and the other. But I still hold the opinion I have always held, that the proper tribunal to settle the question is the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, within whose sphere it lies. If there is responsibility, that responsibility lies with the Government and with the Minister of Railways particularly to see that the dilly-dallying that has occurred up to the present on the part of counsel, representing the Government and the public before the commission, shall not be permitted to continue and to cause further delay. I trust that the Minister of Railways will see that his counsel will be asked to bring this matter to a speedy and, we trust, successful conclusion.


Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways):: I am a little surprised that I
got no notice of this motion. I was attending a meeting of the Railway Committee, considering some Bills that had been referred to us by the Senate, when this motion was made in the House, and I did not have an opportunity of listening to the remarks of the mover or of the seconder, and I only heard part of the address of the hon. member for Edmonton.
I can look upon this motion as nothing but a vote of want of confidence, not only in the Government, but in the Railway Commission. The rate question was dis-
1097]

cussed here nearly one whole day by gentlemen on both sides, and I then took the ground that there had not been any dillydallying or delay on the part of the commission. This is a bigger task to undertake than any of the members of this House realize. The chief commissioner told me that there are in the West 230,000 different tariff rates. We have an expert working on these rates, and we hope very shortly that the commission will be able to determine the matter and announce their finding. If there is not authority in the Act, then I agree with the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) that we should put it in the Act. The commission is the proper place to decide this case; they have the expert officials competent to study out these things and decide the matter on the principle of justice.
As to the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), I certainly will bring that to the notice of the Government and make inquiry with respect to it, because I do not think the American railroads which come into this country should charge higher rates than they do in the United States.
One remark made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was, I think not quite fair, when he said that through sparsely settled country rates should be as low as thickly settled country, because it cost the same amount anyway to run the trains. I think he is a little wide of the mark there. I cannot accept the resolution.


Frank Oliver: The Railway Commission
has made certain reductions in express rates; did they reduce these express rates so that the rates in western Canada should be equal to the rates in eastern Canada?


Francis Cochrane: I understand they
have not reduced the rates in the East at all. They found that in the East the expenses are going up and the receipts coming down. The experience of the parcel post system in the United States is that it has reduced the receipts of express companies by twenty-five per cent in less than six months, and when the Parcel Post Bill of the Postmaster General is passed, the same result may probably follow here. It was felt that the rates could not be lower in the East than they are today. I cannot tell what a comparison of the eastern and western freight rates would disclose, but I understand there was a reduction of twenty per cent in many instances Tvest of lake Superior.
Mr. OLIVER; Then, notwithstanding the reduction in the West, the rates are still higher than in the East.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Maclean (South York):
YEAS:
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Buchanan,
Carroll,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Cruise,
Delisle,
Douglas,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Guthrie,
Hughes,
(Kings, P.E.I.;, Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Messieurs.
Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
Michaud,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Proulx,
Ross,
Seguin,
Thomson , (Qu'Appelle), Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
Lapointe (Montreal,	White
St. James),	(Victoria, Alta.),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wilson (Laval)-42.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Achim,	Kemp,
Armstrong	Lalor,
(Lambton),	Lancaster,
Armstrong (York, O.)	Macdonell,
Ball,	McLean
Barrette,	(Queen's, P.E.I.),
Beattie,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Bellemare,	Merner,
Bennett (Calgary),	Middlebro,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Morrison,
Best,	Munson,
Blain,	Nantel,
Blondin,	Nicholson,
Boulay,	Nickle,
Bowman,	Paquet,
Boyce,	Paul,
Brabazon,	Perley,
Bradbury,	Reid (Grenville),
Burnham,	Robidoux,
Burrell,	Rogers,
Clarke (Wellington).	Sexsmith,
Clements,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Crothers,	Shepherd,
Currie,	Smith,
Doherty,	Stanfield,
Edwards,	Steele,
Fisher,	Stevens,
Foster	Stewart (Lunenburg),
(King's, N.!S.),	Taylor,
Garland,	Thompson (Yukon),
Gauthier (Gaspe).	Thornton,
Girard,	Tremain,
Hartt,	Walker,
Henderson,	Weichel,
Hughes (Victoria, 0.),	White (Renfrew),
Jameson,	Wilcox.-69.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs.	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikins,	Turriff,
Ames,	Tobin,
Mr COCHRANE.

Arthurs,	Devlin,
Baker,	Kay,
Barnard,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol, .	Bicker dike,
Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Coderre,	Lapointe (Kamouraska),
White,	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Queen's-Sunbury),
Cochrane,	Graham,
Hazen,	Pugsley,
Rhodes,	M'acdonald,
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Sutherland,	Marcile (Bagot),
Schaffner,	Neely,
Green,	Knowles,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Crocket,	Carvell,
Pelletier,	Lemieux,
Thpburn,	Robb,
Chabot,	Demers,
Northrup,	Nesbitt,
Clare,	Cash,
Alguire,	McMillan,
Elliot,	Brown,
Barker,	Power,
Smyth,	Boivin,
Stewart (Hamilton),	Richards,
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
El son,	Gordon,
Borden,	Beland,
Roche,	Sinclair,
Meighen,	Cardin,
McKay,	Reid (Restigouche),
Lesperance,	Gauthier,
Wilson (Wentworth),	Law,
Lewis,	Loggie,
Wright,	Lovell,
Clark (Bruce),	McCraney,
Webster,	Bureau,
Wallace,	Brouillard,
Sevigny,	Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Marshall.	Lachance.


Mr. BELAND:: I	was paired with the
senior member for the city of Halifax (Mr.	
Borden). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


David Bradley Neely: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Francis Cochrane: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Amendment negatived, and main motion agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply:
Administration of Justice-Salaries, $116,536.25.
["I do not want to oppose the passage of this Bill, because, as my hon. friend says, this case is as good ais a number of other cases that have received the assent of Parliament. But clearly the principle is vicious. My opinion is, however, that it is not a change in legislation 'that, is wanted but that it is a change in administration. These are private Bills, it is true, and it has not been the custom of the Government to take control of private legislation. That is probably a sound principle under most conditions, but where private legislation is continually and repeatedly sought, as it has been at this session, to set aside the law which embodied the mind of Parliament, i think the time has come for the Government to take the matter in hand and either to propose to Parliament such changes in the law as would be right and fair or else assume responsibility for private legislation of this character. I am putting this before the Government with all respect and without any desire to find fault, but I think that the conditions which have been 'shown during this session with regard to the renewal of patents are such as reasonably call for definite action and for a definite policy by the Government in the administration of the patent law.\n1 Mr. ROGERS: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), and were it not for the fact that the session is about drawing to a close, I would have no hesitation in saying that we would introduce legislation to cover the points which he has suggested. In the meanwhile I would venture to suggest that it would be well for the holders of patents to consult with their legal representatives, and if their legal representatives continue to be negligent irr the future, as they have apparently been in the past, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government will next session introduce legislation to remedy this condition of affairs.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed."]
Charles Joseph Doherty: Any differences over
last year are due to increases and some promotions under the Civil Service Act.


Mr. MURPHY:: There is an increase in the number of employees. Will the hon. minister explain that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are six in
the first division, sub-division B. That is the result, I think, of one promotion from one division to another. The first division, sub-division B, is where the increase is to be found. This is to provide additional clerical service particularly or entirely of stenographers and persons doing that class of work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What salary does Mr. Beauchesne receive?


Charles Joseph Doherty: His salary is fixed in
the supplementary estimates at $2,800. He came in originally, temporarily, to do work in connection with pecuniary claims, and was paid $200 a month. His services have been found perfectly satisfactory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Beauchesne is a
personal friend of mine and a confrere of the Bar of Montreal. If he were to confine his activities to the Justice Department, he has every reason to aspire to the higher ranks of the Civil Service. But, speaking frankly, I am informed that he does other work, work of a political nature. He is an excellent writer, as my hon. friend knows, and I am told that he is writing for the Conservative press and in the interest of his party. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am glad to see him in the Department of Justice and hope he will remain in the department and give his time to the work there. I make no charge against him, but simply say what I have heard, not with the intention of injuring him in any way. He has great ability and wide knowledge, especially of the law of the province of Quebec, and can be of great usefulness to the department. He is an excellent writer, as I have just said, as good a writer as he is a lawyer; but I hope he will give his time to the work of the department. I would be pleased to see him advanced to higher ranks in the department; but he must not be there to do political work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no knowledge of his doing work outside of the department or of doing work of the kind the hon. gentleman mentions. However, from what I know from personal observation, as well as from reports presented to me by the deputy minister and the assistant deputy, Mr. Beauchesne is most diligent, and the work he does fully justifies the enconiums upon his abilty and knowledge of the law which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) has given voice to. It certainly is to be expected that a gentleman in his position would devote his time to the service of the 1 department, and the results of Mr. Beau-

chesne's work would seem to indicate that he does so. I have no knowledge of his engaging in any other occupation.


Charles Avila Wilson: Will the minister kindly give the names of the employees in the first division, sub-division A? The heading on twelve made ' The Department of Justice including the penitentiary branch,' I would like to know whether this includes the inspectors of penitentiaries. If so, I have some observations to make.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the first division, sub-division A, includes the inspectors of penitentiaries.


Charles Avila Wilson: This would include the
salaries of Mr. Douglas Stewart and Mr. G. W. Dawson. And I understand that a new inspector has been appointed, Mr. Hughes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are only tw'o inspectors, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hughes. Mr. Dawson has recently been transferred to the Department of Public Works.


Charles Avila Wilson: I would repeat a suggestion that was talked over last session a good many times, that there should be an inspector familiar with the French language. My hon. friend is aware there are in the penitentiaries nearly two thousand convicts. There are nearly five hundred resident convicts in St. Vincent de Paul in my own riding, and I feel pretty sure that seventy-five per cent, certainly sixty per cent, of the convicts and also of the guards and other employees are not familiar with the English language at all. I know that inspectors Stewart and Dawson have sometimes great difficulty in cases that arise, and have had to employ the services of an interpreter. It seems to me that that is a very queer position. Disciplinary offences will sometimes cause severe punishment. The inspector is to decide and impose the punishment, and it may be a punishment of two, three, four, and even, six months. I have received complaints on the part of convicts, and on the part of guards that they could not express themselves fluently in English, and some could not speak English at all, and the judgments delivered by the inspectors were sometimes not to the point. I would say-and I think in this I wall be supported by the majority in 'this House-that, if not a French-Cana-dian, which I would prefer, at least a man .Should be 'appointed in itbe inspection department who is familiar with .both languages.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think a great deal is to be said in favo'ur of the hon. gentleman's suggestion. I may be allowed to say Ithat the existing state of affairs I inherited from the Government which the hon. gentleman supported, which had two inspectors neither of whom spoke French. The hon.
Mr. DOHERTY.
gentleman says that complaints have been made arising out of this condition. If complaint is made of injustice done through failure of the inspectors to understand French, or from any other cause, I should be pleased to have these cases brought to my notice and will do my best to reetifv them. I realize the importance of what the hon. gentleman says of having^ an inspector or some similar officer qualified in the respect he mentions. I confess, I took the situation as I found it, and it did not occur to me to make a change. But now. that he has brought it to my attention, I shall be .pleased to consider to what extent it will be possible, for me, under the circumstances, to meet his suggestion.


Charles Avila Wilson: If I may be allowed to make another suggestion, it would be that the work of the inspectors is too great. It must not be forgotten that there are seven penitentiaries, and the inspector has to travel from New Westminster to Dorchester. I should favour the appointment of an inspector for each penitentiary, but, if thait cannot be done, at least the number should be increased. Then it would be possible to appoint a man familiar with the French language, and I know his services would be appreciated and would be for the benefit of the administration of justice, for there are many convicts _'in every penitentiary who are more familiar with French than with any cither language.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I think the suggestion
of the hon. member for Laval is deserving of consideration. My own opinion is that, instead of there being two inspectors, there should be three: and if there were three, I think his contention would be quite reasonable, that one of the three should be a man conversant with the French language. It often happens that in the administration of the penitentiaries it is found necessary for one of the inspectors to take the place of the warden for the time being. It requires no argument that, in the case of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, if this action were necessary the man to_ temporarily relieve the warden of that institution should be thoroughly conversant with the French language. I think the position taken is a very reasonable one, and while I would not like to see the number of English-speaking inspectors reduced, because most of the institutions are what might be called English-speaking, I think an additional inspector should be appointed, one thoroughly conversant with the French language.


Charles Murphy: Under what circumstances was Inspector Daw'son transferred to the Public Works Department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The transfer was made because the qualifications which he possesses, a knowledge of building operations

and things of that kind, qualified him particularly to be of greater usefulness in that department than in the particular department in which he was, although I am not reflecting in the slightest degree upon the performance of his duties as Inspector Dawson.


Charles Murphy: What are his duties in
the Public Works Department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Minister of Public Works could better give that information.
Item 32. Miscellaneous expenditure, $10,000. Living allowance for judge of Atfin district, B.C., $1,200.


Charles Joseph Doherty: These are amounts that have been voted in the successive years. The first is to provide under the head of miscellaneous expenditure for the cost of administration in the Northwest Territories as now constituted and in the unorganized territories, expenses incurred in connection with extradition and. fugitive criminals, sundry small expenses which it is quite impossible to foresee accurately. $10,000 has usually been voted. In most years it is not all used but, of course, it is posssible that we might have exceptional circumstances requiring more in one year than in another. The $1,200 for the living allowance for the Atlin judge has also been allowed from year to year.


Frank Oliver: Did the minister say that in this item of miscellaneous was included the salary of judges in the unorganized territory?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is to provide for the administration of justice in the unorganized territory.


Frank Oliver: Is there a judge or stipendiary magistrate there now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite sure of that. There was a judge in the territory that has been annexed to the province of Manitoba but, of course, after that annexation, his office disappeared as the territory became a portion of the province of Manitoba. There may be expenses, the necessity of arresting a criminal or something of that sort, and that is covered by this vote.
At one o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply.
Appropriations not required for 1913-11, decrease, $300.
Yukon territory-travelling allowance of jtrdge, $500.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the
Yukon territory, we have a very considerable decrease, because we have decreased
the number of judges. There were three judges before; now there is only one. Last year we had $1,500 for travelling allowances; this year there is only $500. The living allowances for three judges last year amounted to $15,000; this year the amount is only $5,000. Then the amount for salaries of sheriff and deputy sheriff is reduced, because one of these officials has been dispensed with. Last year we passed an Act to provide for the reduction of judges, and apart from that we have reduced the number of officers.


Mr. PROULX:: Is there the same necessity now for giving a living allowance of $5,000 to the judge in the Yukon as there was when the judges were first appointed? Since communications have improved there, the cost of living must have decreased.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no Teason to
suppose that there Ras been any material reduction in the cost of living. All the officers, not only in this department but in the other departments have this allowance, and unless we have evidence, which I certainly have not, of some substantial decrease in the cost of living, I hardly think ' we would be justified in withdrawing the allowance. They were appointed on the understanding that they were to have that allowance and I have no information that would justify me in concluding that there was reason for altering that arrangement.
alaries, territorial court, sheriff and clerk, $1 100 each; two stenographers, $2,000 each,


Frank Oliver: That is a reduction of
$1,800. Will the minister say how that reduction eornes about?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The officials of the
court, as well as the judges, have been reduced in number.


Frank Oliver: What officers have been
dispensed with?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was a sheriff
and a deputy sheriff. We have dispensed with the deputy sheriff.
Living allowances of officers of Territorial Court and police magistrate, $8,600.


Frank Oliver: I suppose that reduction is because there are fewer officers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Has the police magistrate been dispensed with?


Charles Joseph Doherty: -No, we have still one police magistrate at White Horse.
Fees and expenses of witnesses,-jurors, and interpreters in criminal trials, $5,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that reduction in the
expectation of less judicial work?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because the business
has decreased.
Transport of prisoners, 84,000.


Frank Oliver: Is there a jail in the
Yukon?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think prisoners are
detained in the guard room of the mounted police barracks.


Charles Avila Wilson: What is the
meaning of the transport of prisoners?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The territory is very
wide and when a man is arrested at any one place he has to be brought to the place where he can have his trial. If a man is sentenced to the penitentiary he would have to be transported to the British Columbia penitentiary as that is the institution that serves the purposes in that respect of the Yukon territory.
Miscellaneous expenditure including fees and expenses of crown prosecutors, salaries and living expenses of other employees connected with the administration of justice, coroners' inquests, &c., $10,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that a general reduc- I tion or is there any special change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is merely a reduction because we found that the business had not increased and there was no necessity of asking for more than the amount appearing in the item.


Frank Oliver: Is there one crown prosecutor and how is he paid?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the crown
prosecutor is paid a salary. There is only one, if my memory serves me correctly. There are not more than four lawyers in the territory.
Dominion police, $104,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The increase of $7,000 is due to the fact that we require an additional constable at the Royal Mint, an additional constable at the ticket of leave office, an additional constable at the criminal identification bureau and two additional constables at the National AH Gallery. That makes five constables at $1,000 each. The other $2,000 is made up of an increase in the pay of three inspectors of the detachment at Esquima.lt. Twenty per cent is added to the ordinary pay of the detachment at that point.
Penitentiaries-Kingston, $155,200.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister be
kind enough to state the reason of the increase in the case of each penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At Kingston there is an increase of $2,000 in salaries and retiring allowances.
Mr. OLIVER.


Frank Oliver: Is that in salaries or an increase in the number of salaried officials?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a new isolation ward necessitating an additional officer and his salary had to be provided for. Maintenance of convicts last year amounted to $26,000 and this year it is estimated at $30,000, an increase of $4,000:	Last year
we found that the cost of maintenance had been under-estimated. Provision is here asked for a possible daily average of five hundred and fifty convicts.
St. Vincent de Paul, $131,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only item of increase is $3,000 for maintenance of convicts due to the fact that, as in the other case, the amount last year was under-estimated.
Mr. 'OLIVER: What is the number of convicts at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Provision is made for four hundred and ninety.


Charles Avila Wilson: I understand
that this item of $131,000 does not include the increases provided for in the resolution now before the House and which is coming up for discussion to-morrow.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No; the increases in the salaries of officers of St. Vincent de Paul will be provided for in the supplementary estimates.


Charles Avila Wilson: So that the increases
will have to be added to the item of $131,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Avila Wilson: At the opening of the
session, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), in seconding the Address, made quite a few remarks about penitentiaries; and, if you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, without referring to a previous debate, I would like to quote a few of his remarks. They were made in good faith and with the intention of improving our penitentiary system-there is no doubt about that. But I will have to take exception to a couple of his observations. He says:
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, Sir, to urge on the Ministry the necessity of doing something that will make the men in these institutions better fit when they leave them to earn their living.
I quite agree with the hon. gentleman on this point.
On a Sunday afternoon I have spoken in the Kingston penitentiary to 600 men whose faces showed nothing but sullen despair and hopeless sorrow.
I would like to have an explanation as to whether this was an infringement of I the rule. I have never thought of going

to the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul and addressing a meeting there. I do not know whether my hon. friend means that he went there to pay a visit, in which he would have been within his rights, as it is a privilege that every judge and every member of this House has. I hope the hon. gentleman will tell us what was the purpose of his meeting. We read in the papers the other day that Sarah Bernhardt visited the penitentiary at St. Quentin in California and gave a grand performance before the convicts. There was an address presented to her by a convict who had been born in France. I presume that this was done from a humanitarian point of view and in the expectation that it might improve the condition of the convicts. But I would like to know what kind of a speech my hon. friend made at Kingston penitentiary-whether it was on religion, humanitarian, or political lines.
I believe that something can be done to improve the condition of these men.


Mr. BLAJN:: They are not voters, are
they?


Charles Avila Wilson: No, but they might become voters after they had served their terms.


Frank Oliver: You could not be sure of it if it were a close election in Manitoba.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: The Grits brought them out of the asylum to vote against me.
Mr. WILSON (reading) *
I believe that something can be done to improve the conditions of these men, and 1 want to urge upon the Minister of Justice, whose humanitarian principles I well know-
As we all do.
-and on the Minister of Agriculture, who will I know recognize the necessity in this matter, that such steps be taken as will make each penitentiary a demonstrative and reformative institution. There is no reason why cheap land should not be bought and be so developed that the farmers who live in the adjacent municipalities and districts may come and see what is being done, and how they may best improve their own condition. In following ont these principles a favour will he conferred upon the prisoner, because when he leaves the penitentiary he will not, be obliged to enter again the city slum with all its temptations, and a Tavour will be conferred on the agricultural classes, because from one end of this country to the other the cry goes up for farm help. A favour will likewise be conferred on tne state by freeing it from what must always he a burdensome load.
I do not know if there is any farm attached to the penitentiary at Kingston, or to any other penitentiary, except St. Vincent de Paul, where I know there is one. The penitentiary farm is between three
hundred and four hundred acres in extent; it has a quarry on it, a large stone bam and also a wooden barn. I know something about farming, because, like most of the members of this House, I was brought up on a farm, and I think it is my duty to say that the worst farming done in Canada is on a penitentiary farm. It has been so in the past under every Government, it is so now, it will continue to be so, and it cannot be otherwise. It is all very well to call for an eight-hour day, and that is the rule applied at the penitentiary, but you cannot apply it to farming work and be successful. If the diligent farmer wakes at four o'clock in the morning he sees the sun rise; he knows more than science about the condition of the weather; he will -wake up his sons or employees and get to work to save the crop, and he will work during the day continuously until the storm comes. That is not the way in the penitentiary; the convicts rise at half-past six in the morning; they go out to the fields to work, at 8 a.m., and at half-past eleven they line up and come into the penitentiary for lunch; they return at one o'clock and come back at four or half-past four so as to get to their cells at five o'clock. How could you run a farm on such principles ? I suggest that we should sell the land around the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, retaining only a few acres on which to grow the table vegetables which are used in the institution.
I presume the same , conditions obtain at other penitentiary farms as at St. Vincent de Paul. Therefore, instead of favouring' the proposition of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), which has been made in good faith and for a good purpose, I would urge the minister to get rid of some of the land around the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. That land has increased	in	value enormously.Land around Montreal that was worth fifty dollars	an	acre	some years
ago, is now worth $2,000 an acre and I would not be surprised if the minister could get $500 or perhaps $1,000 an acre for the St. Vincent de Paul farm which money could be used to much better advantage than at present. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture could establish an experimental farm there, but not to be cultivated by convicts, who are limited to working at certain hours.
Then again, the farm superintendent at St. Vincent de Paul has great trouble in finding men to work the farm, because it is only short term men who are allowed outside the walls of the penitentiary, and sometimes he runs short of labour. I have seen very excellent crops of hay and oats lying on the field in the penitentiary farm without sufficient labour to save them,

people around; and, although it may be a good warning to them, on the other hand I think the convict's life is not so gay that the Government should make it more unpleasant. I think a couple of men at reasonable salaries could do all the work that is required, and the convicts could earn something for the benefit of the department by working within the precincts of the penitentiary. They have their own private road to the farm. I have even seen ladies taking the back streets so as not to meet convicts who will look at them sometimes in a very queer way. Real estate values at St. Vincent de Paul are not so high as in other villages on account of being within the shade of the penitentiary.
I have practiced mostly before the criminal courts for the last eighteen years, and have often heard judges make this remark: Young man, I do not know what to do with you; you are only sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen years of age. I pity the condition of that poor man. I should like to see the time when no young man under 21 years of age should he sent to the peniltent'iary. But our judges believe-and under the circumstances we cannot say that they are wrong-that it is beitter to send a man to the peniteniary for two years than to send him for twenty-three months to the common jail. This was more especially true in Montreal until the Bordeaux prison was completed. The lion. Minister of Justice knows the awful condition the prisoners were in in our city jails, and it is no wonder that the judges should prefer to send the prisoner to Sit. Vincent de Paul. I think that the aim of 'the penitentiary is fausse. The men sentenced to penitentiaries are supposed to be sent there to learn a trade-a man would be sent to the carpenter shop if he desired it, and if there was room, or to the shoemaker shop, or be taught some other trade. It seems to me that a wrong idea has been dominant in our penitentiaries for the last Itwenty years at least, and possibly ever since Confederation, and that is the idea that the penitentiary should benefit i'ts'elf from the work of the convict. And this is the reason for the amazingly small product of the penitentiary works. From what I have seen at St. Vincent de Paul, or Kingston or any other penitentiary, I do not believe that our present system turns out good tradesmen. There is a hospital to be built, a warden's house Ito he built, a north wing to be built, a wall to be built, and word constantly coming from the department that the work is to be rushed. The guards do not take the trouble to teach a man the trade properly- they cannot do it under Sthe system. When a man at 17 years of age is put to learn the trade of stonecutter, let us say, he should be under instruction, and if the 347
stone is not properly cut, let him begin over again, as at school. But that is not the system. The work has ko be done, whether it is done well or not, because the primary idea is that the whole work should be done by the convicts. Thak may save money to the country, but now that we are trying to improve the convicks, I do not think the saving to the country is of such importance. I make these suggestions in good faikh.
So far as the staff is concerned, and so far as the officials of the Department of Justice are' concerned, with regard to penitentiaries, I do nok think there is much fault to be found. So far as I have come in contact with the employees of the penitentiaries, I have found kbem anxious to do their work well, ready to take suggestions, even inviting suggestions, and putting them in practice to improve conditions. I say this not to pay them compliments, but merely to give them what belongs ko them. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) four ydhrs ago spoke in the same way on similar occasion, declaring that in St. Vincent de Paul, for instance, there was practically no room for improvement under our present sys'tem. I have_no doubt that the Minister of Justice, who has done well, will give my suggestions his best consideration, and will carry them out if they are good.


Mr. NICKLE:: The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) has asked me how it came that I delivered the address to the convicts in Kingston penitentiary to which I made reference in the early part of the present session. It has been the custom for some years in the penitentiary for the chaplain from time to time to invite those whom he thinks interested in penitentiary work to address the convicts on Sunday afternoons in relation to any non-controversial subject. It was in relation to such a subject that I addressed the men that afternoon. If my memory serves me correctly the general theme of that address was 'The "opportunities of the unfortunate.' I can understand that my hon. friend would not be in a position to appreciate that subject in its fullness, and therefore I shall not go into details. But I can assure him that if he will come to Kingston any Sunday afternoon, I shall be glad to spend an hour listening to him, and if he will-


Charles Avila Wilson: Will the hon.
gentleman provide me a seat between two convicts?


William Folger Nickle: I will provide him with
that wrhich I am sure he would like, a seat on the platform. In relation to the work of the penitentiary my hon. friend and I differ radically as to the way in which the



convicts should be treated. He seems to think that the penitentiary farms should be managed from the point of view of saving to the state. I take the exactly opposite view. I think the penitentiary farms should be so managed as to give a maximum of education to the convicts so that they may leave these institutions better able to do a useful life's work. I believe that the objects of the penitentiary are reformative as well as punitive, and I think that in the administration of our institutions we have emphasized too much the punitive idea and have lost sight almost altogether of the reformative. I believe farm work can be so conducted that there will Ibe little or no loss to' the state and a distinct gain and advantage to the convicts.
We have heard not a little during the present session about the cost of living in Canada. Go back to fundamentals and you will find that the reason the cost of living is increasing is that industrial occupations are taking the men out of the country, and the proportion of men and women engaged in industry is now much greater in proportion to the total population that it was a few years ago. In other words, the farming population is proportionately growing less, while the demand of the inhabitants of cities, towns and villages for our natural products is growing greater. You cannot make two eggs do the work of four, you cannot make twice the beef from one animal that you made from two before. The demand for these natural products is increasing more rapidly than the supply. What does that mean? It means that the greatest opportunity for the convict is to go back to the land; that he should be removed for his own good from the city conditions and for the advantage 'of the country put back upon the land where his work is most in demand. For that reason, if the minister could be induced to develop this farm-work side of penitentiary life, he would be conferring a favour upon the state and upon the convict as well. I do not know about the penitentiary in the province of Quebec. From what little knowledge I have of farm conditions in Ontario, and from what I have observed while driving around, I should say that the penitentiary farm in Kingston is well run.


Charles Avila Wilson: What is the area?


William Folger Nickle: I am told by the inspector that it is some three hundred acres. The education given on that farm has certainly redounded to the advantage of the country.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: At what hour in the afternoon do the convicts leave the farm work?
Mr. NICKLE.


William Folger Nickle: It depends on the season of the year; in summer, about 5.30, in time to have the penitentiary locked up at six o'clock. No disadvantages will redound from the men being given farm work. It is a very simple, practical thing.
Contractors tell me that when the ordinary penitentiary convict is liberated and goes to them for work he shows by his colour and bv the state of his muscles that he has been a convict, that he is not a physically fit man, and as a result they do not care to employ him at an ordinary rate .of wage. I believe that if those men could be put out in the open and given stiff manual labour their skin would become tanned and their muscles hardened and they would be able for a day's work when they left the penitentiary. I quite agree with the >hon. member for Laval that it is objectionable that convicts should have to meet from time to time the public under disadvantageous circumstances. I would direct as I have done in private the attention of the minister to what I consider a most unfortunate practice, that of having the liberated convicts accompanied to the railway station by uniformed guards.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is correct.


William Folger Nickle: When a man has served his time in the penitentiary, the moment he leaves the gate of the penitentiary he should be a free man and I object to any system that authorizes a keeper in uniform to accompany him to the station so that every man on the train knows that a convict is on the train with him.


Charles Avila Wilson: My hon. friend
knows that this practice is followed because in some cases when men have been (liberated from the penitentiary and have been supplied -with tickets to the places from which they came, they have gone to the corner hotel, sold their tickets and gone on a spree and perhaps have come hack to the penitentiary that night and brought something in the way of * square face ' for the other convicts.


William Folger Nickle: My hon. _ friend misses
my point. I was not objecting to the prisoners being accompanied to the train by a guard but by a uniformed guard so they may be recognized as convicts. In relation to the question of trades, if one examines the returns as shown in the report of the Minister of Justice, one cannot but be struck with the number of young men who are serving first terms in the penitentiary. I am tofd that the instruction given in the penitentiary is not of such a character as to be of very great practical value when the inmate leaves the institution. The labour is direct manual labour of the old school type and does not equip them for taking their place in life in relation to

modern methods where intricate and involved machinery is used and, with the hon. member for Laval, I hope that some solution may be devised by which a better opportunity will be afforded the convicts of acquiring a trade. I quite realize that it is unwise and impossible to britag' into competition with the free labour of the outside world, the product! of the' manufactories of the peniten-t tiary. There certainly must be a loss to the state, but the loss which the state suffers through instruction in trades being imparted to the inmates of the penitentiary would surely be more than overborne by the benefit through the men being able to earn a living when they are freed from the institution.


William Cameron Edwards: 
Charles Avila Wilson: Has that not been done in the past?


William Cameron Edwards: No. There is one piece of road which has been maintained for a number of years by convict labour, but there are other pieces of road which I think should be maintained in the same way. I would not restrict the application of this principle to penitentiary farms. It should be applied also to military property, and I am pleased to say that the late Government did take a piece of road in the vicinity of Kingston under their control and maintenance. I think the same principle should be applied to the roads in the vicinity of these large institutions. Every person in the province of Ontario, and I presume also in the province of Quebec, knows that the principal tax on the people is the school tax. The second largest tax is probably the road tax. Of course these properties contribute nothing to either of those taxes, and necessarily the burden is proportionately increased in that neighbourhood. It is right that we should have, and we do have, a certain amount of sympathy with the convict. I think that when the convict is released,	the	guard	who takes	him tothe station,	and	places	him on board the* train, should go in civilian clothes, and not	in"	the	regular	guard'suniform. I	think that is a goodsuggestion, and one which could be easily carried out. I do not see anything that could be said against it. But there is another class of people who are affected by the incarceration of a certain element of the population, and who are more entitled to our sympathy than the convicts. I think we would be perfectly justified in placing convicts	at remunerative	labour,
and in placing a value upon their labour. I think it would have a very beneficial effect if part of the money so earned by the convict were applied for the benefit of that convict's family, who, under our system, are obliged to suffer for the sins of * the person who is convicted. A man is sent to the penitentiary, he may be the head of a family, and the children are obliged to suffer for his misdeeds. It is not fair, I do not know that I could outline just what plan should be adopted, but it occurs to me that a value might be placed on the convict's labour, as it is placed upon his labour in certain lines, and it might be held out to him as an inducement to good conduct that a portion of the money so earned would be applied for the benefit of his family who, under the present system, are made to suffer through no act of their own.
It is not my intention to go into details in regard to the running of penitentiaries at the present time. But I do not believe there is a proper division of labour amongst Mr. EDWARDS.
the guards in the. penitentiary. I think some men have to work longer than others and do not get just as fair a show as some others receive. I think the guards are entitled to the increase which is being given to them this year. The cost of living has increased for them, as it has for other people, and their work is of such a kind that they are in more or less danger. If they perform their work properly, they are running risks which should call for a higher remuneration than they have received in the past. There are one or two cases which I hope the Minister of Justice will consider in connection with the Kingston penitentiary in the past. I have in mind one [DOT] man of whom I spoke to the minister some time ago. He was for many years a guard in the Kingston institution, and there was not the slightest black mark against his conduct, which was all and everything that should be. Through an accident he lost the sight of one eye, but he was still retained.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did the accident happen when he was discharging his duties?


William Cameron Edwards: The accident occurred while he was engaged in his duties as a guard in that institution. The man's name is Charles MeConville, who has a very long record as a very efficient guard in that institution. He lost the sight of that eye through the neglect or the inability of the surgeon of the penitentiary at that time. He was, however, retained in his position as guard notwithstanding that he was there against the regulations of the institution, being a man with only one eye. He was advised by some of his friends to say nothing about it. Some time after this accident happened a convict escaped. A number of convicts wrere down at the wharf and one escaped for a few hours. That was made the excuse for the dismissal of this man, MeConville. He was dismissed when Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper was Minister of Justice. The action of the Minister of Justice at that time does not reflect anything to his credit. He used that man with extreme harshness.
I am bringing the case before the House in order to emphasize what I have said privately to the Minister of Justice that this case should be looked into. That man, after serving something like twenty-five years, without a single mark against him in all that time, was dismissed without any gratuity or recognition.


Charles Avila Wilson: We have seen worse than that lately.


William Cameron Edwards: If you have seen worse oases than that then those cases should be considered. What is -the use of talking about administering justice if you pass over a case of that kind and not grant

justice to a man who is entitled to be fairly treated and has not been fairly treated ? I do not care who is responsible, that man's ill-treatment in the past should be rectified at the earliest possible opportunity.
This morning I took occasion to back up a suggestion made by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) with regard to the appointment of another inspector who had a knowledge of the French language. I think that suggestion is a good one. Very frequently we have had to send inspectors to an institution to take charge of it for a time. We have had very efficient men as inspectors; especially is this true of the oldest inspector in the service, Mr. Stewart, who knows every detail of penitentiary work. But there are occasions when, as I have said, an inspector may go and take charge, and I think that there is such an occasion at the present time in connection with the Portsmouth penitentiary. The present warden, Col. Irvine, who" is a very efficient man, is temporarily absent on account of illness and I do not think it is right that that institution should be in charge of a man against whom charges have been made for misconduct in his official capacity. I think that some person should be sent down there to take charge of that institution until such time as the charges against this official have been investigated as they should be investigated.


Frank Oliver: Did my hon. friend say that there were charges against Colonel Irvine ?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I did not.


Frank Oliver: What charges does the hon. gentleman refer to-I did not catch what he said.


William Cameron Edwards: I said that I did not think it was just the correct thing to have that institution in charge of a man against whom charges had been made. I do not cast any reflection upon Colonel Irvine at all, because I believe he is a very efficient man. But it does occur to me that this is an occasion when one of the inspectors of the penitentiary should temporarily take charge during the illness of the warden, and especially in view of the fact that charges nave been laid against a person who, in the absence of Colonel Irvine, is the head of the institution. There are many particulars in which Portsmouth penitentiary will compare very favourably with any of the other penitentiaries in various parts of the Dominion. Stoney Mountain was not capable of holding some desperadoes and they were senH, down to Kingston. It was a difficult matter to hold them there, they made a break for liberty, but were recaptured. I think that the
Kingston penitentiary in that respect has a very enviable record. The officials have been very alert and have shown themselves to be exceedingly vigilant and up to Hheir work.
But while saying that I want also to say from information that I have received from various sources, and which I believe to be reliable, that the institution at Portsmouth should be thoroughly cleaned out from one side to the other. It is in need of being cleaned out. There is injustice, petty tyranny, favouritism, and men are being hounded out of their positions through spite. I repeat that the institution should be thoroughly cleaned out and an investigation held ^hat will have the effect of putting a stop to that sort of thing. I live within three miles of the penitentiary and naturally there are a great many of these complaints which come to me. I suppose that a great many of them also reach my hon. friend the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). It is only natural. The parties concerned will apply, I presume, to any member who lives in the vicinity of any of the penitentiaries. The various officials of theso institutions, when they have complaints to make, will hunt up a member and pour their grievances into his ear. In many cases, no doubt, these grievances are only imaginary, but I am convinced that in so far as the Portsmouth penitentiary is concerned the grievances in many respects are not imaginary.
While hon. gentlemen have been expres-singrtheir sympathy for convicts here this' afternoon, I am afraid that the same sympathy is not shown sometimes by the officials for the convicts. I call to mind an incident in connection with the penitentiary at Portsmouth, not during the administration of the present Minister of Justice, I may say, but some years ago. A night guard stopped on his rounds to cut down a convict who was hanging himself in his cell. As you are aware a guard has to go around and wind so many clocks. These clocks are an indication of whether he was awake or asleep during the night. It took some little time to get into the cell and cut down this man wrho was hanging himself. The clock in the morning showed that the guard was a little late in winding it. Being reprimanded for being late in winding his cIock, he explained the reason, stating that one of the convicts was committing suicide, that he thought he should stop him and hot permit him to hang himself. He was told by the official to whom he reported and who reprimanded him for being late: Let him hang, but wind your clock. That is carrying discipline even farther than I believe the Minister of War would carry it. You are talking about sympathy for "convicts, but that particular official

did not have very much sympathy for that particular convict.


Charles Avila Wilson: Has that remark any reference to our present Minister of War?


William Cameron Edwards: Or to any other minister of war, or to any warlike minister. If that statement of mine is true, then any official who showed himself so absolutely heartless as to tell the guards they could let the convict hang who is committing suicide in his cell, and go and wind their clocks, I say that man is not fit _ to hold a position as an official in that institution or in any other institution. I want to say that every hour that passes that such a man is kept in a position of trust in that institution is a reflection upon the department for leaving him in that position. I have stated these facts before; I have asked that the facts be investigated, and I believe it is a proper case to investigate. I want to place myself on record as saying that it will be the more creditable to the Minister of Justice, the sooner he has that investigation and looks into the correctness or otherwise of what I am saying. This is only one instance of wrong-doing which should be looked into. I am merely making these statements to support my contention that there are good reasons why an investigation should be held into that institution.
Some little while ago I was charged in this House with haying advocated the appointment of a man to the position of warden of the Kingston penitentiary because he was an Orangeman, and with being annoyed because the Orangeman did not get the position. I want to say that that is not correct at all. The only man I recommended for the position of warden of Kingston penitentiary was Major Hughes, a gentleman who now occupies the position of inspector of penitentiaries, and Major Hughes is not now and never was a member of the Orange Order. It would not.be anything to his discredit if he were a member of that order; I want that distinctly to go on record as my opinion at all events, whether any person else may think to the contrary. I did advocate the appointment of Major Hughes because he had demonstrated by years of faithful service that he was one of the best men this country ever produced in that line of work. He was spoken of in the highest terms by the late Sir Oliver Mowat, when he was Minister of Justice, by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, when he was Minister of Justice; by the late Sir John Thompson, when he was Minister of Justice, and he was backed up for the position of warden by twenty-five or thirty1 members of this House and a good many influential people outside of this House. I Mr. EDWARDS.
think that is ample justification for_ my advocacy of Major Hughes for the position I thought he was eminently fitted to occupy. However, the Minister of Justice saw fit to appoint him to the position of inspector of penitentiaries, and I maintain that the choice of the Minister of Justice was a wise one. I believe Major Hughes will do good service in that office. A man who has ordinary intelligence-and Major Hughes has more than ordinary intelligence -a man who has ordinary intelligence and has satisfactorily filled a number of positions in an institution like the Kingston penitentiary, must gather a lot of information which ought be of very great value indeed, and I have no doubt Major Hughes will amply justify his appointment by the Minister of Justice to the position he now occupies. It may be that in placing him there the minister has acted more wisely than I would, if it were In my power to appoint him to the wardenship, but the Minister of Justice was quite within his right in appointing Major Hughes as inspector and I am sure no mistake was made, because I believe he will make an efficient officer in every respect.
I wish to impress upon the members of this House my position with regard to tire Kingston penitentiary, and I ask them to bear in mind that the constituency I have the honour to represent comes right up to the borders of the city of Kingston. The county of Erontenac surrounds the city of Kingston; the island municipalities being south of the city and the other portions of my county being north, and east and west of the city. Because of that fact I am necessarily thrown very much among the officials of that institution. I have heard a number of their grievances and complaints; I suppose that where there is any large institution like that there will always be men who think they have grievances, and of course there are many of them who think they tfeve grievances when they really have not. I am perfectly sincere in stating that I do think there is ample justification for a thorough investigation into every department of the Kingston penitentiary, and I am only anxious to have that investigation take place in the best interests of the penitentiary. I believe that is the view entertained by the Minister of Justice. I impress upon him again the importance of having that investigation, and I believe it will mean a lot less trouble to him, a -lot less trouble to all those upon whom responsibility rests for the proper conduct of that institution, if the investigation results in straightening out the tangles and getting everything on a proper working basis again.


Charles Avila Wilson: I do not want
my opinion to be misconstrued with reference to penitentiary farming. I am not

against farming in connection with a penitentiary, but 1 do think the area of land devoted to that purpose at St. Vincent de Paul is too large. I think one hundred acres would be ample. I agree with my bon. friend (Mr. Edwards) that there is benefit to be derived from education in farming at a penitentiary. As the Minister of Justice is bringing down to-morrow a resolution to increase the salaries of the penitentiary officials, may I be allowed to suggest that he should bring down a penitentiary Bill on the lines which I will suggest. What I will read to the House is a Draft Bill prepared under the late Administration, I think about the month of June last, but on account of the conditions which arose at that time, the Bill was not submitted to the House, although I have no doubt it will be found in the archives of the Department of Justice. This Bill was drafted with the concurrence of my hon. friends from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), Regina (Mr. Martin), and I think all the members *who have penitentiaries in their constituencies. The first amendment proposed by that Bill was the nomination of three inspectors instead of two. I had a conversation with the Minister of Justice this morning, and I think the law will be amended so as to give affect to the suggestion that three inspectors should be appointed, one of whom will be familiar with the French language. Another important change would be made by section 34, which reads:
If any officer dies in the service leaving a widow or any person who in his lifetime was dependent on him, the same gratuity as defined and calculated in previous sections may be paid to such widow, if any, and if not, to any person or persons in the lifetime of such officer dependent on him, or to any person or corporation in trust for any such person or persons so .dependent on him.
We had a case in St. Vincent de Paul where Mr. Champagne died suddenly before he had time to sign his resignation and his family was deprived of the annuity. I think a similar case came from Kingston and one from the West. I would suggest, when a man has not an opportunity to resign before his death, his gratuity should be paid to those dependent upon him. (Reading):
2.	Such gratuity may be increased, by one-half the amount thereof if the death of such officer is occasioned by any injury received by him in the performance of his duty, without fault or negligence on his part, at the hands of any convict, or in preventing an escape or rescue, or in suppressing a revolt, G E. VII., c. 38, s. 34.
3.	No officer on the permanent stafi of a penitentiary, except the warden, deputy warden, matron, deputy matron, Homan Catholic and Protestant chaplain and surgeon, shall be allowed to remain on the stafi
of a penitentiary after he has attained the age of sixty-live.
4.	Every officer, when reaching the age of sixty-live, will ipso facto cease to be an officer of a penitentiary and will be entitled to the gratuity provided for in section 33 of this Act.
5.	Every officer on the permanent force of a penitentiary, who has reached the age of sixty, may, at that time, or at any time between the ages of sixty and sixty-live, tender his resignation to the hon. the Minister of Justice, who may accept said resignation; and, said resignation being duly accepted, the officer whose resignation has been accepted shall be entitled to the gratuities of section 33 of the Act, provided that in each case the conduct of that officer has been good, and that he has been faithful in the discharge of his duties.
I do not need to make any comments. I think my suggestion as an amendment to the Bill is quite clear. I do not think a man of sixty-five years of age can resist a convict who is twenty or twenty-live years old, in the prime of life. How can a man of sixty-live fulfil his duty in chasing a convict and bringing him back?
I thought it my duty to make these suggestions now on account of the resolution which will be presented to-morrow. I shall give notice to the hon. Minister of Justice. If he will allow me, I shall be glad to send him this draft.
My hon. friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) made reference to the appointment of Mr. Hughes. I do not know Mr. Hughes. I am trying to believe that all he said about him is true. There is one thing that the Minister of Justice should explain: what has become of Mr. Dawson, who was a faithful employee of the department for a good many years, a prominent man and an ex-member of this House. He seems to have done his duty while in office. It would be interesting to know where he is now, and fox what reason he left the department. We are entitled to know -whether he has been removed or superannuated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I answered the same
question to another hon. gentleman this morning. Mr. Dawson was transferred to the Department of Public Works, as it was found that his knowledge would be very valuable to that department. There was nothing in the transfer of Mr. Dawson which reflected on him in any way and nothing to prejudice his position or salary.
I am very grateful for the suggestions of the hon. members who have spoken on this subject. There can be no possible question that, in the matter of administration of penitentiaries, there is room for vast improvement. The whole subject of how best to deal with the convict, the man who has so conducted himself as to call down upon him punish-

ment at the hands of society, is a most intricate and difficult, and at the same time a most interesting problem. It is one that has caused a good deal of thought to the officers of the department and, I may say, to myself, since I have occupied the position which I hold to-day, which makes me responsible for the administration of these institutions. I have had in mind some general scheme of improvement in the system. That is something that of course requires to be "very carefully thought out, and a measure to bring that about is one that would necessarily call for serious consideration, and take up in that consideration not a little of the time of the House. For these reasons' I do not propose to attempt to deal with that subject in a general way at this session. I hope, later on, to be able to introduce legislation looking to the improvement of the entire system. When I come to do so, I shall be very pleased to bear in mind the suggestions that different hon. gentlemen have made and I have no doubt they will be found most valuable.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) referred to the existence of a siding at St. Vincent de Paul, which I understood him to say interfered with the advantageous use of the property in the interests of outsiders, particularly with the placing of the derrick at the station there and in the neighbourhood of the station. This matter is entirely new to me. I shall have it looked into. I may say that the penitentiary desires to act as a good neighbour to those who live in its surroundings. If we find there is any inconvenience or disadvantage resulting from the existence of our siding which can be remedied, we shall be glad to find a way to do it.
With regard to the unloading of coal, and this being done at the most undesirable time of the year, that is to say, at the time when it interferes with farm labour, I am told by the inspector that over two years ago instructions were given that arrangements should be made so that the coal should arrive at a season of the year when its unloading would not interfere with the necessary labour upon the farm. If these instructions are not being carried out, it is not because they have not been given. I shall have that matter looked into.
The hon. member referred to the case of a woman who was detained for a day or two at St. Vincent de Paul on her way to the women's penitentiary at Kingston, and suggested that there should be some amendment in the law to prevent the happening of such things. The law expressly provides that, from the time of sentence, the person sentenced to a penitentiary is assumed to be in the hands of the warden of that penitentiary, in the sense that he is the person to whom that, prisoner is to be taken direct. I understand that, as a matter of custom, Mr. DOHERTY.
when it is necessary that a prisoner should stay over for any period of time at any city on his way, the jail is the place where that prisoner is usually detained. The reason for that is simple enough. The prisoner is at the time in the hands of the officer of the court, which is the provincial court; and, in the particular case referred to, I understand the convict was on her way from Quebec, where she had been sentenced, to Kingston, her ultimate destination. The officer who was in charge of her certainly erred in the place which he selected for her to remain in during her stay in Montreal. Moreover, I think the Penitentiary officer erred, when it happened that she was brought there and as a matter of fact did stay there, in not finding some other place in which to confine her. At that time the fact was reported to the department; and, I may say, met with the censure of the department. The officer responsible for it is no longer an officer of the department.


Charles Avila Wilson: Will the hon. minister tell why the commitment was made to St. Vincent de Paul instead of to Kingston direct? I understand she was confined in St. Vincent de Paul pending the decision of the department as to what to do with her.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand from the inspector that the woman was, on the face of the commitment, committed to St. Vincent de Paul, and the error was in detaining her there. She should have been forwarded to Kingston. I understand that all the convicts sentenced in the province of Quebec are sentenced to St. Vincent de Paul, but in view of the fact that the woman's department is at Kingston penitentiary, she should have been immediately transferred to Kingston.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there no woman's
department in St. Vincent de Paul?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Charles Avila Wilson: In order to avoid that a woman convict should be sentenced to 'the penitentiary at Kingston even from Quebec, and then she would go direct. The warden at Kingston would have no authority to receive the woman if the commitment was to St. Vincent de Paul.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into 'the
matter to see what can be done in that respect. It was a misapprehension that the woman was directly; committed. With regard to the complaint of convicts coing through the village in which the peni. tentiary is to places where their work is to be, done, causing inconvenience to the inhabitants of the village, and also exposing the convicts to be unduly gazed upon, by the public, we should be glad as far a., possible to avoid this. On the other hand,

we endeavour to find work for tliem, and when there is useful work to be done on the penitentiary property, I should not like to undertake absolutely that convicts should not be sent from one place to another. Of course, they should not be allowed, and I do not believe they have been allowed to wander in the village street. But I think the matter can be so arranged that the mere passing of a few convicts on the village street from one point to another would not cause very serious inconvenience. Hov?-
eter, I shall look into the matter.
Reference has been made to the taking of released convicts to the railway station by a guard in uniform. This matter has been brought to my attention', and I have given it some consideration. The inconvenience found is in the guard having to specially dress himself for. the purpose of taking the convict to the station, and then changing his costume when he comes back. But I think we can so arrange it that complaint will not be made. Of course, as pointed out by the hon. member for Laval, it would not do that these men should be let out of the gate of the penitentiary and allowed to stay in the town or village wher<$ the penitentiary is. I believe that the law provides for their being sent out of the town,-I make that statement on the information of the inspector.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Frontenac that convicts might, be used ip working on the roads adjacent to the pem-tentary building is one that I think commends' itself. As the hon. member says, we have done some work of that kind, and 1 shall be glad to look into the possibilities of extending it further. We have also done work of that kind in Manitoba, on the road from Stony Mountain to Winnipeg. It has not only given satisfaction to the people of the neighbourhood, but has proved a useful method of turning to good account the work of the convicts. I have also taken note of the hon. member's suggestion that we might employ these men in making tiles for drains. This whole question of productive work by convicts is one that presents very considerable difficulty. I entirely svmpatliize with the view of the hon. gentleman that it is highly important that we should find some method by which the labour done by the convicts in the institution should inure to their advantage, and more especially should inure to the benefit of those dependent upon them and who by their imprisonment are in fact condemned to a severe punishment, perhaps a more severe punishment than that which falls on the convict himself. I should be glad if we could devise some method by which that most desirable object could be obtained without giving rise to justifiable complaint on the part of free labour outside. For you have to consider that always. Since I first interested myself in penitentiaries, this question has been the subject of thought with me. I have had representations on the subject from people who take an interest in the subject of improving the condition of convicts, and have made inquiries into attempts that have been made elsewhere to meet this difficulty. In the efforts that were made in France, the results, so far as I can find, were not very encouraging. At the same time I am glad to find my view on the principle involved at any rate supported by the hon. member for Frontenac, and I shall be glad to give my best attention to the matter and endeavour to devise some method by which we can gain the desired result. But, as I have said, we must bear in mind that we should not create a condition of affairs that would interfere with men outside engaged in work similar to that to which the convicts might he put.
As to matters of administration complained of, or charges against the penitentiary officers, particularly the matters referred to by the hon. member for Frontenac, I desire to say that it is my purpose to have an investigation into the institution mentioned, and to have it at the earliest possible moment, just as soon as I can secure the services of commissioners who are absolutely qualified both to do impartial justice upon complaints of, or charges against, individuals, and to investigate the methods of administration, and to make such a report thereupon as may be useful to us in our endeavours to improve the system generally. Those endeavours will be materially assisted by the valuable suggestions we have had this afternoon.
Some reference was made to the newly appointed inspector and to some observations that I understand were made upon the recommendation that the gentleman should be appointed to the position of warden of Kingston penitentiary. So far as the qualifications of Major Hughes are concerned, I desire to join most heartily with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in what he has said with regard to them. I was so much impressed with the idea that Major Hughes would be most valuable to the penitentiary administration in the highest position connected with it that I appointed him to that position. I think that is the best evidence of my appreciation of his merits and his ability. The hon. member has said that some reference has been made to Major Hughes being an Orangeman and that this was not so. The hon. member said that he would find no fault with him in that regard. I would also say that I would have found no fault with him if he had been an Orangeman, the fact of his being or not being an Orangeman would have made not the slightest difference in my appointing him to a position for which I believed he was eminently competent. Neither in his case nor in the case of

any other man would I be affected by any consideration of that kind. People may differ about matters of this sort, but when you want a competent officer for a particular position, that is no consideration one way or the other in my mind.
Manitoba penitentiaries, $66,700.


Frank Oliver: In regard to Manitoba
penitentiary, I understand that Colonel Irwin, who has been warden there for a number of years, has been transferred to Kn,0 :ton. Who has oeen appointed warden of Manitoba?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Captain Ponsford.


Frank Oliver: What was his previous occupation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot say at the mo. ment precisely what occupation he was following at the time his appointment was made. He had previously been engaged in business which involved his controlling and directing very large numbers of men and he had also had experience in the active militia as a captain and was very highly recommended to me. These facts were put before me, I had several interviews with him and I felt convinced that he had qualities which would enable him to perform his duties with satisfaction. Since he has been in charge of the penitentiary I have had the most satisfactory reports from reliable sources as to his competency for the position.


Frank Oliver: What was his calling in life?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He had been engaged
in the carrying out of very large contracts, principally in connection with building operations, I think.


Frank Oliver: How many convicts are
there in that penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Last month there were 'one hundred and ninety-five convicts there.


Frank Oliver: Has a comparison been
made of the actual cost of maintenance per prisoner in the different penitentiaries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That information is
given in a special appendix to the report.
British Columbia penitentiary, $90,600.


Frank Oliver: Some years ago there was a good deal of criticism of this penitentiary and its management owing to the escape of a very noted criminal. Has anything occurred since that shows either a better condition of the conduct of the penitentiary or better arrangements in any way or have the unfortunate occurrences of those years been repeated and if not what is the reason?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say that conditions are materially im-M. DOHERTY.
proved there, but at the present moment the inspector is on his way to British Columbia penitentiary, taking in the others on his way, with a view to make a thorough inspection and examination and report upon the conditions in that penitentiary as well as in others. I do not know that I am in a position to say that we have any special information showing either improvement or deterioration in conditions since the incident to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Frank Oliver: Have there been many
changes in the staff and in the actual buildings since then?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There have been no
changes of importance in the staff, but the large wall which was defective at that time has been completed.


Frank Oliver: Had the condition of the wall anything to do with the escape of this prisoner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the convict at the time of his escape was working outside the wall, so that the condition of the wall had no bearing upon the escape, and the respect in which the person responsible was blameworthy was in allowing him to work outside the wall in the conditions that existed.


Frank Oliver: What is the number of convicts in New Westminster penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 360 are provided for.


Frank Oliver: How many convicts are there in Edmonton penitentiary ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There were 197 convicts last month.


Frank Oliver: From time to time representations have been made to the Government, and to the minister, in regard to the removal of the penitentiary. Can the minister give us any information as to how that matter is now viewed by the Government ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Representations have been made at different times, by different parties, suggesting or recommending the removal of the penitentiary at Edmonton. There have been suggestions that it'should be removed and placed on a different site in, or adjoining, the city, and there have been suggestions that it be removed to some other locality. The last time the matter was discussed was when I had a visit from a gentleman occupying a high position in the municipal government of Edmonton. He was very desirous that we should arrive at some arrangement by which the penitentiary property might pass over to the city, the city providing another site which would still be in the neighbourhood, but not in the heart of the city, as I understand it is at present. As a result of that interview, 1 asked the gentle-

man representing the city of Edmonton to put a definite proposition in writing as to the location of the land they proposed to give us as a site, and to send it to us, and we would consider it. That was a couple of months ago, and we have not yet received any definite proposition on the subject.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister care to say whether any proposition would be accepted, and if so, what would be the fundamental necessities in such a proposition as to area, the distance from the railway station, and the possibility of having the' benefit of the city utilities, the water works, and so on. If the requirements of the department were known there could be some definiteness in the efforts put forth to meet tnem. But the minister will understand that with properties at high values, and with people more or less keeping an eye on property values, it is not likely that anyone on behalf of the city would go to work and secure a knowledge of a certain area of property that might be acquired, when, after that knowledge had been acquired, the department might say that they did not care to effect any removal, or that the property selected was not suitable for certain reasons. If we could know what the requirements of the department would be in the event of removal, the city of Edmonton would have something more definite to work upon. I know there is a very great anxiety to have the penitentiary removed from where it is, and I am anxious to try to bring the wishes and interests of the _ city of Edmonton to work with the wishes and interests of the Department of Justice. I think both could work together successfully.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The way we look upon the matter is that the penitentiary is satisfactorily situated as it is. As I understand, the citizens of Edmonton are desirous that we should remove it. We are not exactly in the position to define conditions upon which we should go out, because we are not in the position of wanting to sell. The city comes to us; we are satisfied with the present position. We find many advantages in the present site, which they say they desire to acquire. Under these conditions, it-seemed to us fair to ask the city, wliat is your proposition; you are the people who desire the change. I think we would be disposed to give every consideration to a proposition in the interests of the city of Edmonton, consistent with our duty as administrators of the penitentiary, but it seemed to us that the initiative lay with the people who desired the change to be made, rather than_ with us. If the change involved no detriment to the public service, and was carried out in a manner that would be just to the penitentiary, we would be disposed to give it every consideration. However, I will consider the matter from the point of view of the hon. member.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Has the minister any objection to stating who the official was from the city of Edmonton?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the moment I cannot recall the gentleman's name. He was an alderman of the city. I do not mean to say that he was speaking officially in that capacity, but like the rest of the citizens he was interested in this matter, and he came to see me, and we talked the matter over. As I have said, I made the suggestion that he should endeavour to see if -some definite proposition could be made. He was not in a position to speak of any particular site. If he had been in that position, and if we had had a proposition to exchange sites, we would have been in a position to look into it, and to deal with it. But it is 'difficult for us to go looking around foT sites. We might select what we considered a good one, and find that it was not possible to secure it. The city on the other hand knows what sites could be procured.


James McCrie Douglas: The alderman who
visited the minister would probably be Alderman Smith. I understand he was given authority to interview the department regarding the. Temoval of this penitentiary, and that the city government had made arrangements to purchase land, within three or four miles of the city, which would be suitable for penitentiary purposes. They had also arranged, I understand, to extend the street railway system on the understanding that the Government would surrender their property in the city of Edmonton. As the hon. minister is aware, the property, as at present situated, comprises 100 acres in the very heart of the city. It is not only that the location is objectionable, but this vacant land in the heart of the city is detrimental to the best interests of the city, and I think it would be in the interests of the Government that these conditions should not prevail much longer. If the city is prepared to give the Government a suitable situation and possibly erect a building, such as they have on the present area, I presume the Government would have no great objection to the change being made.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to say offhand that merely on this basis we would be prepared to act. We have to bear in mind that we have an exceedingly valuable property, an asset of this Dominion, and when it comes to a question of exchanging, we would have to look to the question of what we are parting with and the value of what we are receiving. I

do not mean by that to say that no consideration should be given at all to the position and interests of the city of Edmonton and that we should act absolutely with the view of wanting to treat this as a purely commercial question, but I say, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree with me, that the comparative values of the property to be parted with and that to be given to us is a matter that we have, to consider. Then the peculiar advantages that our present site has for our special purposes will have to be taken into consideration as compared with the advantages that would attach to any area which may be offered to us. It is difficult for us to make a definite answer to a general proposition. It is a, matter that does not seem to me that we can come to any conclusion upon unless the department is put in possession of precise information as to what the city offers to us in exchange for what we have. I have the best disposition towards the city and to consider what is in the interest of the city of Edmonton as well as what is in the interest of the Dominion as a whole.


Frank Oliver: There is a certain area
surounding the present penitentiary. The whole of that area is not practically available for the purposes of the penitentiary as the railway tracks run across a part of it. I do not know how much of the property is occupied, but it would probably he twenty or thirty acres. It might be presumed that that is a small area for a large penitentiary. If the department would consider that a larger area less conveniently situated would answer the purposes of the department as well, or better than a small area -conveniently placed, as this is, there would be some ground for the city of Edmonton to go on and try to make an arrangement. But I am afraid, from what the minister has said, that we have not made much through the change of Government, because the argument he puts forward is about the same as that which his predecessor put forward. It was up to the city to show cause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is difficult to accept or reject a proposition that is not made. That is our proposition pure and simple.
I said to the gentleman who came to me, and I say it again, that I would be prepared to deal fairly with any proposition that is made to me, bearing in mind the importance of this matter to the city of Edmonton, as well as trying to do my duty as representing the Dominion. But I cannot say offhand that, if a site is offered to me, I will accept it. No doubt the advantages of a larger site would be a matter to be considered. I can only say that I am quite open to any other suggestion that may be made and I am prepared to consider it as Mr. DOHERTY.
fairly as I am capable of doing. I can realize how important it is to the city of Edmonton and I shall be glad to meet their views consistently with doing my duty on behalf of the Dominion.
Mr. OLIVER. I do not wish to press the minister unduly and I do not wish to suggest that he is not acting in good faith and consistently with his position, but it is my business to place before him and the committee the position and views of the people whom I represent. It is conceded generally, as was stated by my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) and my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that it is in the public interest as well as in the interest of the penitentiary itself, that the institution should not be inside the city. It should not be inconveniently situated, hut it is better that it should not be surrounded by population. In Edmonton the situation of the present penitentiary iST absolutely surrounded by population. While it is not in the centre of the city, it is measurably centrally located. I have not very full knowledge, but it is probably more within the city than any other penitentiary in Canada. That being the case, the citizens of Edmonton are inclined to the view that it is not in the interest of the city, or in the interest of the good administration of the penitentiary, or of the country, to have the penitentiary located there,^ and that it should be located outside the city. The area that is now occupied by the penitentiary is admittedly small compared with the ordinary requirements of a penitentiary. Therefore, to take the further step, they believe that the penitentiary should have larger grounds, which it can only have by being outside the city. There are certain advantages possessed by the penitentiary and the department by reason of its location, in that it has .street cars, city utilities, electric light, waterworks, and all the other conveniences. These are great advantages and they possibly could not be supplied at any serious distance outside of the city. If the Government would say that the use of these utilities was an essential condition to the location of the penitentiary outside of the city, the people dealing with the matter would know that, with respect to any location that they desired to secure, "they must not go out of the range of city utilities. If the Government would insist on the use of the utilities, convenience to the street cars, convenient access to the steam railways, and a certain distance from the city, the people could go and do business. If these utilities were not insisted upon, of course, it would make the task very much easier and a still larger area of land might be secured at more reasonable

figures. It is not- with a desire at all of tying the Government or the department up to making an exchange that I am presenting this matter to the minister, but I would like to get what would be the minimum that the Government would accept in the way of the use of utilities, distance from the centre of the city, &c. If we could get the minimum the Government would accept in these three particulars, we could go on and see what arrangements we might make; not tying up the Government to accept what we would think, but we would have something definite to go on in making these preliminary arrangements. On the other hand, if it is not possible to secure a change of location, there is no reason I can see from the standpoint of the Government or of the city, for retaining as penitentiary property that part north of the railway track. It seems to me that part might be disposed of because it is not of serious value to the penitentiary for penitentiary purposes. The fact is that the lines of the Canadian Northern railway and of the Grand Trunk Pacific cut this part off for penitentiary purposes from the rest of the ground, and it might very well be disposed of.
The other point is that the wall around the penitentiary is only a board fence, and I would almost make the criticism that the reason the convicts remain in the penitentiary is because they like the board and the situation of the place. There does not seem to be any reason why they should stay there unless that be the case. If it is intended to maintain the penitentiary in that place, a more sufficient and permanent enclosure should be erected so that the officers of the penitentiary be not at the risk of their lives as they are to-day, with that continual inducement to the convict to escape. There have been several escapes. There have been several escapes or partial escapes from the Edmonton penitentiary, and_ probably the minister does not know that the then assistant warden was done to death in the penitentiary some years ago. The conditions are that" if the penitentiary is to remain where it is there should be improvements which would tend to the retention of the prisoners and the safety of the officers. I am satisfied there might be blame attached to the officers for escapes, which I think would be entirely unjust, under present conditions. It is because it is necessary to make extensive permanent improvements in the present location that I would urge in the interests of the administration of justice that ultimately, although perhaps not at present, it is desirable the locality should be changed and the conditions approximately more closely to those universally accepted as conditions which should surround a penitentiary.
Saskatchewan penitentiary, 553,800.


Frank Oliver: How many convicts in the Saskatchewan penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A daily average of one hundred. It is situated at Prince Albert.


Frank Oliver: Is it within the city
limits?


Charles Joseph Doherty: About three miles from the city.


Frank Oliver: What area of land surrounds it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: About six hundred
acres in the penitentiary reserve.	-


Frank Oliver: That bears out very
strongly the argument I addressed to the minister in respect to the Edmonton penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: An increased area
would probably be of advantage at Edmonton, and having listened to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) has said, I shall be glad to think the whole matter over and see if there is some practical method of meeting his views.


Frank Oliver: If the minister would let
me have an idea whether he would insist on access to city utilities, or whether he would be willing to accept a situation not in touch with such utilities, it would greatly help.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will think it over.


James McCrie Douglas: Has the penitentiary at Prince Albert electric light, sewers, and water supply?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The penitentiary has its own sewers and water supply, and the electric light is supplied by the city.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States, $2,500.


Frank Oliver: What claims are these?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a commission
sitting to determine a number of pecuniary claims which the United States Government, the Government of Great Britain and the Government of this country had agreed upon to submit to the determination of that commission. There is a great variety of claims, most of them of very long standing. This commission, which began its sittings a week or two ago at Washington, is to pass upon these claims, after the particular claims that are to he submitted have been determined by the respective parties. There are already two schedules and may possibly be others. It is a mistake putting the amount of $2,500; it was intended to be $25,000. The balance has to be made up in the supplementary estimates.
noil


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the country to be
reimbursed for the costs after the adjudications have been made?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that the commissioners are authorized to make adjudications as to costs. Some of the claims are on behalf of individuals, and, with regard to certain classes of these, I think the Government would consider it had done its duty in procuring the establishment of a tribunal to deal with them and in giving proper notice to the individuals concerned, leaving the individuals themselves to provide for the conduct of their own cases. Of course we would conduct those cases which were of a public nature. Certain people, for instance, were charged duty on hay going into the United States. It was subsequently determined that that duty was not properly charged, and these people have claims to be reimbursed what they paid. With regard to claims of that nature I do not think the Government would consider itself under obligation to provide for the cost of urging and supporting them before the commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand there are three gentlemen on that commission, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick representing Great Britain. Who represents the United States?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Chandler Anderson.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And Mr. Fromageot, of France, is the third arbitrator.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frank Oliver: There are some. claims made by Canadian Indians against the Government of the United States. Do they come under this convention?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I believe so.
There is a particular claim in the case of the Cayuga Indians, and I think there are other claims.


Frank Oliver: There are other claims by Indians, and I would be glad if the minister would see that any such claims are included.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have been paying a good deal of attention to that.
.Mr. LEMIEUX: Would my hon. friend give the House as soon as possible a list of these Canadian claims? The reason I ask is because_ somp years ago one of my electors, Mr. Lindsay, of Gaspe, had chartered the steamer La Canadienne from the Government during the summer. That steamer was injured by a United States warship going by way of the canals to the ^reat lakes.


Mr. HAZEN:: That claim is before the commission.
Mr. DOHERTY.
Militia and Defence-Allowance active militia, $120,000.


Mr. CARVELL:: Will the minister explain how this money is to be expended?


Mr. HUGHES:: It is for camp and drill ,. instruction, care of arms, postage and for trumpeters and signallers' degrees on qualifying for a certificate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister decided upon any policy regarding the care of arms? Some small armouries have been established in different parts of the country. If an armoury of any size is built and arms are placed in it, it seems to be the custom that they shall be taken care of by the caretaker of the armoury, whoever he may be. Here is a case in point. I think that probably the first instance where a small armoury was built in connection with a public building, that is, a combination of an ordinary public building and an armoury, was in the town of Hartland in my^ constituency. I think one corps of militia is now housed in the armoury. I ' understand that somebody was appointed to build the fires, to keep the place clean and to act as general janitor of this public building.


Samuel Hughes: When?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some time within the
last six or eight months. The building was completed only a few months ago. I have found that the captain of the local company has been notified that henceforth he has nothing to do with the arms of his company, they are taken out of his charge and placed in the charge of the janitor of the building. It may seem a very small thing to the minister, but it may be a very important matter to the men interested. In the first place, he says the responsibility is entirely upon him to look after those materials, keep them clean and keep them in order, and if there is any remuneration he should have it. But, more than that, when inspection day comes around, if there are deficiencies, the captain is responsible, and the amount will be taken from his pay, and he will have no way of recouping himself. Has this matter been brought to the attention of the Minister, and will he under the circumstances, leave the matter to the competent officer connected with the company who understands these matters-and has given good service?


Samuel Hughes: I have no knowledge of the case referred to. The question of the care of these armouries in public buildings is a matter of rather serious import, and so far as I am concerned, I have refused in many instances in which it was brought to mv notice to have the public building used' for company purposes. They entail, as the hon. gentleman says, the appoint-

ment of a caretaker, and the furnishing of fuel, and, so far as I am concerned, our policy-which we are gradually getting into shape-is to turn these buildings over to the Public Works Department and erect small halls of oar own. Furthermore, we have not yet quite developed our policy in relation to the caretakers, but I find that many of these gentlemen have done little, if anything, except to cater to the companies in the evening occasionally when they are in their quarters. Accordingly, we are rearranging the whole scheme of caretakers, and we purpose seeing that they attend to business where they are r.ecessary and that they are retired where they are unnecessary. My own idea is that the officer in command of the company in a small place should be the man to take charge of the armoury. Of course, where the dual policy is in vogue-it has been in vogue for some time, and I have not interfered with it except in cases of necessity- where the caretaker of the public building looks after the room and arms, the officer in command of the company still gets half the pay. But we have the whole matter, under consideration. Some 'of my officers have personally inspected a number of the armouries and in scarcely one solitary instance have we found them satisfactory. Toronto was satisfactory; Hamilton was more than satisfactory; Ottawa was simply scandalous, and there were other places where the men were not earning their money or doing their duty. A system will be devised to meet the case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear the statement made by the minister. With respect to the armouries which are wholly military and entirely under the hon. minister's department, I do not think there is any complaint. We have a very competent caretaker who was removed for special purposes, and another gentleman apnointed in his place, of whose qualifications I make no complaint. He is a good Tory, and that was enough to secure his appointment.


Samuel Hughes: He can do his work, I
will guarantee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish to say, to the credit of the minister, that he stood by the militia and against the caretaker. The caretaker would not allow the band in the room because they made a noise, the minister interfered and allowed the band to go in-and make all the noise they wanted to. However, that is not what I wished to speak about. So far as the Woodstock drill hall is concerned, no fault has been found, because a man was appointed who received sufficient pay to justify his giving attention to the matter; and, so long as I had anything to say about it, I had a very competent man who certainly looked after
everything in good shape. But, when you come to the small dual armoury and Public Works building you have a different state of affairs. You have a civilian appointed as caretaker. I do not speak with reference ' to the-gentleman in the case to which I specially referred, because while this is in my own constituency, I do not even know his name. But in such cases, you have a civilian appointed who knows nothing about militia matters, and the captain of the company feels that a great injustice would be done to him if he were compelled to hand over these arms to a man who is not responsible, and yet the captain of the company himself is held responsible.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman
certain we have a man there? I have a fairly good memory, and so have my officers; and we have no recollection of appointing a man in any way under the Militia Department. The man must be a public works man.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. I have a file of correspondence here- which, though in a sense confidential, yet which I shall be glad to show the minister if he so desires. Although, it might be-what do the minister's men call it?-derogatory to these in command to have an officer write to somebody else


Samuel Hughes: This is a free country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This officer wrote to me.
I am not finding more fault than is necessary, but as I understand, it was proposed that the care of these arms should be taken away from a military man and placed in the hands of a man who was appointed by the Public Works Department. The captain objected, and I think with great reason. Whether the matter has been carried out or not, I do not know. I hope the minister will tell me that it will not be carried out.


Samuel Hughes: I have no recollection
of such a case. I have no knowledge of any place in Canada where we have an officer in a public works building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But the minister has
knowledge of cases where the Public Works Department building officer has been given charge of arms and equipment.


Samuel Hughes: No, not at all.


Frank Oliver: This item covers provision for the storage of arms and accoutrements. That was the cause of a good deal of difficulty when I was a member of the Government, representing a constituency and supporting the Government. I hope that there will be less trouble now that the responsibility is on other shoulders. But it is not in regard to drill halls I wish to ask, but in regard to the provision for a country

squadron. What is the system in the department' in regard to caring for the accoutrements of, say, a country squadron of mounted men?


Samuel Hughes: The system is the same as my predecessor pursued in relation to individual squadron headquarters. It would be impossible, even in a large number of years, to make provision for each squadron or company headquarters, but we are adopting a policy of inexpensive drill halls for squadron headquarters where we can store these supplies and we make the cost about equivalent to the rent of buildings we would have to obtain for storage purposes. These headquarters buildings also serve as places for the men to meet and drill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In looking over the correspondence, I find that the caretaker was a former militia man, but he is not now and has not been for some years.


Samuel Hughes: I shall look it up.


Mr. MARCEL:: As there is not a dollar
spent in my constituency for militia purposes, I am perhaps qualified to ask what is the total amount asked for this year for militia purposes and what is the increase over last year and the year previous?
Mr! HUGHES: The total last year was $8,896,397. This year it will be $10,500,000.


Charles Marcil: Have you the year before?


Samuel Hughes: No, I have not those
figures with me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where is the chief increase?


Samuel Hughes: The increase is chiefly
an increase in the number of militia.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister add
to the figures here given the amount that is being spent by the Public Works Department for militia purposes?


Samuel Hughes: I have not that information here.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I thought
the minister was going to transfer the construction of buildings used for military purposes, such as drill halls, from the Public Works Department to the Militia Department and construct them under the supervision of his own engineers.


Samuel Hughes: Up to $15,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the minister says an increase in the number of militia, does he mean an increase in the number of men and horses and the cost of equipping these men and horses with guns, armaments, &c.? Would the minister give the number of men and horses for the two years?


Samuel Hughes: Yes. For 1911-12: men, 41,015; horses, 8.880; for 1912-13: men, 48,140;
horses, 9,758 were trained in camp. That is about 1,000 more horses than were trained the year before and nearly 5,000 more men. This year the total increase over last year will be 9,151 men and 3,528 horses, which is a pretty large increase.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 207, respecting a Patent of the Commercial Acetylene Company of New Jersey.-Mr. Maclean (Souin York). (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Frank Oliver: In the absence of the promoter, this Bill stood over on the last occasion it was up. It is a Bill that affects patent rights, and it certainly should not go through without some responsible statement being made as to how far private rights are affected by it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest to the Government the necessity of bringing in some sort of legislation next session to get rid of all this nonsense of placing people in the position they previously occupied, and which they lost on account of negligence, because in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred these Patent Bills are for the purpose of relieving people of the results of their negligence. It used' to be the case that the patentee had to show some reason why he should be reinstated, but now we seem to have reached the point where a man can come here and say that he was negligent and had not paid his fees, and he is then reinstated. If it is right to reinstate a patentee in that way, it is not fair to make him pay two hundred dollars, besides solicitor's fees. It is taking up the time of Parliament. There should be some way of reinstating patentees without taking up the time of Parliament, I have made this statement before, and I offer it as a suggestion to the Government, li they are going to continue the present course of renewing every patent right that has expired by reason of negligence, the patentee should be relieved of the expense of coming here.	.	[DOT]


Mr. ROGERS:: I entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. friend, especially when a patent holder has been negligent in his duty and when he places his Bill and explanation in the hands of some member who is also negligent in his duty, thus wasting the time of Parliament, I en-
Mr. OLIVER.
. MAY 27, 1913
tirely agree with the hon. member that the time of Parliament should not be wasted in this way by men who do not appear to have any interest in their own business.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A system nas grown up that is almost vicious in its results. We are getting more and more lax every year. Men come here now and claim reinstatement as a matter of right. They pay two hundred dollars and get their patents renewed. Up till two or three years ago we made the applicant show some reason why he should be reinstated. I can tell my hon. friend that three years ago a matter came before me professionally which meant a lot to the parties I represented. They were willing to establish an industry in my town, and expected to employ forty or fifty men if I could get their patent renewed. But I could not see any reason why it should be renewed, for they had simply been negligent. I did not want them to come and perjure themselves, and I advised them that I did not see any way of getting their patent renewed, and the patent was not renewed. Now, if that case came up to-day, all I would have to say to them would be, pay two hundred dollars and the fees of the solicitor. It is a great change, and I have doubts whether it is a change for the better. Parliament gives a man protection for a certain number of years by reason of his invention. It is a premium to the man for his diligence in inventing some article or piece of machinery. That is all right. But Parliament gives him that protection on certain conditions, one of which is that at the expiration of six years, if he does not pay his fees for renewal, his rights are gone. It seems to me that the public have some rights in this matter as well as the patentee. The man who has not enough interest to pay his fees, does not deserve to be reinstated, and I do not see why Parliament should come to his rescue, simply by asking him to pay $200.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The patentee, who
comes from Toronto, was here last week and was exceedingly anxious that this Bill should go through. He appeared before the committee, and the Bill seemed to be all right.


William Findlay Maclean: The Bill is to grant an extension of time for one year for the manufacture of the patented invention. The hodlder of the patent is a Belgian, and did not know the manufacturing requirements of the Patent Act. An English company has taken up the invention and proposes to establish a factory in Canada within a year if the patent is reinstated. The facts were brought out fully before the committee, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture being present, and the committee was satisfied that a case had
343	[DOT]
been made out. That is all the explanation I have to offer. It is similar to other Bills that have been before the House. It is very similar to the case covered by the Bill that has just gone through, and I would ask the committee to give it the same consideration.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the patent for?
_ Mr. MACLEAN: I cannot explain that in detail. It has been before the committee and the minister, and it has gone through the Senate.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill states that it is:
A patent, issued under tlie seal of the patent office of Canada, number sixty-seven thousand six hundred and seventy-nine, dated the eighth day of J une, one thousand nine hundred, for certain new and useful improvements in the method of storing acetylene, and that the said patent has expired by reason of the non-payment of the fees required by the Patent Act.


Frank Oliver: I understood from the
promoter of the Bill that this was an extension of time to allow for the manufacturer to begin.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Frank Oliver: But I understand now from the Minister of Customs reading the Bill that it is a case in -which the patent right had expired four or five years ago, and it is to renew it.


William Findlay Maclean: The purpose of this Bill is to grant an extension of one year to allow of the manufacturer of the patented invention, and with that extension they will immediately undertake the manufacture of the patent ik Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is this for making acetylene?


William Findlay Maclean: J ust for storing it.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the hon. member will give the committee suitable information as to what the process is.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It seems to me that the
principle of extending these patents is altogether wrong. The patentees have a reasonable time in which to comply with the law, and if they do not take enough interest then we should not extend the patents by legislation in this House. If they do not comply with the law the patents should become public property.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In any event such legislation should be introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, and he should take the responsibility of recommending the passage of these patents in the House; it should not be left to a private member.


William Findlay Maclean: I am
quite willing to allow the Bill to stand until the Minister of Agriculture is here if anybody wants that, but inasmuch as similar Bills have gone through the House, until such time as the Government establishes a fixed policy, exception should not be made of one particular Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I agree with that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I object to this continuous renewal of patents. If the people who take out patents do not take enough interest to get them renewed, we should not renew them here. I would like this to go as a warning to those whose patents have expired that they will not be renewed in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: It is a remarkable position to place the House in, because here we are renewing a patent and no one in the House knows what the patent is for. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but the House certainly should have some information about it. Inasmuch as it relates to acetylene, we ought to have more light on it.
Bill reported, read tne third time, and passed.


PATENT OF MAURICE DELVIGNE.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 208, respecting a patent of Maurice Delvigne.-[DOT] Mr. Barker. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Frank Oliver: As this also relates to a patent, and as the hon. member in whose name the bill stands is present, it would be in order to have an explanation.


Mr. BARKER:: This Bill is on behalf of a Belgian, who invented an explosive, and who employed people here to get a patent for it. In ignorance of our laws-I do not put that forward as a genuine excuse for the Rill-he did not realize the necessity of renewing it, and allowed the time to expire. When he found out the true situation he at once tendered the money. The patent was granted only three years ago, and the bill protects anybody who may have begun to manufacture the explosive in the interval, so that there can be no harm done. The patentee is paying everything that he would have paid if he had known what was expected of him. The Bill passed the Senate, and they thought it was a proper Bill. It also passed our committee, and, subject to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) says as to these cases being dealt with in this way,_ I cannot imagine a better case for reinstatement than this. This Belgian had no knowledge of the fact that he was risking anything; he thought he had his patent Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
secured, and he offered to pay the money, whenever he found it was necessary^ In the Bill there is an express clause providing that any person who has begun to manufacture the explosive is protected, and that he may continue to manufacture.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did I understand my
hon. friend to say that the patent was granted only three years ago?


Samuel Barker: In 1910.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Had the party to manufacture according to the provisions of section 38 of the Act?


Samuel Barker: I think that was so. He did not begin within the three years, but he was ignorant of the necessity for doing so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This Bill will of course go through, but it only illustrates the point I was making. If there is a principle of patent law known to every man who has had anything to- do with patents, and to every solicitor in Canada who ever took out a patent for a patentee, it is that the patentee must commence to manufacture the article within two years, or come within the provisions of section 44 of the Act. I do not want to say anything 'offensive about my hon. friend's Belgian, friend, but no man can be so innocent, who would wish to get a patent in Canada and who would employ a solicitor foT that purpose, that he would not know that he must commence to manufacture the article within two years-. It is not possible, yet the man comes here and says: I did not know. That only illustrates the truth of what I said a little while ago that men ought not to be placed in that position. If it is right to renew these patents and allow them to evade the law, let us do it in a less public way than this; let us hand it over to the' Department of Agriculture, to the Patent Commissioner, to .some board, or to some public body, that can take these matters up, deal with them solely on the merits of each case and reinstate a man in his rights, if it is proper that he should be reinstated, but do not bring him to Parliament and make him state to the world that which it must bother him to state, or get somebody to state it for him.


Samuel Barker: I quite agree with,' what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) says that it may perhaps be well to have some remedy other' than that of coming to Parliament. But that is not the law yet. This man is a foreigner, a Belgian, he had people acting for him here and he had no notion that he was risking everything. The moment he found out the position of affairs he acted very promptly in coming here. The original patent was issued in 1910. If you can have any excuse under the present law I

think this is a reasonable excuse * in this case.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to oppose the passage of this Bill, because, as my hon. friend says, this case is as good ais a number of other cases that have received the assent of Parliament. But clearly the principle is vicious. My opinion is, however, that it is not a change in legislation 'that, is wanted but that it is a change in administration. These are private Bills, it is true, and it has not been the custom of the Government to take control of private legislation. That is probably a sound principle under most conditions, but where private legislation is continually and repeatedly sought, as it has been at this session, to set aside the law which embodied the mind of Parliament, i think the time has come for the Government to take the matter in hand and either to propose to Parliament such changes in the law as would be right and fair or else assume responsibility for private legislation of this character. I am putting this before the Government with all respect and without any desire to find fault, but I think that the conditions which have been 'shown during this session with regard to the renewal of patents are such as reasonably call for definite action and for a definite policy by the Government in the administration of the patent law.
1 Mr. ROGERS: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), and were it not for the fact that the session is about drawing to a close, I would have no hesitation in saying that we would introduce legislation to cover the points which he has suggested. In the meanwhile I would venture to suggest that it would be well for the holders of patents to consult with their legal representatives, and if their legal representatives continue to be negligent irr the future, as they have apparently been in the past, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government will next session introduce legislation to remedy this condition of affairs.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SENATE AMENDMENTS TO BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Lancaster the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 99, respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company-Mr. Guilbault-were referred to the Select (Standing Committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines.
On motion of Mr. Fripp, the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 183, respecting the city of Ottawa-Mr. Fripp- were referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 228, to incorporate the Pointe aux Trembles Terminal Railway Company -Mr. Baker.	*
Bill No. 230, respecting certain patents of Otto R. Barnett.-Mr. Kyte.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Frank William Meek.-Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Active militia-allowance, $120,000.
['I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from James J. Donnelly, Esquire, his resignation as member for the electoral district of South Bruce, in the province of Ontario. I have in consequence issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, May 28, 1913.']
Frank Oliver: When this item was
under consideration at six o'clock, I was anxious to get from the hon. minister an understanding of the conditions that are now imposed or observed by the department in dealing with the care of arms and accoutrements of country squadrons. I assume that it is the desire of the department to establish mounted corps throughout the western country; that is. as the agricultural population become well settled and fairly prosperous, it is hoped that the young men will find recreation and interest in connection with the militia; and that, as a matter of fact, the young men growing up in the prairie provinces will be the great strength of the militia force, especially so far as mounted men are concerned. Therefore it is important that the department, in its arrangements, should take cognizance of the conditions prevailing in strictly rural settlements. One of the difficulties is the care of arms and accoutrements in a purely rural community or where the community is almost purely rural. What is the policy of the department in providing for the care of arms and accoutrements of a squadron of militia in a rural community?


Samuel Hughes: The policy is to give $100 allowance for each squadron for care of arms. The officer or someone in connection with each squadron looks after this himself. He usually provides his own building, sometimes an upstairs room in his own dwelling or a hall. The policy is, wherever there is a goodly sized town or even a country village with a squadron, to build a small drill hall. The custom has been to put an armoury in the public buildings. I have figured up the additional cost to the Public Works Department of these armouries in public buildings. I find that a very convenient little building can be put up as a drill hall in each of these towns for less money than it takes to place an armoury in a public building, the reason being that armouries in public buildings are more highly finished than the ones that we put up. It will take a good many years before we can catch up, because there are about eight or nine hundred of these units throughout the

country. Therefore we must rent for a long time. Where we do not rent, we give an allowance of $100 which recompenses a good man. For example, Wetaskiwin is a large town. The officer there did not want to be bothered with the matter so we rented a building. The rent is a little more than the allowance. We use the building for drilling the men in the evenings, and in that way get an additional advantage out of it.


Frank Oliver: The experience I had was that the allowance was under most circumstances entirely inadequate for the rent of a building that would take proper care of the arms and accoutrements of a mounted corps.	.


Samuel Hughes: For saddlery, it is.


Frank Oliver: The necessity of having a water-tight and a good and roomy building for taking proper care of the saddlery is not recognized in the amount of money available" under that arrangement. I wish to emphasize, as strongly as I can to the minister the' absolute necessity of having either a larger allowance or a more elastic arrangement than formerly prevailed, especially in regard to mounted corps. While $100 might be quite sufficient to make provision for the arms and accoutrements of an infantry company, it would not be at all adequate for saddlery. There is another feature of it that I am sure must have struck my hon. friend. The saddlery that is required for the militia force might very well be used in civil life if it is not properly cared for, whereas the arms and accoutrements of infantry are not liable to be used except when the men are on duty. Unless the saddlery is kept under proper control, it is liable to become missing or the worse of weaT.
While the minimum rental allowance that the minister speaks of may be adequate to provide a place to store the arms and accoutrements of an infantry company, it absolutely is not adequate, nor anything like adequate, to provide suitable storage room for the material of a mounted squadron. I take it for granted that it is to the prairie country that my hon. friend looks for the development of his mounted forces. That is where the mounted service is most likely to attract the favourable consideration of the young men. But if they are met, at the very beginning of their organization, by expense or inconvenience, it is distinctly a discouragement, for they are very apt not to take the interest in it that we all wish them to take. I urge the hon. minister to make a larger minimum for the mounted companies, recognizing the greater value and greater bulk of their material, and that he provide greater elasticity in the provision according to the circumstances. Because, Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
while in a very small country village it may be possible to get rental at a low rate, when you take a thriving and a growing town, this accommodation must be paid for. It costs money, and if not paid for it cannot be had. I had great difficulty in impressing that on the late Minister of Militia; I hope I shall be more successful with the present minister.


Samuel Hughes: We are working along the very lines the hon. member has laid down. In most cases, wherever an application is made and officers report upon it, we have increased the allowance to $125, $150 and so on. I may say that the value of the clothing and equipment of a cavalry regiment is $36,000, and it pays from an economic point of view to look after it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand that the captain of an infantry company receives the same for looking after the arms o)E the company as the officer commanding a troop of cavalry?


Samuel Hughes: No, the infantry get less.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what I thought, but the hon. member for Edmonton seemed to think that the minister assumed that they got the same amount.


Samuel Hughes: The infantry get $80 and the artillery and cavalry more. We increase them because of the greater value and bulk of their material and the greater need of taking care of them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose the Minister of Militia will do as he has a mind to-we may take that for granted.


Mr. GRAHAM:: No, he is amenable to reason.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman
says he is going to establish small drill halls all over the country-nine hundred or a thousand of them.


Samuel Hughes: No, my hon. successors will do that; I will not be here that long.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I believe I had the
honour of having in my constituency the first armoury and public building in Canada. Does the hon. minister think that he will get better results from the small buildings he -is going to build than from the combination? If he is going to nave a building big enough for a drill ball, he is going to spend many thousands of dollars. He cannot get architects and draughtsmen to design and put up cheap Duildings for him. It cannot be done with public officials.


Mr. HENDERSON:: They could do it, but they will not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it cannot be
done with Government officials. They will

design expensive buildings, and the minister will have to build them. If he is going to put up a buiiamg of any size he will run into five figures at least and when he has the building, he must have the expense of caretakers, fuel and so on. But in the combination building, one set of officials, one caretaker, one expense for fuel and light will do the whole thing. The smaller building may satisfy the vanity of my hon. friend, but it will not conduce to economy for the ratepayers of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to wTangle across the floor of the House, but my engineers have looked into the matter. As yet we are very economical; I do not know what we may be in ten or twelve years. In every instance where we have been asked to join in having one of these combination buildings and armouries-which, I am sorry to say, is never used for drilling purposes, but is used for smoking, cardplaying, spending the evening and not for the upbuilding of the militia-when we have inquired into the cost of the thing and the architects of the Public Works Department have given us figures, we have found that -with the extra money needed to produce the combination building, we can produce a commodious drill hall suitable for anv company in Canada to drill in, we are doing it as a matter of fact. If the hon. gentleman will come down to the department, the engineers will show him the plans-if necessary, will show him the buildings.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What do these buildings cost?


Samuel Hughes: They cost $6,000, $7,000 and $8,000-and the building for a battalion $16,000. This building has rifle galleries in it and everything.


David Henderson: Are they wooden
buildings?


Samuel Hughes: No, brick buildings.


Frank Oliver: What -size?


Samuel Hughes: Fifty feet by eighty-five, sixty by eighty-five, and we have one eighty-five feet by one hundred and six, which is to be put up for $30,000, with armouries and all that sort of thing-one-third of the old cost.


Frank Oliver: I find a very considerable indefiniteness in my hon. friend's statement in his reply to my very urgent inquiry. In order to get the matter nailed down, can he give me what the provision is in regard to the Morinville squadron in regard to their armoury?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know anything about it-I know where Morinville is; I have been there a number of times.


Frank Oliver: I thought the hon. minister had the information at hand.


Samuel Hughes: I think there was an
armoury building there, commenced by my predecessor-an armoury, not a drill hall. I think it cost away up in the thousands.
I can give an instance at Niagara Falls, where $50,000 or $60,000 was spent for a building which we could put up for $10,000. Then, at Port Arthur, there was a drill hall that cost $200,000, and, we can put it up for $60,000.


Frank Oliver: There aTe certain squadrons of mounted rifles situated at points in the vicinity of Edmonton. At Morinville, the squadron has an armoury, at Fort Saskatchewan I do not think they have. What allowance is that squadron getting for the storage of accoutrements?


Samuel Hughes: One hundred dollars,
besides the cost of fuel, &c.


Frank Oliver: I would say, beyond any question, that instead of the Government paying the cost of that caretaking and storage of accoutrement, the men or officers are paying part of it.


Samuel Hughes: Yes I think they are, I know in some cases they paid thousands of dollars.


Frank Oliver: I think that is entirely
wrong. It was wrong under the late Government and it is just as wrong under this Government. I do not think . it is to be expected that men should sacrifice their money as well as their time and attention for such a purely material matter as the storage of accoutrements that belong to the Government and which have to be provided for their use.


Samuel Hughes: In the larger towns in
the West especially it is very difficult to secure a building at as low a rate as in a small town. We are anxious to do the best we can for the fellows in each locality.


Frank Oliver: There is this condition as compared with eastern Canada that in the smaller towns of eastern Canada which are not growing rapidly you can readily obtain a small building that is sufficient for the purpose at a moderate rental but in the West where every building that will keep out the weather commands a price, is worth money, it is more difficult to secure accommodation of this kind and I do not think the Government should expect the men to pay for such accommodation. I hope that the policy which the minister has indicated, though not very definitely, will be carried out. It is necessary to do something of the kind if the force is to increase as we wish it to.


George Perry Graham: I approve of the policy of distributing a larger number of smaller

buildings for the use of the militia. I think it would bring practical results which no greater expenditure could bring and would give accommodation to a far greater number of squadrons. Might I ask the minister which one of these dimensions that he has mentioned we are to have in Renfrew.


Samuel Hughes: I wanted Renfrew to
have the eighty-five feet by one hundred and eighty-five feet, but I notice by the sup-plementaries that the estimate is not in, it has not been passed; but I hope to have it down in a further supplementary and, if hot, I can erect them one, not quite as: large, but nearly as large, out of the general vote. I would "be glad to do that to oblige my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: That is very satisfactory. The next question is more personal to my hon. friend. I am asking this information for all Canada, although I sincerely hope that the course which is suggested will not be taken by the minister until after he has erected this building in Renfrew, because I would rather trust to him than to any other minister. He suggested that these buildings would be erected by his successor. Is that a confirmation of the rumour that has been afloat that my hon. friend might become the head of another department?


Samuel Hughes: What I meant was that it will take at least twenty-five years to get all of these buildings and I think if I put in twenty years here I will then be fit for retirement.


George Perry Graham: I would not think that, not for retirement.


Charles Marcil: Seeing that we are going to have a rather aggressive and costly militia policy, I would like some information about the methods of establishing militia regiments. I find it remarkable that in the constituencies of Gaspe and Bona-venture, with an area of ten thousand miles, we have not a single volunteer. There has never been a dollar of expenditure for militia purposes in those counties. I have been glancing over the militia list, and I find that these two constituencies are comprised in what is known as the fifth divisional area of the province of Quebec which comprises a vast territory, twenty-three constituencies, from Gaspe up to Richmond and Wolfe. I know that Richmond and Wolfe, Compton, Beauce, the districts around Quebec, have some volunteer organizations. I think they extend all the way down to Rimouski. Beyond that there is no organization whatever. Is the organization of those corps left entirely to the personal initiative of the citizens, or is there an official of the department charged with the particular work of seeing that each district has a certain organization, has a cadet corps, or a battery of artillery, or a Mr. GRAHAM.
squadron of cavalry, or a regiment of infantry or some organisation of some kind? Is there some principle on which the department proceeds? We have in those constituencies some of the best material in the country from which to recruit volunteers, Scotch, Irish, English and French, but no attempt seems to have been made to form militia corps there.


Samuel Hughes: I am pleased to see my hon. friend interested in this matter. If he will come down to the Levis camp in a week or two I will be glad to show him some men from Bonaventure in the 89th regiment.


Charles Marcil: How do they reach there, by joining regiments of other counties?


Samuel Hughes: The 89th of Rimouski.


Charles Marcil: Would it not be possible to have them recruited there?


Samuel Hughes: We find that one of the companies is recruited at Matepedia.


Charles Marcil: That .is only the fringe
of the district.


Samuel Hughes: I would be glad if the
hon. gentleman would take a personal interest in this matter in his county. It is men like himself that we want to see at the head of the corps, the best men in the country. There is no officer for recruiting, especially militia regiments, that comes spontaneously from the people of the corps and there are some now in my hon. friend's county. Major Paquet of Quebec has charge of the cadets for that district, and I think there are about fifteen thousand cadets already organized in the Quebec district, including the district represented by my hon. friend from Bonaventure. If he will be good enough to take the matter in hand, to pick out the different officers, I would like him to pick out the very best men in the county, irrespective of race or politics, and I am sure that the officers of the department would be only too glad to see a regiment established in those counties.


Charles Marcil: The initiative rests with the people in the district? Is the selection of the particular branch of the service also left to the people of the district?


Samuel Hughes: In a rural district, infantry is best.


Charles Marcil: As to the cadet corps,
I understand that there is an organization at New Carlisle. Levis camp is so far from my constituency that the men can attend only every other year. There should be a recruiting officer or organizing officer down there. Why should the minister not send one of his officers down to that district and point out the advantages of the service ?


Samuel Hughes: I shall be delighted to ask Colonel Landry to go down.


Mr. GERMAN:: I would like to call the minister's attention to the necessity for an armoury in the town of Welland. A few years ago the Department of Railways and Canals agreed to hand over to the Militia Department a piece of Government canal land for the purpose of erecting thereon an armoury in the town of Welland. There is a squadron of dragoons under Major Sharp there, and a company of the 44th battalion. We have Colonel Raymond, Colonel Cohoe, and Major Rose there, and these officers are all in favour of having an armoury. At the time an armoury -was first suggested for Welland, one was also suggested for Niagara Falls, and the minister's predecessor said he did not think there should be two. I told him that the Niagara Falls one was more important, and consequently one was built there. The next town in importance is Welland. There is an excellent location there, and the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, are in perfect accord with the idea, and I am sure have brought the matter to my hon. friend's attention. So far as I can, I desire to back up their suggestions. An armoury could be built very cheaply. There is a nice location and a nice lookout, and it would be a grand thing for the service in that locality. I trust my hon. friend will consider the suggestion favourably and act promptly.


Samuel Hughes: Tne hon. me.mber spoke to me once before about this matter and the officers he has mentioned, very excellent officers, have also spoken about it. There would have been an estimate this year, but it is in the list for next year. We intended to erect a small drill hall, but I have learned that Welland is growing very rapidly, and it will certainly require a larger hall; therefore we will postpone it until next year.


James McCrie Douglas: Can the minister give me any information regarding the armoury at Yorkton, -Sask. The officer in charge of the regiment stationed at Yorkton went to the expense two or three years ago of fitting up the old immigration hall for armoury purposes. It cost him seven or eight hundred dollars, and he has never been recouped by the Government.


Samuel Hughes: I am sure he never sent in his bill to my predecessor, or to me.


James McCrie Douglas: Perhaps he billed the Public Works Department, but I know he has been endeavouring for several years to get some of that expenditure back.


Samuel Hughes: Tell him to send in his bill. *>
.


James McCrie Douglas: What is being done at Wetaskiwin in the matter of an armoury?


Samuel Hughes: There is one squadron at Wetaskiwin, and we have rented a hall there. I am sorry to say that we pay a lot of money, between two and three hundred dollars, for a hall simply for storing the saddlery and so on, besides paying for the heating. I think that is pretty liberal.


James McCrie Douglas: Is the minister prepared to build an armoury or drill hall ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. In all these matters the policy of the department is to request the locality to furnish a site. We are now about two hundred or three hundred sites ahead, more than we can utilize for some time to come. I do not believe that our engineers have a site at Wetaskiwin. If my hon. friend could suggest the advisability of picking out a site, it might hasten the construction of an armoury.


James McCrie Douglas: The gentleman who ran against me, and who holds the patronage, has told the people of Wetaskiwin that there was an estimate this year for a hall


Samuel Hughes: If he could give us a site, he might possibly be telling the truth.


Mr. LAW:: Has the minister decided
upon the size of the armoury which he intends to build at Yarmouth, and when it will be built?


Samuel Hughes: Have they furnished a site? The hon. gentleman's friends were up here and spoke about it. I have no recollection that they had any site in view, though I think they promised one.


Bowman Brown Law: I believe that a site has been purchased, but perhaps notification has not reached the minister. When will the armoury be built?


Samuel Hughes: It cannot be done this year.


Bowman Brown Law: What will be the size of the
armoury?


Samuel Hughes: When the time comes the engineers from Halifax will go down to Yarmouth, look at the sites there, and study the prospects to see whether the town is likely to grow or not. That largely determines the size of a drill hall. We go by the engineers' reports very largely.


Bowman Brown Law: Yarmouth has a population of about seven thousand and is growing, and I have no doubt it will continue to grow in the next few years. 1 would impress upon the minister the necessity of giving us an armoury of good size.


Frank Oliver: I think the city of Edmonton is in the position suggested by my * hon. friend. I think they have provided something in the way of land.


Samuel Hughes: Edmonton was the first town in the West to donate an entire square. I do not know what the value of the site is, but it is a very valuable one, and Edmonton is getting a $200,000 drill hall, suitable for the needs of the city.


Frank Oliver: When will it be begun?


Samuel Hughes: I think it is under way now.


Frank Oliver: What is the department now paying in Edmonton for accommodation?


Samuel Hughes: We are paying $1,900 altogether for rents.


Frank Oliver: For a time I know the officers were considerably out of pocket in paying for accommodation. I saw something in the newspapers recently about the resignation of some officers of the 101st Begiment in Edmonton. Has the minister any information about that?


Samuel Hughes: I have not heard anything about it.
Annual drill, $1,730,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister
kinily explain the enormous increase in this item as compared with two years ago? There must be some good reason. I have gone over the matter hurriedly, but I understand that there is some $600,000 or $700,000 of an increase.


Samuel Hughes: We have not increased
the figures of the year before last.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can give my hon. friend the figures from the report of the Militia Council for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1912. I will look it up and let the minister know what the figures are.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that last year, over the year 1911, there was an-increase of nearly 5,000 men and nearly a thousand horses drilled. This year, over last year, there is an increase of 9,500 men and 3,528 horses drilled.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does that amount include the cadets?


Samuel Hughes: No, we have 30,000 cadets drilling outside of that.


Charles Avila Wilson: What about the boy scouts?


Samuel Hughes: They are not a Government organization, but they are a very excellent organization all the same.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the year 1911-12 you had 45,000 men.
Air. HLlGHES: 44,000. Last year we had 48,140, not including the city corps. Then we had 9,758 horses, an increase of 5,000 Mr. OLIVER.
men and nearly a thousand horses. This year we are going to have 9,000 more men than last year, or 14,000 more than the year before, and 3,500 more horses than last year, or nearly 4,500 more than the year before. The infantry force in two years has increased in numbers over a third and yet the increase in the expenditure for annual drill is very small.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is an increase of about 60 per cent. That may be a very slight increase. But, I find at page 38 of this report that the vote provided $1,169,000 of which $155,000 was unexpended and that left practically $1,000,000. Now the hon. gentleman wants $1,730,000 and $100,000 in the supplementary estimates making $1,800,000. He wants nearly $2,000,000 more than he expended two years ago and yet he says there is only a slight increase.


Samuel Hughes: There were no city corps drilled in camp the year before last. I might point out further that the pay of the men has been increased to a dollar a day, that there are sixteen days' training for a large part of the force and-the whole of the cavalry and artillery. A few years ago a company of fifty-seven would cost $4,500 for pay and allowance and feed in camp. Now the cost is nearly $12,800 owing to the increase in pay. The pay is practically double what it was before, the men were drilled sixteen days last year, the city corps went to camp last year, which they did not do before, and they are going to camp this year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend
mean to say that the city corps did not drill in 1911-12?


Samuel Hughes: Not in camp.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, they got a lot of money if they did not.


Samuel Hughes: They were drilled at their headquarters for twelve days.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They got $217,000.


Samuel Hughes: They will have from four to seven days in camp in addition.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It seems to me that if we do not put the brake on this militia expenditure in some way or other there is no telling what the end is going to be. It is nothin? short of a scandal that we are going to spend between $10,000,000 and $11,000,000 this year on militia in a peace-loving country as Canada is, in which there is no more danger of a possible invasion than there is of an earthquake overtaking the whole Dominion and wiping it off the face of the earth.


Samuel Hughes: There was one the other night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know hardly
what to say. I have no doubt that I will be taken to task in certain quarters for presuming to criticize the militia estimates. It may be said that I am not loyal and all that sort of thing, but I am willing to take all the responsibility of what I am saying now. When it comes to spending $11,000,000 on our militia and when we come to think of the way in which the militia has been increased by the present minister we should st-on and think what it all meansi. It is something terrific. When the hon. gentleman took charge of the department two years aeo there was an expenditure of about $7,000,000.


Samuel Hughes: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon:	He will find it in this report if there is any question about it. I find here that the total expenditure for 1911-12 was $7,579,000. A portion of it was unexpended, so that it brings us practically to $7^000,000. Now the minister has got it in two years, or practically one year because he took the estimates of the old Government for last year, up to $10,500,000, making an increase of $3,000,000 for one year, and he is going to add half a million to that in the supplementaries. There is between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 of a jump in one year. What does he want? Is he going to give us a standing army of 100,000 men? Do we want that? Does he think the people need it? I never heard anyone who had any idea that we would be called upon to use the militia against an enemy except the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who the other night said that in case of war between the United States and Japan it may be necessary to police the borders of the Dominion to prevent our people from sending a few thousand bushels of wheat over to the United States and selling it at the best price they could get for it. If this money was going to, the men who spend their time and devote their energies to the militia service, I would not feel so badly about it, but out of an expenditure of between $10,000,000 and $11,000,000 we have less than $2,000,000 going to the men. My hon friend in his orgies of extravagance has only about $1,830,000 for the men. What on earth becomes of the rest? It would make an interesting story if my hon. friend would take half an hour and try to explain it. Here we have eight and a half millions of money being squandered-I will not say squandered, but being distributed to everybody else, but the men who ought to have it. Surely $1,800,000 ought to be enough for the whole thing. If you take the report and look at page 35 it will give you some little idea of what they do with the money. I find that in the year 1911-12 they spent $243,000 for eighteen-pounder limber wagons
and $366,000 was paid to the War Office on account of thirteen and eighteen pounder guns.
Then, there is a very interesting item of $20,000 for inspection of small arms and scabbards. There must be a lot of men drawing big salaries for doing nothing when you can squander $20,000 for inspecting
13,000	rifles and 20,000 scabbards. The Minister of Railways yesterday told us he was going to take up the rails on a few miles of railway down in New Brunswick, because the road did not pay running expenses; he was taking away from the people a railway connection they had had for forty years because it would cost a portion of $13,000 a year to maintain it, but here we are throwing away $10,000,000 on the militia and $20,000 for the inspection of a few rifles. That may satisfy the ambition of the Minister of Militia, but it is getting to be a very serious matter in Canada. I know that the minister and many of his friends will find fault with me, and I presume his fiiends will say I am the one disloyal man in Canada, but I mean every word I am saving and I hope the public sentiment of Canada will be aroused to such a pitch that they will put a stop to this nonsense. If they have $10,000,000 to spend on militia, an excess of three and one-half million dollars over last year, they could use that money in a hundred different ways to really benefit the people of Canada. There is a great demand for the development of our natural resources and f<ft facilities for carrying on our commerce, but it would seem that the whole occupation of the Minister of Militia is to build up a great army and a great war party in Canada for what earthly reason I do not know except it be the glorification of the Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: No one is charging the
hon. member with being disloyal; at least, I am not; he is merely getting off his annual speech on the militia question. He was always tame when his own party was in power; he used to take a fling once in a while at these fuss and feather fellows and then he would subside. I am delighted to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) again on this question. I want to tell him that I am not spending this money; it is the people of Canada who are demanding this. I want to tell him that we are only drilling-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ten or fifteen per cent
more than ten years ago when it cost only two and a half million dollars.


Samuel Hughes: I am not responsible for ten years ago. I am dealing with the present. We are drilling this year about 56,000 men and 13,000 horses. Let me tell my hon. friend that the people of Canada to the extent of about 70,000 more are de-

manding the right to train themselves and be trained to defend their country. It is the people who are demanding this, it is not the Minister of Militia. They are demanding the right to train themselves to defend their homes and their firesides and their country, and I tell the hon. gentleman that so long as I am Minister of Militia I am going to do my level best to give them a chance to do so, and I am going to do it as economically as it possibly can be done. It is the right of every citizen in the Dominion to train himself, and be trained to defend his country and if he demands that right, I am not the man to tell him he is not to do it. So long as the system is voluntary the people must pay for it; if the system is compulsory, then it will make it much more economic, but whether it is compulsory or whether it is voluntary, arms must be furnished and guns must be bought. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) is an old artillery man, and he knows the cost of a battery of artillery; it costs money, but it is money well spent in the upbuilding of the country. You may look around any part of the universe you choose and show me a race that is not possessed of the military spirit, and I will show you a craven and degenerate race. Show me a part of the world where the people neglect the defence of their homes and their firesides, and run after graft in docks and dredging and railways and I will show you a degenerate race.
Mr.^GRAHAM:	You will have to take
that back when you get into the Railway Department.


Samuel Hughes: I am not going to the
Railway Department. It is presided over by a gentleman of great ability and good looks and splendid capability.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is said
that he is coming out and you are going in.
'' Mr. HUGHES: Not at all. We have nearly
60.000	voluntary militia now and we have
35.000	cadets trained this year in Canada for the modest sum of $10,000,000.


Alphonse Verville: The modest sum.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) speaks of only $2,000,000 reaching the men. Has he ever figured it up? I can give him the expenditures in his own county in recent years and it rolls up to a considerable amount. I am glad to see my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marci]) take an interest in militia matters now. He is generally complaining that his county does not get anything and I am sorry to say that not much money has been spent on militia matters in his county, although there has been a lot of hard-earned money of the people of Canada blown in along the shores of the gulf Mr. HUGHES (Victoria, Ont.)
of St. Lawrence, and the maritime provinces, and Ontario and the West, and I 'do not know that it has built up the manhood of the nation any more than is proper, but I do know that the money spent for the training of the militia makes a better set of men in the Dominion of Canada than we would have if the money were not so spent. I make no apology for my aspiration to have 100,000 men trained and I make no apology direct or indirect for acceding to the demands of the people. As far as I can induce my hard hearted colleagues to go, in the expenditure of public money for* militia matters, I am not going to make an apology.


George Perry Graham: They are a parsimonious lot.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, they are. When
70,000	people rise up in their might and demand the right to be trained, and I have to tell them we have no money to do it, it is pretty hard, but I am glad to say that a great many of them have organized and are training themselves this year without any money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are the women interested in this?


Samuel Hughes: I am glad my hon.
friend asked the question. When I took office I found the good women of the Dominion of Canada down on the militia system of this country, and rightly so to a large extent; I found that they were refusing to allow their sons to go into the camps, but I want to tell my hon. friend that the good women of this country to-day are right behind the militia movement and urging it on in every way they can.


Edmond Proulx: Has the minister closed the canteens?


Samuel Hughes: There never have been any canteens since I have been Minister of 'Militia to be closed. I wish my hon. 'friend (Mr. Carvell) to be good enough to blame the people of Canada but not to blame the Minister of Militia. I point out 'to him that at Confederation it was understood that one-tenth of the annual revenue 'of Canada was to go for the development of the militia of this country and I point but further that I am far from the estimate of one-tenth of the revenue of the Dominion of Canada in my expenditure. That was the understanding with the Imperial Government at the time of Confederation, and I am two or three million dollars yet within that estimate.
M>. OLIVER:	You are catching up
'fast.
' Mr. HUGHES: I intend to catch up fast and I intend to help the people of Canada who are demanding the right to train

themselves to defend their homes and their firesides. I am not urging them to do it. They are coming forward in thousands demanding the right. I have yet to see why they should not be accorded the right. I am sure my hon. friend would rather pay the trifling sum that is required for the training of these extra men than squander it in useless dredging and in erecting wharfs where boats will never tie up.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend mentioned the words ' compulsory system ' a moment ago. When one-sixth of the estimates were being considered, somebody asked him what his views were. I think I am entitled to have his views on that question. He has expressed his views outside of the House during recess, and I think we have a right to know what his views are.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has no right to ask me what my private views are, directly or indirectly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Your views as a minister?


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend has no
right whatever, and I have not accorded him the right to ask what my private views are or my views as a minister. When the matter is decided upon by the Cabinet I shall be glad to let him know what their views are. He has stated that I have made certain statements in the papers. I would like to know what the statements are.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is reported in the
newspapers.


Samuel Hughes: That is a different matter. I stated that in South Africa Louis Botha requires each man who does not turn out and perform his annual drill to contribute the sum of $5 a year to the treasury of the South African colony, in order to maintain the defence of that colony and of the Empire, to keep the old flag flying, as he says, in any part of the world. A similar idea is carried out in Australia, in Switzerland, and in other parts of the world. That is the system adopted in countries where there is practically universal training. I have not said what my views are on the question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: , My hon. friend says that he is compelled to spend all this money. While I believe we ought to have a small militia force in Canada, I see no reason why it should be any larger than it is to-day, if as large. The militia force has not increased to any great extent in the last ten years. The number of men trained is not very much greater. I admit there is an enormous increase in the number of horses, and probably some of these may be necessary, because, if you create a mounted corps you must of course provide it with horses. Horses are expensive, but a number of horses that have
been paid for are absolutely useless. That is what I am grumbling at. There is a company in my own constituency called the No. 1 Company of Engineers, which used to be called the Brighton Engineers. Annually they take to camp twenty to twenty-five horses. They have nothing for these horses to do, and I have seen them standing up at the picket line for the whole ten days. These horses have to be fed and paid for. Last year I pointed out to the hon. minister that he was making a big mistake in taking all these corps to Petawawa. He was determined, however, that the Minister of Militia should be glorified, if ever a man was glorified.


Samuel Hughes: Against my own wishes, 1 carried out the policy that my hon. friend himself inaugurated by supporting his own Minister of Militia, because every plan that was carried out at Petawawa last year was formed by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia. I point-blank refused to carry it out this year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend may blame his predecessor in office if he wants to; but he cannot blame me, because I pointed out to him the difficulty of transporting horses a thousand miles when it was not necessary.


Samuel Hughes: I am not blaming anybody.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I told my hon. friend be would have trouble if he transported these horses a thousand miles, and he has had trouble and nothing but trouble. I asked for a return some time ago and I got an order for it showing all the correspondence regarding claims for horses in the Kent field battery. I find here that about twenty per cent of the horses taken to Petawawa got sick. The department had to pay pretty large claims. The men were dissatisfied, and I am sorry to say that in some cases their claims have not been paid. I have here the claim of one of the drivers who had two horses, one of which was very sick and wa3 laid up for three or four weeks. This driver can get no satisfaction whatever for the loss of his horse, although he has made claim after claim. All this is due to the unbusinesslike policy of my hon. friend in taking these horses a thousand miles when there was no necessity for it. It is such things that cause this enormous expense, without any returns from it. This year I am glad to see that he is taking all these corps to Sussex which is only a short distance. That is all right. The people of Canada are not demanding this expenditure half as much as the Minister of Militia is. I know something of the trouble that the officers are having in regard to recruiting. I do not believe there is a corps in Canada that is not violating the regulations in

order -to fill the companies. Men under age and over age are being taken on. That shows the difficulty the officers are having in getting their corps filled up. When my hon. friend tries to tell us that the sentiment of the country is so great that he has got 70,000 men demanding the right to be trained, I say that this is what he has got. He has got about seventy officers who are demanding the right to form corps and to get these men to train, for their own glorification. It is not the men who want it; it is the fellows who want to be officers, and who want to create these corps. They go around and coax the young men and the old men to come into the corps. Then my hon. friend comes down to Parliament and says. See what we have done. If my hon. friend would ask the ordinary people, he would find that they do not want this militia expenditure. I know, in the atmosphere in which he is living, he hears nothing else, and he does not want to hear anything else, because it is music to his ears when these fellows come to him from all parts of the country and say to mm. We want a corps here and a corps there.


Samuel Hughes: Liberal members and
Tory members.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know who they are-just the class of men I have been describing. However, I have pointed out one of his blunders, and one way in which money is being squandered. Not very much-[DOT] only $10,000 or $15,000.


Samuel Hughes: Ten times that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That just shows how easy it is to squander $100,000. I am not opposed to a reasonable militia force. I believe, probably it is necessary; I am opposed to this unwarranted squandering of public money.


John Hampden Burnham: What does the hon.
gentleman think the militia force is necessary for?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a very pertinent question. The only time within my lifetime that I have seen actual need for the militia force was in 1885, when we had trouble in the Northwest, and it was necessary to send men out there. And it is once in a while necessary to turn out a few men to support the civil authorities.


John Hampden Burnham: To put down labour
riots?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not labour riots particularly, but any disturbance in which the civil power requires the support of the militia force. The militia has been used for that, and may be used for it again. But we have now a permanent force that will attend to that and we do not have to Mr. CARVELL.
call out the militia for it. If there is anything to be added to this answer to my hon. friend, I do not know what it is. At the time of the South African war, we sent some men to South Africa. But we did not send only the Canadian militia; the militia formed the nucleus and supplied the machinery by which men volunteered.


Charles Marcil: We sent no organized corps.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. But though I
have seen but one occasion for the use of militia in my lifetime, I would not say to disband the militia. I say that every country ought to have a reasonable militia. But I object to this enormous increase of expenditure. When we get to $7,000,000, that ought to be the time to quit, but the Minister of Militia thinks it the time to begin, and if he is allowed to have his way, instead of' $10,000,000, he will spend $20,000,000. He proposes to spend ten per cent of the total revenue, and as the revenue is expected to be $200,000,000 next year, that will mean $20,000,000.


Samuel Hughes: I did not think it was
so high. Fine!


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the estimate of the Finance Minister, and I take him as an authority. The Minister of Militia will find opportunity to spend it-if it was $40,000,000, he would spend it, and much of it, no doubt, on just such useless affairs as in his transportation of horses to Peta-wawa. He will not repeat that expenditure, because he has had his lesson, but he will do something else next year that will be just as bad. He has to do it to spend the money. He will buy-


An hon. MEMBER:: Automobiles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, no doubt he will
buy more automobiles. But I do not wish to discuss the automobiles now; an item will come up on which that discussion will be more in order. But I think the Minister of Militia should tell this committee that he is going to quit this enormous expenditure of public money.
"Mr. PROULX: There is some criticism in the press of the army of high officials that are drawing high salaries, yet without work to do. A Government paper speaks of $200,000 spent on 'Scotch and soda officers', meaning, I suppose, officers who spend their time at the club &nd have no work to do.


Samuel Hughes: Let me say a word in reply to the hon. member for Carleton. In 1911, while a Government supported by my hon. friend was in power, the camp was
assembled at Petawawa, exactly the same as last year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman
knows that we took the men, not the horses.


Samuel Hughes: In 1911, men and horses went to Petawawa. In 1912 my predecessor had laid out the plans to go to Petawawa, and to take the officers and men. I came into office-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. minister mean to tell me that the Woodstock field
battery took their horses to Petawawa?


Samuel Hughes: They did or-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They did not.


Samuel Hughes: I tell him, the Tenth did.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Tenth may have done so, but they did not. Nor did they in 1911.


Samuel Hughes: They change about. Some New Brunswick batteries took their horses last year, and some did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want the
hon. minister to state to me things that are not true.


Samuel Hughes: I am not stating things that are not true. What I said was that the 10th brigade and the 11th brigade- six batteries-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not New Brunswick,


Samuel Hughes: There was the Moncton battery, and that is in New Brunswick, as the hon. member should know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not mean the
3rd brigade.


Samuel Hughes: They came from New Brunswick. They did not bring their horses, but horses were hired for them here. But others did bring horses. The Woodstock battery did bring horses last year; I presume they did not the year before. But that camp was laid out and carried out, as I stated, last session on lines not approved by me. If the hon. member will look at 'Hansard' be will see that I pointed out that this camp was going to be carried out against my judgment, but because the plans had been laid down by the officers of the Department and by my predecessor, I would carry out their plans for that year, but it would not occur again; and it has not occurred again.


Mr. McLEAN (Sunbury & Queens):: I think the people of Canada are in favor of maintaining an adequate militia force. Also I hold that we are not expending enough money on our militia. I see by the estimates that we are spending for the drill of militia only $1,730,000. The active militia of Canada are underpaid.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with that.


Mr. McLEAN:: Take the militia men obliged to bring horses to camp for $1 a day, when they can get $2 a day for every one of their horses. Remember, too, the class of men we bring to camp, and paid only half of what they could earn by staying at home. The people of Canada seem to have the opinion that an annual camp is a picnic. Let any gentleman come to camp, and he will see the sheer hard work these men have to undertake. From five o'clock in the morning until six o'clock at night they are working hard. What I object to- and I am speaking now only of the active militia-is: First, the men are underpaid; second, that the horses they supply are underpaid; third, that too small a number of men are drilled; and, fourth, they are not drilled for a sufficently long time. Take, for example, the tactical programme, look at the programme they have marked out for us. I want to object strongly to the new tactical work that has been marked out for the militia of Canada to go through unless preliminary instruction is provided for the regiment before going to camp. Without that it is absolutely impossible to take these men into camp and ask them to perform the work set out in this scheme. We have only twelve days' drill. There is one day to go in, one day to go out, one day for Sunday; that is three days; there are nine days left. Then, we have squad drill, one day. Squad drill, as you know, is the groundwork. In the regular army, a recruit is required to be instructed in squad drill for at least three months. The next day is for company drill. Then they have a day in battalion drill. In a city corps they will be working night after night for weeks and months before they are able to properly perform battalion drill. Then there is one day for brigade drill. Then allow for wet days and "what have we left? Two more days. Then there comes the field day, the tactical day. The tactical day is supposed to be a miniature fight. The red body is sent away down some place, and the blue some place else, and then they march a great number of miles and are supposed to come together-and, according to the rules, the battle has to end at twelve o'clock because they have to have dinner. What I want to impress on the members is that in the first place there is not enough money spent on the active militia, in the actual training, and there is not sufficient time spent on the annual training. Any man who has had any experience in the active militia knows that, with the material that we have in Canada, our men can learn more in one week than men in other places can learn in a month or even a greater time. If our militia service had instructors there would be a great improvement in the

conditions. That is the great want of our militia. The present minister and his predecessor are not responsible for this. Who are responsible? I do not know, but I know, as the commander of a regiment for a number of years, and as the commander of a brigade for a number of years, that it is " impossible to _ get a sufficient number of efficient instructors during a camp. Therefore I say that the first _ thing we want is a large increase in the number of instructors. Our men are keen to .learn, our officers are keen to learn, but we have not the instructors. We want a corps of instructors whose services will be available throughout the year. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) is an old militia officer, I have seen him in camp for a great number of years; he has been a most efficient officer, he knows the requirements of the militia as well as I do. The present Minister of Militia is an old militia officer. I believe that the present minister's heart and soul are in the militia. I believe that he will do his utmost to increase the efficiency of the militia; but we do want a radical change in some respects. We know that before the Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, the late Minister of Militia, became minister, the militia of Canada was sadly neglected. Under his efficient control and management the militia of Canada advanced at a marvellous rate-


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Angus Alexander McLean: -as regards efficiency, esprit de corps and everything that makes up a militia force.


John Hampden Burnham: I understand the hon. member for Carleton (Mr-. Carvell) to take a view of the military affairs of Canada which is incompatible with the proper consideration of that subject, at any rate in my opinion. As I understand him, he is in favour of a permanent force. He thinks that anything in the way of civil war or labour riots, industrial conflicts, whatever it may be, might be put down by a permanent corps. He believes that it may be supposed to be able to put down such troubles as those if they arise. For my part, I am altogether against that. I do not believe in that son of thing at all. A permanent force, so far as I can understand military affairs, which perhaps is not very far-but in this I think I am voicing to a certain extent the views of some of the people of Canada-a permanent force is not needed in Canada; what is needed is some such body as the militia which affords a system of training for the young men, not necessarily to fore each other, and go at each other or to attack people inside or outside of Canada; its greatest Mr. McLEAN (Sunbu-ry and Queens).
usefulness is as a system of discipline. I understand that the Minister of Militia has some such view in regard to militia affairs and that that is why he is developing so rapidly the cadet, system; it is to introduce a spirit of 'discipline and esprit de corps into the youth of Canada. I would therefore take away the two and one-half or three million dollars provided for the permanent corps in the estimates, which would reduce the estimates by so much, and add one-half of that amount to the development of the militia corps. _ That would have the effect of perhaps bringing down the estimates to a certain extent and of developing the young man of Canada in the way that it seems to me they ought to be developed. I cannot express myself too strongly against the theory that we should provide a permanent force in Canada for the suppression of our own people.


Mr. CURRIE:: What is the hon. gentleman going to do? We promised to Great Britain to man the fortresses a few years ago, and how is he going to do that if he takes away the permanent corps?


John Hampden Burnham: I would reconstruct
that agreement, if necessary.


Mr. WHITE (Renfrew):: My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) referred to the Petawawa camp, and -to the fact that last year the Department of Militia and Defence spent a considerable amount of money in transporting horses from New Brunswick to that camp. Probably my hon. friend has never had the pleasure of visiting Petawawa camp.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was there once, and
why on earth the Militia Department bought the place, or should send men there every year, is something I cannot understand. It is nothing but a great sand plain, and would kill any horse and almost any man who goes there.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
is the only man who has visited Petawawa camp who speaks of it in that way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never saw such an
ugly place in my life.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will do me the honour to take a trip up there with me when the House prorogues, I shall be glad to show him around, and probably he will form a better impression.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You cannot change those sand banks.


William Thomas White: However, that is not the
purpose for which I rose. I wanted to ask my hon. friend to be good enough to look up the Auditor General's Report ror the last three years, and he will find that during the time his friends were in office, a certain hardware firm in the town of Pembroke,

naturally of Liberal persuasion, supplied the Petawawa camp with a great many articles. I would like to refer to a few of the articles which that firm supplied to the camp, and I would ask my hon. friend and the House if they think that these articles could not be purchased cheaper from the different firms who deal in such articles.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What has
that to do with the item we are discussing?


William Thomas White: It has as much to do with it as horses have. I find in the Auditor General's Report that the following articles were purchased from Dewar & Ryan, hardware merchants, Pembroke:	15 cases
of toilet paper, 850 wooden chairs, 11.31 tons of ice, 5,000 bricks, 120 yards of cotton, 1,038 yards of cotton, 120 yards of flannelette, 9 pairs of rubber boots, at $4.14 per pair; 1,000 feet of lumber at $42; 758 feet
o.f lumber at $28 and 400 feet of lumber at $38.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is my hon. friend not aware that in all military camps they go to one firm and ask them to supply the necessary articles for the camp?


William Thomas White: That is not the policy
which the present Minister of Militia is adopting. This same firm of Dewar & Ryan, hardware merchants of Pembroke, also supplied one Concord buggy and one set of harness, 680 feet 4-inch agricultural tile, 2 sides of leather, and 21,000 shingles. If 1 had time I could enumerate several other articles.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What about it?


William Thomas White: Naturally Dewar & Ryan
had to get their profit, and where was the other man to get a profit?


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps Dewar and
Ryan did not get any profit at all.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows better than that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would be quite possible for Dewar and Ryan to purchase these articles, and to supply them as cheaply as the other firms.	*


William Thomas White: Perhaps my hon. friend'
knows all about it. If he would look at the Auditor General's report he might find the prices which those people charged, and 'I venture to say that the present Minister 'of Militia is purchasing the supplies for Petawawa camp at rock bottom prices. I 'could turn up the Auditor General's report 'and show that certain firms which supplied the Petaw-aw-a camp got all kinds of profit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where are the supplies purchased now?


William Thomas White: From all over the country. On the 20th of March last an inquiry was sent to- Messrs. Dunlop & Co., of 'Pembroke, with regard to supplies for Petawawa camp. They aggregate about $1,000, 'and I would like to read to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) what Dunlop & Co. supplied at that time. They supplied seventy pounds of strictly half and half solder and only five half piint bottles 'of solderall, amounting to something over '$18.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What did it cost the year before?
1 Mr. WHITE: I have not got the figures.


William Findlay Maclean: Then what is the good 'of that comparison?
1 Mr. NESBITT:	I could buy that half
find half solder f,or forty cents a pound.


William Thomas White: Is that so?


William Findlay Maclean: What are the politics of this firm, Dunlop & Co.? .


William Thomas White: I want to tell my hon.
friends opposite that the present Minister of Militia is carrying on his department in a businesslike manner.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If that solder is an illustration, I doubt it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some years ago I was
an officer in the militia, and I can tell my hon. friend how these things are done. The Government make a contract, or at least they used to do so, with one firm, or with one man to supply the articles required for the camp. The man usually ran a store in the New Brunswick camps, and I think I can tell my hon. friend who will run that store this year at Sussex.


John Allister Currie: The same man?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think so. The job was always put up to tender, but my hon. friend will see to it this year that some good Conservative runs the store. The man who ran the store furnished all the articles required for the camp. That is the reason that the man is able to sell these different varieties of articles and that is exactly what is done at Pembroke or Petawawa. The only question -is whether the articles were supplied at a reasonable price or not. I do not know and I do not care very much. I am willing to admit that the Militia Department was run just about as extravagantly when my friends were in power as it is now. About the same class of officials were running it.


William Thomas White: But the policy is different.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The policy is different? The only difference is that they have transformed it into a straight Tory policy.


William Thomas White: Not at all. As far as
Petawawa is concerned, no Tory need apply when the late Administration was in power.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I expected to have some explanation from the minister with regard to the remarks made by mv hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury (Mr. McLean). He is an active member of the militia, one of those who was in command of the Canadians who went to England at the time of the coronation, and he states that the annual camp is a farce, and that the money spent is squandered. Does not my hon. friend think that the time has come for a sweeping reform? I admit that my hon. friend is a good officer, and we have to expect some reforms from him. He has been told by a fellow-officer that the organization is a farce from beginning to end, and yet he sits there silent and does not have any explanation to offer to the committee. I would like to know before we. vote $10,000,000 if any reforms are going to take place and if he is going to see that our young men are properly drilled by the necessary number of instructors. There are no instructors at these camps or, if there are, they are perfectly useless, according to the statement made by my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queens. What is the minister going to do about it?


Samuel Hughes: I am delighted to see
that my hon. friend from Rouville is so energetic and so greatly interested in the welfare of the militia. The hon. member for Sunbury and Queens never said there was no organization of the militia, and therefore I do not need to answer what my hon. friend did not say. My hon. friend spoke of the instructors, and we will come to the matter of instructors in good time. We have trained upwards of 8,000 instructors in this country, and I purpose initiating a policy of training a great many more officers, but I do not want to enunciate that policy until I am ready to cany it out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where are they?


Samuel Hughes: From the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want them by provinces.


Samuel Hughes: I do not have to give
them by provinces because I have not got them. I could give the cadet instructors by provinces but I do not propose to do so until the item comes up. i do not propose to trespass upon another item. The pay of the men has been doubled in the last ten years, and the pay for horses has been increased 25 per cent this year.


Frank Oliver: What is it now?


Samuel Hughes: $1.25 a day for all
classes and $1.50 for heavy gun horses.
Mr. CARVEiLL.
The men are being very well looked after as well as the horses, and I agree with the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens that until there is compulsory training, which seems a long way off, you cannot expect men to turn out and give their time and money to tha upkeep of the militia force without getting some fair recompense tor it. I admit that the men are not getting as much pay as they are worth, but they are being paid as jvell as most militiamen the world aver.


Frank Oliver: This is a most important item of the estimates, it is a large item and it brings up a very important question. We have had in this House during the last three or four months a lengthy discussion with regard to Empire defence. We were instructed by our friends that Canada was not able to undertake her proper part in Empire defence because she did not have the men and she did not have the spirit to take that part; that is to say, the defence of the Empire by sea. Therefore, we were required to vote a sum of money to he expended in providing battleships which should be manned by British sailors under the direction and control of the British Admirality. The discussion we have had to-night would almost indicate that, so far as the land forces are concerned, we are far from perfection and, by the same process of reasoning that we have' heard during the past four or five months, instead of further carrying on this militia force at an expense of $10,000,000 because that force must be for the defence of the Empire-it is not for the defence of Canada, because Canada has not needed defence for a matter of thirty years-we should hand that money over to the British War Office. I want to ask the minister if, on that process of reasoning to which the House was subjected during so many months it would not be the part of wisdom, of patriotism and particularly of loyalty to the Empire, if, instead of carrying on this system of drill which my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queens says is not efficient, instead of maintaining the camp at Petawawa, which my hon. friend here says is not useful for the purpose, instead of bringing out men to drill, as I understand some hon. gentleman to say they only go from time to time and not as a regular matter of enlistment, it would not be in line with the policy that the Government, of which the minister is a member, and his leader and his party, have insisted upon so strongly for the past five months, having regard to all these facts, to take the $10,000,000 and hand it over to the British War Office for expenditure by that office in defence of the Empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And bring back General Hutton.


Samuel Hughes: Carried.


Frank Oliver: No, I would like to have the answer of my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch the question. Will the hon. gentleman repeat the question?


Frank Oliver: I am asking the minister, in view of the policy which he has supported in regard to the defence of the Empire, in view of the facts that have been brought out in the debate, does he not think that-


Samuel Hughes: What are the facts to
which the hon. gentleman has referred?


Frank Oliver: As he has heard. Is he
not required, in carrying out principles to which he and his- Government are pledged, to change the tenor of this vote and hand this $10,000,000 over to the British War Office for the defence of the Empire?


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman
would be good enough to point out the facts to which he refers, I would be delighted to answer his question, but I cannot assume the question on his premises until I know what they are.
__ Mr. OLIVER: If the Minister of Militia is not able to give this Dominion a more efficient and effective military service, is 'it not for him to say to the British War Office: Here is $10,000,000; you know how 'to spend it better than I do; spend it for the defence of the Empire.
_ Mr. HUGHES:	I have heard.no criticism against the militia to-night, from any gentleman who is in a position to know anything about the militia. My hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury (Mr. McLean) has upheld the militia, and has pointed out that we should spend more money, to which iny hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) objected. The hon. member from Queens-Sunbury says further that we should provide for a longer annual training tout to that I object because the men of this country cannot leave their business for more than the present number of days to devote to annual training. I stand here to say that Canada has a militia to-day which is second to no militia in the world. I have seen the Swiss militia and they cannot compare with the Canadian militia; I have 'seen the French regiments and I can pick out fifty per cent of the militia regiments of Canada which are just as good as the best of the French regiments; our militia regiments are just as good as the best of 'the German regiments and as good as the British regiments except about twenty per 'cent of them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did my hon. friend see 'the German regiments?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.
' Mr. LEMIEUX: Last year?
' Mr. HUGHES:	I was not there last
year, I was there the year before, and I 'may say that I was almost induced from half a dozen high sources to go to Germany last year but I had no time as I was attending the British and French manoeuvres.
; Mr. LEMIEUX: What about your Vancouver speech?


Samuel Hughes: The Canadian militia to-day stands second to -no militia in the wide, wide world.


Frank Oliver: Did the minister state in this House that the Canadian militia are efficient ?


Samuel Hughes: I did, a large percentage of them.


Frank Oliver: Am I to understand they are serving willingly and at pay which does not compensate them for their lost time ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frank Oliver: They are enthusiastic and capable ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to misunderstand what the minister said; did the Minister of Militia say they were enthusiastic and capable ?


Samuel Hughes: Fire ahead, I did.


Frank Oliver: They are enthusiastic, capable, efficient, and there are 45,000 of them ?


Samuel Hughes: More than that; 73,000.


Frank Oliver: We have 73,000 men in Canada whom the Minister of Militia says are efficient ?


Samuel Hughes: Nearly all of them.


Frank Oliver: And are enthusiastic and are willing to make sacrifices for . their country, and are willing to do military service at loss and cost to themselves, and yet the Minister of Militia is a member of a Government and a member of a party which during five months in this House has placed a libel upon the people of Canada; has persisted in it; has insulted the manhood of Canada by the declaration that Canadians would not do by sea what they do by land. I say that Canada resents that insult; the people of Canada fling that insult in the face of the Prime Minister and his Government and his party.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are anxious on this side of the House to assist the minister in getting through his estimates, but let it be understood that he must civilly answer a fair question.. We have demon-



strated during the last six months that ye can stay here and continue to ask him questions if necessary. Now let us start out with a fair understanding. The minister says he has trained 8,000 instructors last year.


Samuel Hughes: I said 8,000 cadet and
militia instructors were trained in Canada up to the end of last year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, that would mean ever since Canada was civilized and we had a militia, but many of them are hors de combat now. One of the great difficulties in the militia of Canada is the lack of efficient instructors. Does the minister mean they have trained 8,000 men in the last year, or how many have they trained ? What number of instructors are there at present ? And what provision are they making for instructing each individual company or regiment.


Samuel Hughes: The number of instructors we passed last year, including cadet instructors, was: Nova Scotia, 593; New Brunswick, 620; Prince Edward Island, 194; British Columbia, 272; Ontario, 193; Alberta, 389; Manitoba, 346; Saskatchewan, 117; Quebec, 189.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are not talking about cadets just now. How many thoroughly competent instructors has the minister to send around the different military camps and corps this year ?


Samuel Hughes: We have already about one hundred and twenty competent instructors for the militia regiments, and there are others attached to the regiments themselves. The permanent corps is being instructed so that a large number of men will become competent instructors in a few years. In former times men of the permanent force were not called upon to be instructors at all, and were never given the opportunity of drilling a squad. Instructions have been given out for some time that each man shall have the opportunity regularly of standing in front of a squad and drilling them. In a short time we hope to find out who have the quality of being instructors and who have not. We are pursuing that policy in the hope of developing the whole force as far as possible, so that within a year they will be pretty well qualified to be instructors. These instructors are sent from corps to corps during the winter and to the camps in the summer. In answer to my hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury (Mr. McLean), I may say that in place of having the permanent corps of Canada to act as fatigue men and markers in the butts, these men are to be attached to the various Mr. CARVELL.
forces as models and, those capable, as instructors.


Angus Alexander McLean: As a member of the active militia, and as having been present at camp for a number of years, I wish to complain of the want of instructors. The Minister of Militia states that a full corps of instructors will be provided in the future. I agree with the hon. minister in that policy. In the past a large amount of money was spent on the permanent corps, and the men of that corps were not trained as instructors. It would require at least one instructor per company, although there should be more.
Another objection is this. It always seemed to me that we should have in Canada a permanent corps of instructors, composed of officers and non-commissioned officers. A non-commissioned officer^ in order to be an efficient instructor, requires ability and training. He ought to be paid a salary in accordance with the work he performs. We want more officer-instructors. The Minister of Militia will agree with me that the officers of a corps are occupying a very doubtful position when a sergeant comes out and drills the corps. I think you should have officer-instructors, at least one per regiment, one per battery of artillery, and so on with the different branches of the service.


Samuel Hughes: We have practically
developed already a system of training officers, and you may include in that instructors. At the present time, in order to take a commission, one must pass the junior, intermediate and senior examinations for the British army. The papers have to be examined in Great Britain. The consequence is that very few officers have the opportunity of qualifying. The militia officers cannot write on these examinations as they are shut out. We have therefore developed a system, after a good deal of study, of examinations in and for the Canadian Militia, so that any private, sergeant or officer may have the opportunity of writing, when he feels qualified to pass the examination. At the present time there is no such opportunity for a Canadian volunteer. In this way we hope to have a large number of young men, especially in connection with our university corps and the various cadet corps throughout the country, thoroughly qualified in all that pertains to the instruction of any_ corps that we might wish to deal with in our annual camp. There is no intention that a young man, who passes an examination entitling him to command a regiment, shall command one. It merely gives him his certificate of knowledge. He might stand in the ranks, as other men have done with similar

certificates, as a private or a subordinate officer and work his way up gradually. We would have, however, at the disposal of the country in time of need a large body of men thoroughly qualified as instructors. In the course of a year or two, I hope there will be young men in every village, town and city of the Dominion who will take no second place to any instructor, whether he be of the permanent service in the Dominion of Canada or elsewhere.


Mr. ROBB:: Is there any discrimination in the policy of the Department as between city officers and country officers?


Samuel Hughes: No, I know the case my hon. friend refers to. I looked into the matter. My hon. friend refers to the case of an officer appointed for command over another officer. These promotions come from the commanding officer in the various localities. Unless for very special reasons and unless our attention is drawn to the matter, we accept the recommendation of the district or brigade officer. We take it for granted that they do their duty. If an officer is specially reported against as not being able to manage his men, and the other man reported over him, we do not know the conditions and the thing goes through. I know the case the hon. gentleman refers to, though I did not know it until he first drew my attention to it. Otherwise, I would have made inquiries. The officer was promoted over another, because that other was not considered competent to command the squadron.


James Alexander Robb: The officer in question is
too good a soldier to have the matter brought up in Parliament and ventilated. A great injustice was done to that officer, and it is not a matter of yesterday, but has apparently been going on for years with other officers. It has been a great discouragement to officers in that regiment. I dp not know to what extent that kind of thing prevails through Canada. While I am on my feet, and in order that my hon. friend from Carleton may not be alone in the statement that we are going on too fast with militia expenditure, I desire to add a word. To-morrow morning, when the people read the statement of the minister that the policy of his department is to spend ten per cent of the Dominion revenue on militia-


Samuel Hughes: The minister has not said it. What the minister said was that that was the policy laid down at Confederation by agreement with the Imperial authorities.


James Alexander Robb: And the minister is approaching it very rapidly. Take the position as we have it, and not holding the minister down to>
that statement. The expenditure now has reached ten or eleven millions of dollars. It will possibly run up, within ten years, to an average of $15,000,000. Is that extreme? I think not. Now, the Department of Agriculture has done a good deal of advertising, and has sounded trumpets before it to announce that it is going to spend $10,000,000 in ten years for agriculture. Their expenditure will be quite insignificant compared with that of the Militia, which will be $150,000,000 in ten years. I think that the members on both sides, and the members of the Cabinet, should say to the Minister of Militia right now that this must be stopped, that it is not the policy of the people of Canada to spend $150,000,000 on militia in ten years.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman does not seem to be posted. He forgets that agriculture does not belong to the Dominion, per se; it belongs to the provinces, and is so treated by the provinces. In the states of the American union the militia is under control of the state, and the building of drill halls is under the same control. The matter is very largely under the control of the officers of the militia. Suppose that, let us say, in Rochester, New York, a drill hall is required, the officer in charge simply notifies the municipality that it must furnish a drill hall of a certain size and build, the people have to pay for it. And the militia are paid out of the state vote, just as in the Swiss cantons to a very large extent. Therefore, these items do not appear in federal expenses in those countries. But in Canada, the cost of militia building, the upkeep^ of the militia come out of the Dominion treasury. The vote for agriculture does not.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: Mr. Chairman, I have not very well understood the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. McLean), but I do not think I am mistaken in saying that he has approved of .the expenditure asked for in behalf of the Canadian militia, and even then he does not find it sufficient. Whatever the hon. member may think about it, I believe that if in the last election he had used the same language when addressing his electors, he would not occupy t'he seat he now occupies in this House, and that if he undertakes to repeat those words at the next election, his electors shall think otherwise than he does and shall make him aware of it.
As to the hon. member for Carleton, I share his views. The military expenditure is not at all in proportion with the amount we spend for agriculture. Having read the list of the main estimates which amount, for the Militia Department, to $10,479,065, and of the supplementary estimates brought

down the other day and which run up to $438,240, I find the total expenditure to be $10,917,305. To my mind, this item is extravagant and should not be voted by this House before a substantial deduction has been made.
When I was a candidate at the election of 1908 and of 1911, I reproached my opponent with not having protested against the military estimates being run up to six or seven million dollars. Instead of six millions we have to face, to-day, an expenditure of nearly eleven million dollars for military purposes only. This is something extraordinary and I think the hon. Minister oE Militia himself would be surprised to witness how unwelcome is the increase which he asks us to vote, if he took the trouble of consulting the hon. members, even those sitting on this side of the House.
The financial conditions of the country, prosperous though they be, do not allow us to dispense with the rules of prudence. Moreover, we are not in South America or in Europe, where the nations are always exposed to war. We have but one neighbour, and we cannot be sheltered against his attacks by means of an expenditure which is extravagant, if not useless. I think the hon. minister of Militia should reconsider his figures before asking us to follow him in the direction of an extraordinary increase as regards the military estimates.
I know also that the people of our country are opposed to such policy which will have no other result than to bring us considerable harm even from our friends.
I -wish to enter my protest against any military estimate which we may dispense with. We have no rebellion to fear. We are far from the time when we might dread the blows of those fools and rascals of 1837 and 1838-to use the words attributed to the hon. 'minister-whose attention I would call to the fact that there were such fools and rascals in Lower and Upper Canada as well, of different race and tongue, but fighting for the same principle of a responsible government, for a government of the people by its mandatories. .
Those fools and those rascals were men of spirit and men of honour, whose doings have gone down to posterity, and the memory of those martyrs of liberty is deep-rooted yet in the hearts of their offspring, a few of whom are in this House and do not like the memory of those heroes to be tainted with impunity. We do not want military men in our country as much as we want farmers. There are always too many people who try to live at the worker's expense.
Let us encourage the farmer and the manufacturer; we shall never spend too much for this purpose. If foodstuffs are scarce and dear to-day in our country it is Mr. BOULAY.
because the consumers exceed the producers in number, and we should help the latter before all.
Those are the few remarks I had to make on this subject and, really, I cannot approve of the extraordinary expenditure which is asked for in the estimates and *which means an increase of nearly three million dollars as compared with that of last year.


Samuel Hughes: My imperfect knowledge of the beautiful French language has prevented me from .following in detail the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I shall see his words to-morrow in 'Hansard', and, I * hope, will have an opportunity to answer him.


Frank Oliver: In regard to this item for drill expenses, if my hon. friend is going to insist on keeping control of the militia and military expenditure instead of handing it over to the Imperial authorities for better management in their hands, of course he will have to listen to such advice as is offered to him from time to time. I do not speak as a military man, but as a citizen interested in the well being and well doing of the militia force of Canada. There have been placed before the House to-night by those in close touch with military matters statements that would indicate that conditions are not all that would be desirable. There are difficulties of recruiting for the camps. There are difficulties amongst the officers of regiments here and there. Let me suggest that the militia organization depends to some extent upon social conditions, and as social conditions have changed in this country that system which was adequate, sufficient and satisfactory twenty or thirty years ago is not so to-day when conditions all over the country are considered.
I speak first of the case of officers. Officers are required to undertake large expense which they undertake for their own pleasure and for the good of the country as prominent, patriotic citizens. Amongst these expenditures they must provide their uniforms. I do not know what would be considered proper to happen to a man who would .suggest that that which has always been in military matters should cease to be; some terrible thing might happen; but I am going to risk it, and I would say that in my humble judgment when an ordinary citizen of Canada, with a good share of patriotism and so circumstanced that he is able to give attention, time and energy to the work of being an officer of a company or battalion of volunteers, when he gives the proper time and attention to his own training and to looking after the force of which he is an officer, he has done all that can be reasonably required of him by the country.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: To ask him to pay for
expensive uniforms is simply an imposition and takes the matter out of the realm of patriotism and efficiency and transfers it into the realm of financial ability or social aspiration. That I do not think is good for the force and it is not' in accord -with the present condition or spirit of the country. I am quite aware that as matters were in Canada thirty, forty or fifty years ago that was a perfectly right and proper idea, probably the best idea on which the system could be based, but I desire to press upon the attention of the minister that the condi. tion of Canada has changed so that that system of dealing with the officers of the militia is not suitable, does not bring the best results, and, so far as western Canada is concerned, is to a great extent impracticable. I know we have volunteer forces in the West and probably they will size up very well with those in other parts of Canada, but if so it is because of even greater sacrifices made under more difficult circumstances by the men who are taking the responsibility of acting as officers in those forces. I do not know what would happen to the minister if he should suggest such a thing as that the country should buy and pay for the uniforms of the officers. He has a reputation of doing as he likes, and I only hope he will like to do what I suggest. I have no personal feeling in the matter as I have never been a military officer.


Samuel Hughes: You would make a gallant colonel.


Frank Oliver: And I have very little
hope of ever being one; but I would like to see matters run on a basis of fair play, and I would like to see a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of expense. I have no doubt there would be a very serious outcry against such a departure, not from the taxpayers, although there might be some objection from them; but I have no doubt that a great many men now associated with military matters who are there in perpetuation of the ideas that formerly prevailed, would object to any such proposition. It would introduce a new element into the management of militia affairs; but I urge upon the minister that, the conditions having changed, the old system is no longer suitable and that the change of conditions should be met even by such a conservative institution as the Militia Department of Canada.
What is true in regard to the officers is also true in regard to the men. I am glad to know that the pay of the men has been increased. Judged by military standards generally it is liberal pay, but at the same time it is not liberal pay when judged according to the standard of earnings by men whom it is desirable to get into these militia camps and to have
identified themselves with volunteer affairs. We want to get good men into the volunteer force. We want to get the man who has employment, not the man who has not employment. While a dollar a day and rations may be a reasonable amount to the man who has not employment, it is not reasonable pay to the man who has employment and it is the man who has employment who is the valuable man in a militia camp. While it would be a very radical departure-and I hesitate to make the suggestion, if they were paid just double to_ start with-it would not be more than fair, and I thoroughly believe that if the pay were doubled we would be able to get the class of men to enter the militia force and to take an interest in it who do not do so now. It is not because of the actual cash value, but because they would feel that their willingness to serve their country was being reasonably recognized by the country. At the present time I am satisfied that no man who is in valuable employment can leave that employment and take the risks, which attach to leaving it, who will go to a military camp and serve for a dollar a day and consider that the country is giving him fair and reasonable remuneration for the sacrifice he is making.
I am given to understand that it is difficult to fill the regiments for the annual drill, and that sometimes it is a question of drumming up men who happen not to be in employment at the time in order to fill the regiments at the camp. That is not satisfactory. Instead of being a saving of money, to my mind, it is very largely throwing it away, because you are not "getting the men who, having had training this year, wilL attend the camp next year, and thus have the advantage of the previous training. This country is different from what it used to be, and, different from other countries. We will have to revise our ideas in regard to the volunteer militia if we are going to get the sacrifice and service that we want, and that we were able to get thirty or forty years ago. Our young men have just as much of the spirit of patriotism as the men in those days had, but the conditions are different, and the changed conditions have not been met by a change of conditions in the militia organization.
The low pay which is given to the * men works back on the officers. They must make sacrifices or expenditures in order to keep up the interest of the men. That is an unjust tax upon the officers. It is a principle that is contrary to the spirit of this country, and there should be in substantial and tangible form recognition by the country at large of the sacrifices that are being made for the country by the men who are engaged in the militia force. That would be an inspiration to the force, and would make it an object of ambition instead of

having it looked upon coolly. We hold, too much to the old traditions in regard to militia matters, and are not adapting our militia arrangements to the new conditions.
It may be said that the suggestions I have made would increase the militia expenditure so enormously that they are not to be considered. In my judgment, it would be better to cut the force in half, to have the men _ efficient, enthusiastic, satisfied and ambitious in their calling, than to have the number we have at present with a rather cool and careless spirit. I know the suggestions I have made are very radical, and I quite recognize the courage that^ would be necessary on the part of the minister to accept any of them, but as a rank outsider, as one who has no interest to serve in connection with the militia, but the desire, as an ordinary citizen, to see it efficient to the last degree, creditable to the country, and satisfactory to the men who are in it, I make the suggestions.


Charles Avila Wilson: Can the minister favour us with some information as to the location of the proposed military school or armoury in Montreal? I understand that he had some interviews with the city council of Montreal as to the location of the drill ground or camp. Can he tell us what conclusion he has arrived at?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has pleaded that he has had no military training. He has certainly the proper military spirit, and if he had just a little bit of training, he would have made an excellent soldier. It is not too late yet, and I would like to see him at the head of one of the squadrons in the Northwest in the near future. I would like to see him in the saddle leading his men into camp. He has referred to the matter of uniforms. I agree with him, and I think everyone will agree, that an officer on becoming qualified should be given his drill uniform, at any rate. 1 do not think there is any reason why an officer should be called upon to put his hand in his pocket and buy the uniform which is necessary for his drill in connection with serving his country in camp, in the cities in evenings on parade. I think .that should be furnished him. The matter is now before a committee of officers to devise the best means of carrying out that suggestion. My hon. friend has spoken about higher pay for the men. What he has said is logically correct, but I do not think that five per cent of the volunteers in Canada go into it for the money. In the city corps they pool the money, they never get it. The same thing holds good with respect to many of the rural corps. In my own old regiment we nearly always paid out more than was paid in. I find it is a question of training. If you give the Mr. OLIVER.
men proper training they will not mind so much what the pay is. It is tha/t spirit that keeps up the regiment. I was in Hamilton not long since, and there were 91 gentlemen sitting at a table. These_ 91 gentlemen had been officers in the service, and I would challenge any one in that city to pick out 91 other men who could equal them. It does not hold good to say that the militia force is made up of the offscourings of the country.


Frank Oliver: I hope my hon. friend
did not understand me as saying that.


Samuel Hughes: No. Of course, there are men in the regiments who should not be there, but the militiamen of this country will stand second to no other class of men that you can pick out in Canada or anywhere else. As far as the question of my hon. friend from Laval is concerned, I would say that the property known as the Logan farm was handed over to the Dominion Government by tllie Imperial authorities, and in case it was disposed of the proceeds were to go to the Militia Department. In 1908 44 acres, plus, were handed over in fee simple to Montreal for nothing; 31 acres, plus, were handed over to the city of Montreal for ninety-nine years at the nominal rental of one dollar per year, and 3.86 acres were retained by the Militia Department only out of the whole area whereon to erect an ordnance building, or any other building, for the purpose of the Militia Department. A little strip in a square, about 3 acres, or a little less, was being unloaded on the city of Montreal by gentlemen who were interested in the sale of it. I was informed both by the Mayor and an hon. member for that city, a member of the city council, and of this House, that these gentlemen would hand that over for $750,000 to the city of Montreal, provided I, as Minister of Militia, or the Dominion Government, would hand over the balance of the militia property, consisting of 3.86 acres, under the guarantee that we would never build upon it, so that there would be a complete square. I came to the conclusion that the city of Montreal had been fairly well treated by the Militia Department. Taking that valuation of $750,000 for this little corner, the 44 acres are worth from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000, the 31 acres about $9,000,000, and the 3.86 acres $1,000,000. I had no authority, and I did not see that the Government had any authority, to hand over free to any person property which was entrusted to them for militia purposes. It should be used for the development and upkeep of the militia of the country. I declined to hand that 3.86 acres over to the city of Montreal, and, while it is absolutely unsuitable for an ordnance stores building, it would be most admirably suit-

ed for a nice drill hall for one of the new regiments. The 85th, a- French regiment, is growing up in that part of the city. It will likely become a city regiment soon, and it is quite possible the department may see its way clear to erecting a drill hall on that site and thus save possibly three quarters of a million which would have to be spent in buying a site for a drill hall. I might add that St. Helen's island, an historic property, was also handed over to the city of Montreal for $200,000. These properties, it has been estimated are to-day worth $47,000,000 that the Militia Department might have had if they had not been handed over as I have indicated.


Charles Avila Wilson: I do not think'
the minister has answered my question. I *want to know whether the minister has come to any decision with Tegard to the building of a military school.


Samuel Hughes: A military school is going to be built at Dorval.


Charles Avila Wilson: If there is one built at Dorval there will not be one built in the city?


Samuel Hughes: No, there will be a drill hall.


Charles Avila Wilson: Where is the property
situated in Dorval?


Samuel Hughes: It is the old race course.


Angus Alexander McLean: 
An hon. MEMBER:: The uniform will be for active service.


Angus Alexander McLean: Yes, but we are not on active service all the time. You have to appeal to the vanity of the men and the vanity of the officers, and that vanity is a laudable ambition to make a creditable display. What makes a corps efficient? It is in the vanity or the ambition of the officers and men to make that corps better

than any other corps. As we. all know, the backbone of the militia, outside of the officers, are the non-commissioned officers, and my idea about pay is: the ordinary man in the militia gets enough pay; some of them are not woTth the pay they receive and a great many of them ought never be brought into camp. On the other hand, a great many of the men are efficient, and will make splendid soldiers. We have started under the late Minister of Militia with efficiency pay, when a man reaches a certain qualification. In order to have good non-commissioned officers, I would give him, when he has passed an examination showing his efficiency to command and thoroughly instruct a squad, not only a bonus for qualifying and spending the time required for study for that examination, but after he passes the examination and shows himself efficient as an instructor, I would in addition to the bonus, give him increased pay. For men who are not efficient the pay is wasted on them. But to the man who can pass an examination and qualify as a rifle shot, I would give more pay. To the -non-commissioned officer who could qualify as a squad instructor, J_ would pay a decent, respectable wage. I appeal to the Minister of Militia, if he wants to gain the gratitude of the officers of the Canadian militia, to abolish the duty on officers' uniforms.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queens (Mr. McLean) in everything he has stated, although he is a thorough soldier and a good officer and knows what he is talking about. There is no doubt that very many of the men taken to camp are useless and the money spent on them is squandered, but I am afraid my hon. friend is not taking the right way to remedy that. Possibly I have too low an idea of the object of the militia to rise to the standard	the Minister of
Militia sets before him, but I have always tried to look upon the militia as a business proposition. The only justification for spending any money on the militia is that some portion of our population should always have some grounding in the rudiments of military training, so that we may have men in Canada, not necessarily in the active militia, who in case of trouble would be something like the reserves in Europe, and who could be brought into line within a reasonable time. That was illustrated in the South African War. The minister, who was there, will I think agree with me that the men who had some previous military training got into the idea of their duties much quicker than the men who had not. The next idea I have is that you should teach the men to shoot, because if a man cannot Mr. McLEAN (Sunbury and Queens).
handle a rifle he is no good in the militia. You ought to Lave in the militia, not the offscourings of the earth, but the very best class of men in Canada, and you cannot get that class without paying them. I am assuming that you can get a better class of men in the cities for a small amount of money than you can get in the country districts because the city men go to the drill hall in the evening, they pool their money, they take some amusement out of it, and they do not have to give up theii ordinary avocations of life as has the man in the rural districts when he, goes to camp and leaves the work on his farm. The industrious man who has work to do is the only man worth training. Then, in my judgment, the minister is spending too much money on fluff and feathers and not enough on the real backbone of the organization. According to the departmental report, the expenditure for the annual drill in 1911 was $1,159,000 of which only $750,000 went to pay and allowances for the officers and men. That is, hardly two-thirds of the total outlay goes to the actual payment of the officer and men. It is true there was some Slight increase last year. I understand the minister now pays the ordinary man a dollar a day. Before that he got fifty cents a clay and his efficiency pay, which brought, it up to about 90 cents. I think it would have been very much better to have increased the pay of the man and not the horse. My experience is that I never had any difficulty in getting horses. I could have Tecruited horses for half a dozen batteries every year at a dollar a day without any trouble. In the, country regiments there is no trouble whatever in getting horses, the trouble is to get men. Many officers in Canada make the horses bring the men; that is, no man can get a horse on unless he brings a man with it. If you double the pay of the men, you will only add at the outside three-quarters of a million dollars, which is a mere bagatelle to my hon. friend. He should pay the men $2 a day, if necessary, and get the very -best men he can. These men do not stay in the militia very long as a rule. They bind themselves for three years; but the rule is not enforced. On an average they do not get more than three or four years training, and the training which they do get is very rudimentary indeed. If you increase the pay and get the best men, you will be giving them some start along militia training; and, if the time should ever come when their services are required, they would be ready to be of some use to the state.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to support what my hon. friend the member for Queens and Sun-bury (Mr. McLean) said about the

uniforms. I think no customs duties should
be levied upon the uniforms of our officers and soldiers. The same thing might be said about the minister's uniforms. A Minister has to wear first-class and second-class uniforms and has to pay duty on them.
It is unfair that a minister of the Crown should pay duty on his uniforms. The officers in our militia should not be called upon to pay duty on their uniforms. The question has come up here before and I do not know what excuse has been given.
I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Eeid) to remove the duty and save this expense to the officers who give their time and their money for the sake of the militia and for the defence of the country,


John Dowsley Reid: It is the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) who
makes the tariff; I only administer it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but surely the hon. gentleman 'has some influence over the Minister of Finance, who is only a newcomer, who is only a convert of the last minute to the great Conservative party. My hon. friend ought to tell him that it is in the spirit of the Conservative party to treat the officers fairly.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from
Laval (Mir. Wilson) has raised a very interesting question in regard to the city of Montreal. I agree entirely with the hon. Minister of Militia that the city of Montreal has been royally treated by the Government of Canada. The Logan farm, or the Lafontaine farm as it is known to-day in the east, an'd St. Helen's Island were practically given over to the city of Montreal. I hope that the city authorities of Montreal will understand that the Government should have their say in the matter of the proposed alienation of such properties. At all events, no land speculation should be allowed with regard to that very valuable strip of land. It is the property of the Government and it should be enjoyed by the people of Montreal. It is a splendid park in the very heart of _ the city. The Minister of Militia should utilize that park for drills, parades and military exercises. I do not think, however that he should erect buildings on that property. There is already one building there, the Normal School, and for many years I have heard some people connected with the municipality of Montreal state that the time might come when this,would be removed. If an armoury is erected, it should be a building that will appeal to the artistic sense of the people.
During the session I had the pleasure of receiving the report of my hon. friend the
Minister of Militia in regard to his trip to England and France to which he referred a moment ago. He followed the manoeuvres in England and was allowed to follow the manoeuvres in France. Will he tell me how many officers and men accompanied him in England and France, and what is the cost, in total, of that expeditionary force?


Samuel Hughes: Colonel Hodgins, Colonel Landry, Colonel Maunsell, Colonel Morrison and Major Roberston in Engand, five I think. In France, Colonel Landry, and Major Robertson. As to the total cost, I have not the figures here, but I think it is only $4,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For all?


Samuel Hughes: I think so.


William Thomas White: I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Sun-bury and Queens state that all the militia officers had to take a course of instruction. I would like to know if that is a general provision. I know it is not the case in the country from which I come. Many hold positions in the western country who never had any military training and never went to a school of instruction. I am aware it is not so all over Canada, but I would like to know from the minister if qualification is necessary for an applicant for a commission in the militia,


Samuel Hughes: Every officer has to qualify. Of course, he may be appointed provisionally, but he is supposed to qualify within a year. If the hon. gentleman will look through the militia list, he will find that the great majority of the corps in the West have officers who are qualified. Some of the mounted corps in the West have every officer qualified. Some of the squadrons in the North have officers who have not had opportunity to attend schools. They are supposed to qualify within a year of appointment, or the time may >be extended if necessary.
Mr. White (Victoria, Alta.) : The mounted infantry established some years ago- the Alberta Mounted Rifles-have no qualified officers in the three companies of the corps. Take the corp at Fort Saskatchewan, they also have some officers without qualification.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman
will look at the militia list, he will find that the 15th of Calgary has every officer qualified, except some of the second lieutenants. The corps to which he refers, I believe, the 19th Dragoons. It has many qualified officers. The second lieutenants who are recently appointed have not qualified, but they will do so.


William Thomas White: Before whom do they qualify, before a board?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, they have to go to a school of instruction, or to the board. We will mail to my hon. friend a statement of how to -qualify.


William Thomas White: Listening to	the addresses of	the hon.
member for Edmonton and others, I noted the questions as to why we were not able to get the best men. One reason, I think, is this point I have referred to-that the -officers are not qualified. With the short time allowed for -drill and with unqualified officers, the young man who might volunteer is led to think he could not be taught even ordinary drill. So, they cannot be expected to take much interest in the matter. There is another reason. I quite agree with the minister that it is not for the money, and yet there must be some inducement for the kind of man the minister desires to obtain, these young farmers and those who bring their own horses if possible, and who would be there year after year and -would become proficient in three years. I have made many inquiries among the young men as to why they did not enlist, and generally their answer was that there was no inducement^ One cause is -that there is no rifle range in the country. If they had an opportunity of using a range and learning to shoot there would be some inducement and many more would volunteer. It seems to me that it is not enough merely to go to Calgary for a few days in the year. Many of these young men have told me that they have never fired a rifle, and yet they are drawing money as having trained in rifle practice. I know as a matter of fact that they get no rifle practice at their headquarters, and if they get any at all it must be at brigade camp 'in Calgary. I should think the money spent to acquire ranges would be well spent. A few years ago, the -major in command of the company at Fort Saskatchewan took the trouble to come to Ottawa to induce the department to purchase a range that had many natural advantages-a natural cut bank on the river of seventy-five feet, a place which had advantages over almost any other that could be chosen. The department did not take the matter up at the time. But I think if the minister would spend some money in securing ranges it would not be a difficult thing to get young men to volunteer. And I -believe, as has been said, that the inducement would be greater than double pay.


Samuel Hughes: We are encouraging the use of rifle ranges, but it takes time and money. We -are establishing miniature ranges in many places, but I will not take up time with that.. I agTee with a great deal of what the hon. gentleman has said.
Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.).


William Thomas White: A few years ago rifle clubs were formed, as I understand it, under the department. Not only militiamen, but civilians joined. But afterwards that was done away with. I think the movement was a good one, and that it was unfortunate that it was stopped. It would teach many men to shoot.


Samuel Hughes: They are still open to
be formed.


William Thomas White: But there are no ranges. I think we had about seventy members in Fort Saskatchewan, but when the rifle range was taken away-it was in connection with that that the major came to Ottawa-the club did not succeed.


Samuel Hughes: We vote ranges every
year in different parts of the country, but it takes a lot of time and money.
82 cadets corps, $325,000.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give
some account of the constitution and purpose of these cadet corps?


Samuel Hughes: These young men train
without any pay as boys. The formation of these corps is based on the principle that when the mind is young and the body is young is the time to mould those minds and bodies. We aim to establish a cadet corps on a good basis in the hope that these young men will learn to drill when they are young and thus naturally take to militia work, just as they would take to any other training before becoming set in their ways. Members may see the cadet corps in almost any portion of Canada. I reviewed four thousand from the French colleges in Montreal a week ago and nearly four thousand in Toronto last Saturday.


George Perry Graham: They are in connection
with schools, are they not?


Samuel Hughes: Largely in connection
with schools as yet, but they are also in connection with the regiments. Nearly every company is now getting its cadet corps as a feeder, so to speak. They are splendidly drilled fellows. I noticed two or three corps, one from St. Catharines, and I venture to say that half of the young men in those corps could pass their examinations for officers' certificates. I was amazed! at their proficiency. It is marvellous the way the young men are taking part in this work. Anyone at the Toronto exhibition last year who saw the mounted cadet corps from the West will admit that they were the chief attraction of the fair, and nothing could exceed the manner in which they handled their horses. They get one dollar a year towards uniforms besides their transportation and board while in camp. There are about 35,000 of them, 15,000 in the province of Quebec; 6,000 in and

around Montreal alone. At the Mount St. Louis institution they had 600 on parade the o'ther day, a splendid battalion of as fine looking boys as you could find in Canada. The movement is spreading and in that way I hope that in the course of a few years, these young men will- work into the militia force of the country; and while I do not care to say what I intend to do I have plans made whereby the whole force, in the course of a few years, may be considerably modified and changed. It is found that this training has a splendid tendency to keep them right. People all over the country of all classes are taking hold of it. They see the benefit of-it. It is controlled play. That is one reason why I want the drill halls all over the country; it gives the boys a chance to get in and drill instead of being on the streets. It is controlled play instead of uncontrolled play. We 'train them also in the same way as the scouts are trained, in camp. Many gentlemen hesitated about allowing their sons to go into these corps last year. We trained 8,000. One head of a collegiate institute went with his son and he is now one of tire most enthusiastic advocates of this system in Canada. It is found that the whole surroundings are favourable and the tendency is to build up the manhood of the boys.


Frank Oliver: Wliat is the money for?


Samuel Hughes: There are cadet organizers in each division all over Canada. They go around to tire various localities in the country and organize the boys into squadrons and start them drilling. There are transport and travelling and subsistence of these officers, $11,000. Then there are nineteen instructors of the permanent force, $1,900. They get a temporary payment of $100 each. Then there is subsistence, $10,000. . We are taking school teachers into camp for training in connection with the cadets. This year it is estimated that one thousand school teachers are taking the course, at a cost of $75,000. Besides that there is the transport of
30,000	cadets, and things like that.


Frank Oliver: Are arms furnished to
them?


Samuel Hughes: We have not furnished
arms except the regular rifles in some cases for shooting. We are now getting a cheap cadet rifle, not an inferior rifle, and now we give a few of those for shooting purposes. We do not pretend to arm them all with rifles, that would cost too much money.


James Alexander Robb: How much of the Strathccna fund is spent on that account?


Samuel Hughes: The Strathcona fund is
not applied to this account, but _ to the physical training in connection with the schools of the provinces.


George Perry Graham: I am a peaceful man
myself, but still I have had some experience in my own family, but I am prepared to testify that the training the boys get in these cadet corps is a mighty good thing for the boys, even if they should never have to defend their homes. I am speaking from experience. My son who went through the cadet corps became a captain in his regiment before he died.


Samuel Hughes: A fine boy, too.


George Perry Graham: He took his examination in Toronto. I never begrudged the money it cost because it developed him physically to start with. He was not what you would call a robust looking boy at first, but after the training in the cadet corps, he developed into a very strong man. I am in favour of that training if there never were any war like attitude to it at all on account of the improvement it makes in many ways. As to the regiment life in the armoury, I think it is a very good thing for the young men even when they get into that. I speak from experience from the Brockville regiment. The members of that regiment spend a great many of their evenings at the armoury, they have their indoor baseball and such games organized among themselves and make it a source of entertainment to themselves and to others; they are improving themselves, and while they are there we know where they are. At the same time they are being developed physically.
A word about the efficiency of some of the boys in these corps. An inspecting officer came to Brdckville at one time and we had a cadet corps under a young man name Murray. The inspecting officer told me that there was only one captain in the regiment who was superior to this boy in the handling of his company, and an outsider watching would doubt that. I watched this young boy putting his company through their manoeuvres, and I thought he was quite as efficient as any officer of the regiment. The inspecting officer told me that if he had to award a prize there was only one commanding officer in the whole regiment whom he would think superior to this young man. I am not opposed to anything that trains our young men, to make better men of them. I do not mean to say that I am a militarist-I believe there is reason in these things-but I want to say a word in favour of the training of the boys as cadets outside of the militia altogether. It helps them physically, morally and in every other way so long as it is properly done.


Frank Oliver: What is the age of the
cadets?	1


Samuel Hughes: From twelve to eighteen, when they can enter the militia.
Clothing, $700,000.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understood the minister to say that there were only two Highland regiments in the province of Nova Scotia, the 78th and the 94th.


Samuel Hughes: I think there is only
one with the Highland uniform, the 78th. Has the 94th the Highland uniform?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, but they are very anxious to get it, and they would like the minister to help them. They are a much older regiment than the 78th. I think it is the oldest Highland regiment in the province of Nova Scotia.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as my hon.
friend bears a Highland name, he might visit the department and talk the matter over with another Highlander, Quartermaster General McDonald. They might come to an agreement.


Frank Oliver: What is the position of
the department in regard to uniforms? I notice they are of very great variety.


Samuel Hughes: It is usually left to each corps to decide. The Moosejaw regiment want the rifle uniform, and you cannot coax some other regiments to have it. Cavalry regiments want the scarlet. The Regina regiment want the rifle uniform, while Saskatoon regiment insist on the scarlet, as does also the Prince Albert regiment. We do not interfere in the matter specially.


Frank Oliver: Is it not now accepted
by military authorities the world over that khaki or a similar colour is the better colour?	_


Samuel Hughes: That is for drill purposes. All the city corps are getting the khaki uniform now, but they usually have other uniforms for state occasions.


Frank Oliver: If this force is actually
for fighting purposes, and if the proper uniform to fight in is grey or a dun colour, does the department not provide all with that uniform, whether in city or country?


Samuel Hughes: If the country regiments want it, we give it, instead of the scarlet or any other colour. The country regiments going into camp get overalls, but most of them prefer to have a scarlet or rifle uniform in addition to the drill uniform.	.


Frank Oliver: I think if this force is
for a certain ultimate purpose, the uniform should not be a matter of choice, it should be a matter of policy of the Government. The regiments should be fitted with arms and uniforms that have been found by the latest experience to be the most efficient and desirable.
Mr. OLIVER.
Contingencies, $44,000.


George Perry Graham: Might I make a suggestion. I think we have discussed pretty well nearly all the items, but I understand that some hon. gentlemen want to make some further remarks. Suppose we put all these Items through, but reserve item 90, and hon. gentlemen who wants to discuss these matters further can do so on this item.


Samuel Hughes: I am agreeable to anything. I want to thank the House for the very fair and open discussion we have had. I am more than pleased with the interest that is 'being taken by members representing the people in the perfection of the Militia Department. Let me say, as most hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion know, that not only in this House, but personally, I am always pleased to receive any suggestion for the upbuilding of the force. Whatever others may do, I regard this as an absolutely non-political department, and I want hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to feel that I am open to suggestions. My hon. friend mentioned that an officer had written to him. A man does not lose his rights by becoming a member of the militia force, and he is at perfect liberty to write to his member of Parliament, or to the Minister of Militia, and tell him what he thinks of him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like the minister to pay my man for his horse, then.
Progress reported.



Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from James J. Donnelly, Esquire, his resignation as member for the electoral district of South Bruce, in the province of Ontario. I have in consequence issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 28, 1913.