1914-06-01

LOTBINIERE CONTROVERTED ELECTION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Lemieux and the Hon. Mr. Justice Dorion, two of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions, pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a report and decisions of the said judges relating to the election in the electoral district of Lotbiniere.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 223, to amend Part X of the Canada Shipping Act. He said:
This Bill has reference to formal investigations into shipping casualties. The law as it stands at present is contained in paragraph 781 of the Canada Shipping Act and subsequent sections. Under section 781, when a shipping casualty occurs, the

[Stage Direction]
minister has the power to create a court of inquiry. Under that section he may appoint any officer in the service of the ' Government of Canada, any judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, any judge of a county court, any local judge of vice-admiralty, or any stipendiary magistrate, for the purpose of making such inquiry. The provision is that the commissioner appointed for that purpose shall be a court. There are various subsequent paragraphs in the Act empowering the minister to appoint nautical assessors for the purpose of aiding the commissioner who may b.e so appointed in holding that inquiry. It will be seen, therefore, that with reference to inquiries into casualties the power of the minister is1 limited to appoint one commissioner, and that commissioner must be selected from a certain class of officials and judges in the country. In view of the appalling disaster near Father Point on, the 'St. Lawrence, and in consideration of certain communications which have taken place with respect to it with the home authorities, it is felt that in this case it is desirable that a special court of inquiry should be constituted, the finding of which would perhaps carry much greater weight and to which more importance would be attached than to the finding of an ordinary court of inquiry constituted under the provisions of section 781 of the Canada Shipping Act, which is the court of inquiry that has been hitherto established in all ordinary oases in which inquiry into shipping casualties has been thought desirable. The Bill which I am now introducing adds, as subsection 2 of section 871, the following:
In any case arising before or after the passage of this Act which the minister considers to be of extreme gravity and special importance, he may appoint two or more persons to be a commission to hold a formal investigation, and the commission so appointed shall for that purpose be a court, and such court shall, in addition to its judgment, make a full and detailed report to the minister upon the circumstances of the case, and may make such recommendations as may in its opinion be proper in the premises.
The words ' fit persons ' are the expression used in the Merchants Shipping Act. Under this subsection the power of the minister is not limited to any special class of persons, nor is it limited to the appointment of one commissioner. It is intended in the case of the late casualty to appoint a commission consisting of at least three persons, two of whom shall perhaps be
judges who have had wide experience in regard to admiralty matters. Consideration will also be given to the question of appointing as one member of that commission some one who shall be recommended by the British Government through the Colonial Office. Very great public attention has been attracted to the recent disaster in Great Britain, and it is felt by the Government that it is most desirable that the commission, constituted for the purpose of holding this investigation, should be of such a character as to commend itself to the judgment of all who are interested in shipping and navigation. I may say that this ship was registered in Great Britain, as in fact I think all the transatlantic passenger steamers are, with the exception, of those belonging to the Canadian Northern Company, which are registered in Toronto. There can Ibe no doubt, I think, as to our jurisdiction to hold an inquiry in Canada, because the disaster occurred in Dominion waters, even though the ship is on the British register. At the same time, I think it very desirable, if the Government of Great Britain desire to be represented on the commission appointed to hold the inquiry, that their desire should be complied with and that we should co-operate with them in every possible way in order to have the inquiry as thorough as it is possible to make it, so that the result of the finding shall be received with respect and may be of some benefit in the future.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: On the explanation made by my hon. friend of the motives which have impelled him to bring down this Bill, I certainly am disposed to agree with him. Whether or not the enactment of the Bill will answer the purpose remains to be seen when we see the Bill in print. Up to the present time I have no fault to find; on the contrary, I commend the action taken by my hon. friend to have this awful calamity which has just befallen us investigated by the most ample, complete and searching inquiry by the highest possible authorities we can find. I am aware that we have in this country men competent to take part in this inquiry, but the suggestion of my hon. friend that the British Government should also be invited to take part in it and to select a commissioner is one which I think will commend itself to the judgment of the people, not only because the ship which has gone down is upon the British regis-

ter, but on account of the naturally superior knowledge and experience of men in Great Britain connected with shipping matters. We have within our own shores experienced and able men; but every one will agree that the experience of some of the British officers will be of great value in this inquiry. If the inquiry is to be based upon this Bill, the Bill ought to be passed into law as soon as possible, and on this side of the House we shall be very happy to facilitate its early passage.


Mr. BORDEN:: The imperial authorities have already been informed that this Bill is to be introduced to-day, and their cooperation in respect of the appointment on the commission of some very able judge or other person having the requisite experience has been invited. I would like to say also that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has communicated with the Government and has asked that the most searching and thorough inquiry should Ibe made into all the circumstances attending this disaster.


Mr. HAZEN:: I might add that on Saturday we were informed that a representative of the British Board of Trade would sail to-day for Canada in connection with this matter.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: In the Maritime
provinces, disasters have taken place and a great number of lives have been lost by reason of the fact that old and unseaworthy vessels have been imported into this country and that there have been no inspectors to inspect these vessels which should never have been allowed to go to sea. I understand that the inspectors of the Customs Department are required to pass them, but no careful investigation is made into the condition of the hulls of these vessels. Already this season several of these vessels have gone to the bottom without warning and valuable lives have been lost; and if there is no provision in the law whereby the hulls of these vessels may be inspected and the people who own them may be prevented from sending them to sea, this legislation affords the opportunity for providing for the appointment of inspectors for that purpose. The inspection would not cost very much. One man for the four Maritime provinces would not take two months in each year for this work, which would be of advantage to the shipping people and would save in one year the lives of a great number of people.


John Douglas Hazen: The matter to which my
hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., has referred is of great importance. My hon. friend spoke to me about the matter on Saturday evening. I have not yet been able to look into the law, but I gave instructions this morning to the officials of my department to investigate the matter and to make a report with regard to it. TheTe is an inspector of hulls for the province of Nova Scotia. There is also an inspector of hulls, Mr. Olive, for the province of New Brunswick. My information was that Mr. Olive's jurisdiction not only covered New Brunswick, but extended to Prince Edward Island, and that it would be his business to inspect any vessels of the character to which my hon. friend from Queens, has referred. I will take the matter up as soon as I receive the report from the department, which I expect will be to-day or tomorrow morning. I think it would be a mistake however, to deal with any other question in the Bill under consideration regarding the inquiry into this terrible disaster, as it is desirable that this Bill should be enacted into law as quickly as possible; and, if any other matter were added to it, it might delay its passage.
*Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


John Douglas Hazen: On the ground of urgency, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would move that the Bill be now read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
John Douglas Hazen: The Bill has not been
printed yet. I have had a number of typewritten copies made, which can be circulated among6t the members. I would ask my right hon. friend if, under the circumstances, he would object to proceeding with the Bill to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to proceeding with the Bill to-day, and we -can give it a third reading tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


John Douglas Hazen: The Deputy Minister of
Justice, to whom this Bill was submitted, has suggested an amendment. Instead of the words, ' two or more persons to be a commission,' he suggests ' two or more persons to be commissioners,' involving

also a change in the next line, the substitution of the expression ' the commissioners so appointed ' for ' the commission so appointed'. I ask the judgment of the House on this amendment. I must say that it strikes me at first blush as unnecessary.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I think the word
* commission ' is better.


John Douglas Hazen: As this Bill is to remain over for a third reading, we might put it through committee and then let it stand for the consideration of this amendment.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Will they form a 'commission ' without a third member?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, two or more form a
commission. But it is proposed to appoint three.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Has the minister given
consideration to the question whether by simply using the word 'court ', this body is given power to summon witnesses, commit for contempt, and so on?


John Douglas Hazen: They have that power
under the Act, as the hon. gentleman will see.


Mr. BOYCE:: The words are, ' court of inquiry '?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, and the word ' court ' is the same with regard to the appointment of one commissioner, under section 781.


Robert Laird Borden: As moving the third
reading will not advance the Bill, with this amendment to be considered, perhaps it would be better to let it remain in committee to-day, and then we shall have time to consider it, and if any amendments are to be made they can be made and the third reading taken at the same time.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the hon. Minister
of Marine and Fisheries word of another marine accident?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. I am aware that a
coal-laden steamer ran ashore five miles below Father Point, and, I understand, came off with the high tide and proceeded on its way to Quebec. It was outside the pilotage district and no pilot was aboard.


Mr. NESBITT:: The Bill proposes to
limit the minimum number of the commission by the words ' two or more '. Would it not be well to limit the maximum as well?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The word used here is ' fit '. Would not the word ' comoetent ' be

better? I think it would be more in accord with the language of our statutes, and of the courts.


John Douglas Hazen: The word ' fit ' is used in
the English Shipping Act. It is a very comprehensive word.
Progress reported.



SECRET COMMISSIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the item:	First reading of Senate
Bills:
Mr. SPEAKER:: Moved by Mr. Oliver,
seconded by Mr. Carvell, that Bill No. 222 (letter F-3 of the Senate) to amend the Secret Commissions Act, 1909, be now read the first time. I am using these names, because the Bill originates from that side, but it seems to have no father in this House.


Mr. CARVELL:: I do not know that I
want to father that Bill, Mr. Speaker. I have some objection to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is only the first
reading.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even i'f it is only the
first reading, I am not anxious to act as one of the sponsors for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was handled in the
Senate by Hon. Senator Davis.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not seconding that Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Bill had better stand until we know more about it.
Bill stands.



THE EMPRESS OF IRELAND DISASTER.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day toeing called:
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to communicate to the House further messages of sympathy which have been received in connection with the disaster which has just been alluded to. The first is a telegram to His Royal Highness the Governor General from His Imperial Majesty the German Emperor:
Deeply shocked at the fearful accident which befell the Empress of Ireland. I hasten to express to you my deepest sympathy with the breaved families.
(Signed) William I.R.
A telegram from Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise to the Governor General:
Terribly grieved at appalling disaster to Canadian liner Empress. My heartfelt sympathy.
(Signed) Louise.

Telegram from the mayor of Oape Town to myself:
Capetown, June 1.
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Citizens Capetown tender heartfelt sympathy with sufferers by dire disaster Empress of Ireland.
(Signed) Pasker, Mayor.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement which appears in the Ottawa Evening Journal of to-day, as follows:
Mr. J. W. Black, rescued Ottawan, makes serious allegations against two officials-No Marconigrams until money was paid-Operator on Lady Evelyn, it is stated, refused to send message to relatives until charges were paid- Intercolonial railway ticket agent, it is stated, refused railway tickets to survivors.
Allegations of an important character are made by Mr. J. W. Black, one of the local survivors of the wreck, against government officials aboard the steamer Lady Evelyn, and the Intercolonial railway ticket agent at Rimouski.
Mr. Black alleges that the Marconi operators aboard the Lady Evelyn positively refused to send any survivors' despatches to relatives and friends without first being paid for them, and that the ticket agent at Rimouski station declined to issue any tickets without payment.
The former, he states, took from a Mrs. Green, of Toronto, one of the survivors, the last money she had in the world, a wet five dollar bill, to pay the cost of a Marconigram message to her relatives telling them she was safe.
* We were aboard the Lady Evelyn,' said Mr. Black, ' attired in our night clothes and I desired to send a message to my home in Scotland, and one to Mrs. Black's mother in Ottawa. I wrote them out and handed them to the Marconi official, who replied ' I cannot send these unless you pay for them.' Well. I replied, all that I have is the shirt I stand up in. Mr. B. Weinranch of Montreal, another survivor, stepped forward and pulled a ten dollar bill from a belt he had round his waist and paid the cost of my wires. Whether they were sent I do not know, but at all events my mother-in-law has not received hers yet.
I do not bring this to the attention of the Government with the view of blaming any member of the Government for this condition of affairs; but if these statements be true, the circumstances are so revolting as to be almost unbelievable. I merely desire to point out to the Prime Minister that if the regulations governing these officials are such that it is necessary for them to resort to such extreme measures as these, the Government should amend those regulations and adjust them along humanitarian lines.


Robert Laird Borden: The item to which my hon. friend directs the attention of the Government had not come to my attention. 
The allegations made are certainly worthy of investigation, and they will undoubtedly receive it.


Mr. PELLETIER:: As the paragraph read by my hon. friend refers to the Post Office Department boat, Lady Evelyn, I must say that I am very much surprised at the statements made, and I sincerely hope that they are not true. I received a report from the captain of the Lady Evelyn this morning in the shape of a night letter, which should be very satisfactory to the public, and which I have given to the press. He reports what he has done with his boat since this terrible disaster occurred, and I am sure that the country will appreciate the good work that he has done. Members of his crew took off their coats to give them to the people who were deprived of their clothing, and saved a number of lives. My hon. friend and the members of the House will see that telegram in the press this afternoon. In view of the good work they have done, it is hard to understand why the officers should have acted in this way. The names are not given, I see.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The name is given: Mr. Black, a resident of Ottawa, and one of the survivors.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The names of the officers, I meant.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was the Marconi operator on the Lady Evelyn and the Intercolonial railway ticket agent at Rimouski.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can only tell my hon. friend that this matter will at once be brought to the attention of Captain Pou-liot. If it is true, which I sincerely hope not, the matter will be promptly dealt with.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with my hon. friend in hoping that it is not true. One can hardly imagine it to be possible. My only object in bringing this to the attention of the Government is because it is so at variance with the reports we have seen in the press in praise of the officials.



IMMIGRATION OF HINDUS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) if he has further information to give the House concerning-'to use the words of an hon. friend-our friends who are knocking at our door?


Mr. ROCHE:: I received the information that about 90 of the 376, I think it is, have been rejected by the medical men thus far. One of these is dangerously ill with tuberculosis, and has been removed to the hospital. About thirteen of them have been allowed to land on the ground that they have proved that they previously resiued in Canada. A mass meeting has been held in Vancouver by Hindus protesting against the Canadian 'Government's action. I understand that another meeting has been advertised in Victoria for to-night. On the other hand, we have received communications from the City (Council of Victoria and the Board of Trade of Vancouver endorsing the Government's action. To-day a board of inquiry is being instituted to take into consideration each individual case, each individual being landed separately in order to comply with the law. I expect it will take some little time before these cases are specifically inquired into.


Wilfrid Laurier: The minister says that in the case of each of the men who are now seeking admission there is to be an inquiry as to whether or not they have complied with the law. To what part of the law does he refer?
Mr. ROCHfE: That provision of our Immigration Act under, which a person who requests that inquiry be made into his case by a board of inquiry consisting of officials of the department, is entitled to receive the same.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the particular point of inquiry?


William Roche: I have not any details as to that. We have just received a wire to the effect that a demand has been made for a hoard of inquiry in each individual case. This, I presume, will cover one of the steps that the Government is taking to reject these people; if one fails, another will be called into requisition.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: The minister said that ninety applicants have been rejected as being physically unfit for admission into Canada.


William Roche: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How many have been examined so far, in addition to the number rejected and the number admitted?


William Roche: I am not quite sure whether the medical examination, has been completed, but thus far ninety have been
rejected by the medical men, and thirteen have been admitted on the ground of former domicile in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the minister confidence in the report that is being made to him that ninety were properly rejected on the ground of physical unfitness, and that the only ones admitted were admitted upon the ground of former residence in Canada?


William Roche: I have every confidence in our medical men out there; they are high up in their profession, and are experienced in this particular kind of work. Certainly, as head of the department, I have every confidence in their medical skill and their ability to carry out the law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does it not strike the minister-it strikes me this way-that it is a very improper thing and going too far altogether to ask the House to accept such reasons


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the hon. member is perhaps going too far when he attempts to discuss the matter at this stage.



LOSS OF THE KARLUK.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Frank Oliver: In connection with the loss of the steamer Karluk, may I ask the Minister of Marine if the Government is making preparations to rescue the survivors who were at or near the vessel and of whom we have no direct account in the statement which was given to the House the other day?


John Douglas Hazen: That matter is now being considered, and probably by to-morrow I shall be able to make a statement to my hon. friend as to what we intend to do about it.



QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Rodolphe Lemieux: stead of a deal being made with the Mackenzie and Mann interests there is now a good prospect of a government guarantee for the Quebec and Saguenay railway, which would result in its being separated from the Quebec railway. Interests close to the company state that there is every prospect of this deal going through before the end of this session, which is expected in a couple of weeks, and that it will . not be necessary to put through a special Act for this purpose.
I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman if legislation is to be introduced to guarantee the bonds of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, as is stated here, or if it is contemplated to do that by Order in Council?


Robert Laird Borden: I am certainly of the opinion that no power exists on the part of the Governor in Council to guarantee bonds. So far as the legislative programme of this session is concerned, it is all before the House, with the possible exception of a couple of matters which do not in any way concern this enterprise.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 206, to incorporate the General Council of the Canadian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association.-Mr. A. Thompson.
Bill 207, for the relief of William Ewan Laurie.-Mr. Barker.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Alberta Ring. -Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Bertha Lucinda Graham.-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 218, to incorporate the International Railway Company.-Mr. 'Lewis.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of John Robinson.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been called to an article in the American Economist of May 1, 1914, which referred at length to and quoted from a statement by James S. Coward, to the effect that a menace to western civilization wras to be found in Oriental industrial competition; and who illustrated the danger thereof by quoting a statement of a Japanese shoe manufacturer who asserted that he was engaging the best shoemakers he could find in America to return with him to Japan to teach his people the trade; and further stating that Japanese workmen received from 40 to 50 cents a day while women were paid from 20 to 40 cents per day?

2.	If so, does the Government propose to take any action in the matter?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	The attention of the Government was not called to the article in question until it was brought to its notice by the question of my hon. friend.
2.	The matters referred to seem to be those over which the people and Government of Japan alone,have jurisdiction. They do not seem to be matters as to which the Parliament and Government of Canada can take any action, as they are purely domestic concerns affecting the industrial development of the Empire of Japan.


CHAMBLT CANAL.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Are the following named persons still in the employ of the Government on the Chambly canal: Messrs. Jacques Benoit, Paul Denault, and Sylvestre Maguan?
2.	If not, what are the reasons for their dismissal and by whom was it recommended?
_ 3. Is Ortence Beigue in the employ of the Government at Chambly or elsewhere? If so, what are his duties and when was he appointed?
4.	Has he been granted a vacation lately? If so, for how long and when?
5.	Has Mr. Ducharme of Chambly or Chambly Canton, been granted a lease for 90 years or for any length of time of what is known as the Commune of Chambly?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Jacques Benoit and Napoleon Denault completed the season's engagement on the 1st of December, 1913 (the name Sylvestre Maguan not known), and were not re-employed.
3.	Not now employed by the Department of Railways and Canals.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Not as far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-DOUBLE TRACKING.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What is the name or names of the contractor or contractors to whom the Government has awarded* the contract for the construction of a double line on the Intercolonial between Chaudi&re curve and St. Romuald?
2.	What is the length of that line?
3.	Has the Government advertised for tenders for the construction of that line?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers, and what is the amount of each tender?
5.	What length of time has been allowed to the contractor for such construction?
6.	At what price was the contract awarded?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 
ST. DAVID DE DEVIS POSTMASTER.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Was the postmaster of St. David de LSvis dismissed from office? If so, when and why?
2.	Was his case investigated? If so, what was the report of the investigation?
3.	What was the dismissed postmaster's salary?
4.	By whom was he replaced, and what is his successor's salary?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This question wa3
answered by the Postmaster General on the 28th of May; see ' Hansard,' page 4519.


QUEBEC BRIDGE-REMOVAL OF OLD SUPERSTRUCTURE.
Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	Was the superstructure of the Quebec bridge sold by the present Government, and when?
2.	Were tenders asked and how many were received ?
3.	Who was the lowest tenderer, where did he reside and what was the offer?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
5.	Is the Government aware that the lowest tenderer is said to have sold the material to the Chicoutimi Railway Company for $200,000?
6.	Did the Government receive $50,000, or what sum, for the said superstructure, and what was the amount paid to the Receiver General for same?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes. Tenders were called on August 21, 1911, by newspaper advertisement, for the removal of unused steel originally intended for use in the construction of the old Quebec bridge. Three tenders were received.
The tender of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, at $4.50 pier net ton was accepted by Order in Council dated 11th of September, 1911.
The offer of R. W. Mayer, who was also
a tenderer, at $6.75, was not accepted, as his tender was irregular, the cheque furnished by him not having being accepted and having been made payable to the Hon. George P. Graham, personally.
On the 12th of October, 1911, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, was notified, by telegram, not to proceed with the work.
Under date the 28th of December, 1911, Mr. Mayer, whose original tender of $6.75 par net ton was the highest received, wrote a letter to the department submitting another offer of $7.50 per net ton and furnished a certified cheque for $5,000 to be held as security for the due execution of the work. This offer was $3 a ton higher than that of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, making a total increase of about $40,433, in the sum to be obtained from the sale of this material. Consequently by Order in Council dated January 2, 1912, authority was given for the sale to Mr. Mayer of the material in question and a contract was signed with him on January 19, 1912.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5.	The department has no information.
6.	Amount received to date from R. W. Mayer for unused material from Quebec bridge, $75,591.39.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. GIRARD.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is Mr. Girara, former member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly for the county of Compton, new employed by the Dominion Government?
2.	If so, what are his duties and what salary does he receive?
3.	Is the Government aware that it is reported he took a prominent part in the meeting of the Conservative Association of the Eastern Townships, recently held in the city of Sherbrooke?
4.	Has he been requested by the Government to continue his services as an organizer to the Conservative party?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yea, by the Department of Agriculture.
2.	Live stock representative of the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, at a salary at the rate of $1,800 per annum.
3 and 4. No.


TUBERCULOUS CATTLE AT KENTVILLE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	How many cattle on the experimental farm station at Kentville are infected with tuberculosis?
2.	From whom were said cattle respectively purchased, at what date or dates, and what prices were paid therefor?
3.	Were all of said cattle purchased subject to the tuberculin test? If so, which ones?

4.	By whom, where and when was said test administered?
5.	Has said tuberculin test been made to said cattle since they were purchased? If so, when, where and by whom?
6.	What disposition has been or will he made of said cattle so infected with tuberculosis?
7.	Are the cattle on said farm regularly tested for tuberculosis?
8.	When and by whom were said tests administered?
9.	Who has charge of the infected cattle on said farm?


Mr. BURRELL:: None at present. At a test conducted on May 14 and 15, 1914, three cows and one ox reacted. These were disposed of.
2.	The reacting cows were purchased on September 25, 1913, as follows:
' Jessamine 2nd '-87281-from John Miller, Jr., Ashburn, Ont., price $150.
' Lady Outhwaite 5th,'-104367-from Geo. Prout, Cedarbrae, Ont., price $75.
'Stamford Countess 11th,'-93087 - from Geo. Prout, Cedarbrae, Ont., price $100.
The working ox was purchased on or about March 25, 1914, locally, from E. I. Eisen-hauer, April 6, 1914, for $105.
3.	The three cows were purchased subject to the tuberculin test. The ox, which was purchased locally for working purposes during the summer months, was not tested.
4.	The test of the three cows mentioned above was administered previous to purchase by the Health of Animals Branch, under the direction of the Veterinary Director General. The actual administration of the same was conducted by one of the regular inspectors of the Health of Animals Branch, and took place at Ashburn, Ontario.
5 The tuberculin test has been administered to the said cattle since their purchase as stated in the answer to Question No. 1, namely, on May 14 and 15, the test being conducted by one of the regular inspectors of the Health of Animals Branch, at the Experimental Station, Kentville, N.S.
6.	The reacting cattle have been disposed of locally, slaughtered subject to inspection, and passed by Dr. Townsend, of New Glasgow, Dominion inspector.
7.	The cattle on this farm, and on the Experimental Farm System, are tested regularly. Where no infection is found, this test is repeated annually. Where cattle react the test is made every three or six months until the herd is free from contagion. At the Experimental Station at Kentville, the working oxen, purchased in the spring, are kept separate from the breeding herd during the summer months, and are

sold in the fall. Frequently during the early spring months, however, they are housed with the herd, until the warm weather sets in. This was the case in the spring of 1914. the oxen, therefore, being included in the test.
8.	The tuberculin test is administered in all cases under the direction of the Health of Animals Branch, and by one of their regular inspectors.
9.	The reacting cattle from the Experimental Station, Kentville, as stated, have already been slaughtered.


BULGARIAN AND RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many Bulgarians and Russians have landed at Quebec since the opening of navigation?
2.	Is it a fact that the great majority of these men have come out in search of labourers' work, and that practically none of them have gone to farm work?
3.	Is it a fact that in spite of the widespread unemployment in Canada, the Bast End of London, England, Distressed Unemployment Committee have been sending out assisted immigrants to Canada?


Mt. ROCHE:: 1.	From opening of navigation to May 19, 1914, there arrived at Quebec 1,063 Bulgarians and 590 Russians.
2.	The Department of the Interior is unable to follow these immigrants after their arrival, and is, therefore, not in a position to give any definite information as to the particular form of employment they are now engaged in. A considerable percentage of these were entered on the list at arrival as farmers, and it is assumed that they are now engaged at farm woTk.
3.	The East End Emigration Fund have sent very few assisted immigrants to Canada this year, and then only when coming to join friends already here, and to positions awaiting them.


LETTER OF MR. J. McL. FRASER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: In view of the admission made on oath by Mr. J. McL. Fraser, an officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax, N.S., that he is the author of a certain letter published in the Morning Herald newspaper, attacking the Legislature of Nova Scotia, has the said officer been suspended? If not, does the Government intend to deal with this case?


John Douglas Hazen: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the form of this question. It seems to come within the rule of the House which states that in asking a question no opinion shall be offered. This question makes the state-

ment that the letter referred to attacks the Legislature of Nova Scotia, which, I think, is purely a matter of opinion. I have read the letter myself, and I do not think it attacks the Legislature of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This question, as drawn, is not in proper form, and will require to he amended so as to come within the rule. In the meantime it had better stqnd.


John Howard Sinclair: How does it conflict with the rule ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an allegation of fact in the statement, ' in view of the admission made.' A statement of fact can only be made in so far as it is absolutely necessary to invite the answer, which statement is presumed to be correct. It would be quite proper to inquire if such an admission had been made, and then to follow with the other questions. The form in which the question is drawn is not in consonance with the rule.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose it would be quite in order to quote the affidavit of Mr. Fraser in which he positively admits that he did write the letter in question ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be an assumption which I presume might or might not be accepted.
Question stands.


TENDERS FOR CARRYING MAILS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is it the rule of the Post Office Department to invite tenders in all cases for the carrying of mails?
2.	If not, what reasons are there for exceptions being made.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rule of the department is to follow as closely as possible the provisions of the Post Office Act governing mail contracts and contractors.


GLENCURRIE POST OFFICE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What was the reason for closing the Glencurrie, Alberta, post office?
2.	On whose recommendation was the office closed ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. A new post office was established under the name of ' Wells,' at a point which was considered a 'better location for the post office than that of the Currie
office. The Currie post office was therefore closed.
2. By direction of the Postmaster General.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISOUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCrea.-For a return showing the total cost of the two present drill halls and rifle range and all or any other real estate and equipment owned by the Government and used for military purposes, in the county of Sherbrooke.
Mr. McCrea.-For a return showing the total amount of money spent by the Government for military purposes in the county of Sherbrooke for the last fiscal year for salaries or services of all officers, men and horses, for transporta-ion to and from camp, and the cost of maintenance while at camp; buildings the department has rented and the amount of rent paid; amount paid for all, purposes in connection with the Militia Department.
Mr. Lanctot.-For a return showing the number and total value of old age pension certificates issued by the Government up to date; is the amount of premiums collected since the system was inaugurated; how much was paid for the sale of such certificates, including fees and travelling expenses of the lecturers, and the salaries paid to the employees thereof at Ottawa and elsewhere; how many lecturers are at present employed by the Government ; how many employees are there at the head office and what are their respective salaries.
Mr. Carvell.-For a return showing, the names of all persons appointed to positions in the post office at St. John, N.B., since the 10th day of October, 1911; how many letter carriers have been appointed in St. John, N.B., since October 10, 1911, and the name of each.
Mr. Verville.-For a return showing the total amount of money paid out for the maintenance of the Militia on Vancouver Island, B.C., from the date of its being called to Nanaimo until the present time.
Mr. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all charges and complaints, letters, telegrams and correspondence respecting the dismissal of Captain Jeremiah Decoste, mate and craneman, employed on dredge No. 6 under Captain Dan Gillis during the season of 1912, and of all representations made and correspondence had with the Department of Public Works, or any officer thereof regarding his re-instatement.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of all correspondence between -the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of Quebec, with regard to the appointment of judges, since the first of February, 1913.
Mr. Boulay.-For a return showing the revenue derived from freight received at and forwarded from the following stations on the Intercolonial railway during the fiscal years 1913 and 1914, giving separately the amount for each of said stations, viz : Drunmmondville, Rimouski, Ste. Flavie, Matapedia, Campbellton and Bathurst.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the names of the staff employed in the several departments of the general offices of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton, together with their salaries respectively as of April 1, 1914.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a copy of all correspondence, charges, petitions, recommendations
45tiz
[Stage Direction]
and other documents relating to the dismissal of Placide Leger as lighthouse keeper at Caissey Cape, and of all letters and other documents relating to the causes of such dismissal and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters, papers, documents, evidence and reports, in connection with the dismissal of Newton Myra as caretaker of the Government building at Lunenburg, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters, papers, documents, evidence and reports, in connection with the dismissal of Henry Nass, light keeper at Battery Point, Lunenburg, N.S.
Mr. Warnock.-For a copy of all correspondence, charges, petitions, recommendations and other documents relating to the dismissal or retirement of W. J. Hyde as Indian agent at the Blood Indian Reservation, Alberta, and of all letters and other documents relating to the causes of such dismissal and the appointment of his successor.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply:
Frank Oliver: I wish to have a further word in regard to the movement of the Hindus now taking place at Vancouver. I have asked a number cf questions with regard to this matter, and I want to be understood that it is not with any intention or desire of embarrassing the Government in administering what is no doubt a difficult question and a delicate situation. I wish, however, that it shall be understood that so far as I am concerned I want my own position made definite and thoroughly understood, whatever may be the attitude of the Government. I am in hopes that the attitude of the Government will be in conformity with my view, but, if it is not, then, from my point of view, so much the worse for the Government.
The immigration law as it stands is a declaration on the part of this country that Canada is mistress of her own house and takes the authority and responsibility of deciding who shall be admitted to citizenship and the privileges and rights of citizenship within her borders. This I take it is not because of any declaration of individual or national superiority on the part of the people of Canada over the people of any other nation, country, or race. It is simply a declaration of an attempt to discharge a national, and, if you like, an imperial responsibility. We are in occupation of this country; we are in control of its affairs, and there is nothing that is of such intimate, immediate and ultimate, future concern as the character of the population that goes to make up the country. The country is the people; the people are the 
country, and it is the first duty of the country, as it is the first duty of the Government, to take such measures as may be right and expedient to prevent, if prevention is necessary, the occupation of this country by population that shall hamper and deter in any material degree the development of those ideals of civilization which we believe ourselves to be here for the purpose of working out to their highest degree. It was with that end in view that the immigration law at present upon the statute-book was placed there; and it is under these principles that, for my part, I desire to see this law administered.
In regard to the particular case that is now engaging the attention of the Immigration Department, as I said, I do not wish to hamper the Government by undue criticism; but in my judgment, the proclaimed attempt, the announced attempt on the part of these four hundred people from India to forte themselves into Canada in spite of the law, in spite of the policy of the Government of the country, is an occurrence that does not carry to the people concerned any special amount of consideration at the hands of either the Government or the people of Canada. It has been announced that this in an attempt to break down the policy of Canada as it has been hitherto' announced and enforced. The Government has the responsibility of preventing that breaking down from taking place.
Just as to how this matter is viewed by people who are in the empire, of the empire, and who have an imperial outlook, may I read a quotation from The Britannic Review? The writer says:
The able leaders of the Indian campaign, whenever they are at pains to explain and justify It in a broader aspect than that of a local quarrel in South Africa or British Columbia, present it as a movement which aims at nothing less than the complete equality of Indians with Europeans in all parts of the empire. That is an ideal which the Indian people are entitled to cherish, and it is to their credit that their leaders do so; even if it is based upon an inferior and impracticable conception of what * equality ' in the empire commonwealth means. It is not an ideal to which the little European communities, who are trying to hold for western civilization the empty lands which were won by enterprise of their British forefathers while Asia slept, can afford to make concessions of a kind involving the economic displacement of their own race.


Martin Burrell: Who is the writer of that?


Frank Oliver: I do not think the writer's name is given.
This is not a labour question; it is not a

racial question; it is a question of racial dominance and national existence. Under the plea of being fellow-citizens of the empire, the leaders of this movement, highly intelligent and wealthy men, have undertaken to assert an authority in the Dominion of Canada which shall direct its affairs, and to that extent control its destiny. When they have thrown out that challenge to Canada or, if you like, to the empire, there is only one thing to be done, namely, to meet the challenge halfway. This is not an ordinary instance of men coming to our shores looking for homes or an opportunity to labour. This is an organized movement for the purpose of establishing as a principle the right that the people of India, and not the people of Canada, shall have the say as to who shall be accepted as citizens of Canada. The fact that in their advocacy of the idea, the principle of world-wide empire is invoked, does not make it any the more true, the more possible or acceptable. My idea of world-wide empire is an empire in which each of its component parts shall be given and guaranteed the opportunity to work out the destiny of that particular part according to the ideals of the people and the material possibilities of that particular part. To say that we in Canada shall not be able to say who shall join us in the work of building up the country, that we must accept the dictation of other people as to who shall join in that work, places us in the position, not of a selfgoverning state in a free empire, but in the position of a subordinate dependency not in control of its own affairs.
I said I would not embarrass the Government by criticising, and I do not wish to do so; but I wish to say to the minister that in my humble judgment there has been a very considerable delay in dealing with this matter. These people came to Vancouver, I believe, nearly a week ago and it seems to me-I do not wish, I say to criticise, but merely suggest-that the greater promptitude that is used in dealing with the situation the less opportunity there will be for fault-finding from any side of the question. I have already questioned the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior as to whether or not they propose to take advantage of section 23 of the Immigration Act. I gather from the remarks of the Prime Minister that it is not the intention of the Government to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: What section is that?


Frank Oliver: It reads as follows:
No court, and no judge or officer thereof, shall have jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceedings, decision or order of- the minister or of any board of inquiry, or officer in charge, had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the detention or deportation of any rejected immigrant, passenger or other person, upon any ground whotsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend misunderstood me.


Frank Oliver: I am glad I did. I asked the question a number of times and in a number of different ways, and I understood from the Prime Minister that it was not the intention of the Government to take advantage of this .section but that it was the intention of the Government to permit the question as to the rights of these particular immigrants to be adjudicated by the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend
misunderstood me and misunderstands me yet. The Government has no power to say to the court: You shall not issue a writ. If a writ issues which apparently is in contravention of section 23, the only thing the Government can do is to place before the judge the statute and say:	That prohibits
you from proceeding. It will be for the judge of the court to consider the statute in view of the circumstances disclosed and determine whether the court has or has not jurisdiction to proceed. That is the only way the Government can assert the provision to which I have alluded, as I understand the law.


Frank Oliver: That is not the way in which the Government has always asserted this provision, and it is not the way in which it was intended that the Government should assert its authority under the provision.


Robert Laird Borden: What way was it intended?


Frank Oliver: It was intended that until the court of inquiry provided for by the Act had disposed of the immigrant's case no order of the court should be recognized. As a matter of fact, it excluded the immigrant from the jurisdiction of the court until he had been accepted or passed by the authority of the Department of the Interior. There was a case some months ago where some sixteen of these people came, a trial trip, I fancy, very much as this is a trial trip, asking admittance to Canada. The board of inquiry sat, and

they were rejected. But an order of the court was issued, and they were admitted on the decision of the court and not on the decision of the Department of the Interior. As a result of the success of these men in that case-as a direct result-this shipload of 400 were gathered up and brought to try the same thing again. It was a perfectly clear case that when it appeared that the Government was not able to shut the door, then means were to be taken to force it wider open. It was the slackness of the Government in the former case that is the occasion of this present attempt being made. Because they let in sixteen they should not have let in, they are faced with the necessity of either letting in or excluding 400. As I said, I have no desire to embarrass the Government in this matter, but I want it to be plainly understood that the responsibility of letting in or keeping out these people is up to the Government. They have the machinery, they have the means, and if these people come in it will be the fault of the Government-if fault there be-and the Government will have to take that responsibility.
The other, reason why I have taken the liberty of delaying the House to this extent is that if there is at the present time any shortage in the law, if there is any necessity for amendment in the law, the House is still in session, but it will rise in a few days; and I want to put beyond possibility the excuse the law is not sufficient to meet whatever purpose may be necessary, if the policy of the Government be, as I have suggested to the House, the policy which is embodied in the present Immigration Act, and the policy I would like to see carried out.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman
blames the Government for undue delay in dealing with the cases of the Hindus because the vessel reached port a week ago. The Government do not plead guilty to any undue delay. We have been particularly careful in every step we 'have taken thus far. The hon. gentleman must recollect that the boat in the first place was at quarantine at Victoria for some time before proceeding to Vancouver. Since the vessel reached Vancouver these people have been undergoing a very critical medical examination. A good many of these, I understand, were troubled with diseases of the eye-trachoma and other diseases of that nature-and each individual had to be examined, and, being ex-

amined on board ship, it was a slower process than it would have been on land. We thought it better to take the precaution to have these examinations conducted on the vessel than to let these people land, as in that event we did not know what steps might be taken by their countrymen that might have caused a good deal of trouble to the immigration authorities. So as a necessary precaution we considered that the medical examination should be held on board ship.
The hon. gentleman states that it was because the Government did not enforce the law in the case of sixteen Hindus who were allowed into the country some time ago that we have this present difficulty. If there is any blame to toe laid for the admission of the sixteen Hindus into Canada that blame rests not on this Government, but on the Government in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) himself was Minister of the Interior.
It was because of the faulty nature of the Order in Council passed by himself, which Chief Justice Hunter ruled as unconstitutional and not in accordance with the statute, that those sixteen Hindus were admitted into Canada. This Government took steps at the earliest possible moment to remedy those faulty Orders in Council, and we consider that they will now withstand even the scrutiny of Chief Justice Hunter.
I quite agree with my hon. friend's suggestion that at this session, if anything could be done so to adjust the law as to carry out the wishes of Parliament and of the people, it might be desirable to do it. The officers of the Government are fulfilling their duties to the letter. We are examining these persons one by one. A board of inquiry is necessary in each individual case; this board of inquiry is starting work today.
The hon. gentleman seems to think that we have not been expediting the examination of the Hindus as we should have done, but I see no reason for finding fault with the Government on that score. It is better to be sure of our ground, better to conduct carefully and successfully those examinations than to have any reproach in the future against our officers for non-fulfilment of their duties. I quite agree with my hon. friend that our Immigration Act should be enforced; we desire to see that it is enforced without any undue harshness or severity. It must be recognized that those people being British subjects have, perhaps, more claim upon us than the average person com-

ing from an alien country. We do not desire to do anything that 'will be unduly harsh or that 'will grate upon their feelings, but at the same time we are taking steps under the provisions of the Immigration Act for self-protection; we are carrying out our own immigration laws to protect our own people. Some time ago it was drawn to our attention that the labour market in British Columbia was congested and that it was necessary to protect the labouring people, particularly in that province. In December, therefore, we passed an Order in Council for three months prohibiting the entry into Canada of labourers through ports along the British Columbia coast and the international boundary line. At the end. of the three months the Order in Council was extended for a further period of six months. This Order in Council refers not to Hindus particularly, but to labourers and artisans, skilled or unskilled, from any country and we are enforcing that Order in Council against those classes from all countries. I assure the hon. gentleman that every step has been taken that may be considered advisable or necessary to enforce the law. If in the future the law is found to be faulty, we will have to amend it. We have been able to [DOT]stop every gap by remedying the faulty Orders in Council that were passed by the previous Government, and we have amended them in accordance with the decision of Chief Justice Hunter and I do not see what under the circumstances we could otherwise have done.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must express my regret that the discussion started by the hon. member for Edmonton should be taken up in the spirit just evidenced by the hon. Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend stated that be did not want to impede in any way with the action of the Government in respect of the admission of these fellow-subjects into our country; he said, on the contrary, that he wanted to support the 'Government in dealing with the matter in the right way. The aim of the Government, if it be in accordance with the wish of the people of British Columbia, should be to keep these intended immigrants from entering into Canada. This question, as has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, is one of broad consequences. We find that there is a condition im which one class of British subjects want to gain entrance into the country and another class 288
of British subjects do not want to let them in. The people of Canada want to have a white country, and certain o,f our fellow subjects who are not of the white race want to come into Canada and be admitted to all the rights of Canadian citizenship. They say: We are British subjects, as you are; we were born under the British flag; some of us have worn British uniforms; some of us have fought under the British flag; you should open your gates to us as you would if we were of the white race. There are other British subjects who say: we will not have them. What is the cause of this?
The question is not altogether a racial one:	the basis of the
objection is not wholly antipathy to the yellow races. When members of the Asiatic races go to South Africa, to the Straits Settlements, to British Columbia, to California, to Australia, or anywhere, the moment they come into contact with white labour and white workingmen, there is conflict. The reason is altogether an economic one. These men of the Asiatic races have been accustomed for ages to a standard of civilization entirely different from ours. They live more cheaply than we do; they accept a lower rate of wage. That is the commencement of trouole. So long as this is so, you will have the same trouble wherever Asiatics come into contact with men of the Caucasian race.
What is to be done? My hon. friend is trying to exclude them from this country. 1 know that if these Hindus are allowed to come into British Columbia, there may be riots on the streets of Vancouver and Victoria; that has happened, and may happen again. But the only way in which the difficulty is to be overcome is, so far as possible, by diplomacy; the law should be the last resort to be taken advantage of. We have an arrangement with the Japanese Government that has worked well. Last year my hon. friend the member for Vancouver (Mr. [DOT]Stevens) suggested that we should have some similar arrangement with the Chinese Government. I wish that we had some arrangement also with the Government of India. It would be well if the governments of China and India would undertake to do as has been done in the case of Japan; that is, restrain their own emigration. But, if a ship comes from India to this country carrying persons seeking admittance, and they are met by the law which says: You



are not to be admitted here; they -will go back to India with bitterness in their hearts, and the unity of the empire must suffer. These men have been taught by a certain school of politics that they are the equals of British subjects; unfortunately, they are brought face to face with the hard facts only when it is too late. In my humble judgment, while the Government will do well to keep them out, the best method is to resort, not to law, but, if possible, to diplomacy. Let arrangements be made with the Government of India whereby they will do as the Japanese Government have done: try to keep their own people at home. They may say: The white people come to our country; why should not the people of our country go to yours? That is logical, but, unfortunately, this is a matter in which such logic will not count; and we shall have trouble until the remedy which I venture humbly to submit is applied by this Government.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has spoken of diplomatic efforts which might be useful for the purpose of controlling immigration from India to Canada in the same way that our immigration from Japan is controlled. Doubtless he remembers that some effort of that kind was made under his Administration, and I think it was not very successful.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite the contrary.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the right hon.
gentleman is mistaken. I am not aware that any particular success attended his efforts. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to have passed the Order in Council as to direct passage under the Act of 1910 which was promulgated upon the recommendation of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), then Minister of the Interior. The Order in Council which prohibited immigration from India, and indeed, immigration generally to the Pacific coast of Canada except by direct passage was undoubtedly invested with a certain significance, and that particular Order in Council would not have been necessary if the diplomatic efforts to which my right hon. friend alludes had had the success which he imagines.
We have not been unmindful of the considerations to which my right hon. friend alludes in that regard; but up to the present time I cannot say that any efforts along that line have been attended with the success which we certainly desired and

which might possibly have been expected. It is regrettable, as the hon. member for Edmonton has said, that this ship should have been despatched to this country when it was perfectly well known at the time she sailed that the Order in Council of December last was still in full force. That Order in Council had no special relation to the people of India or to the people of China or Japan. It had just as much application to labouring men and artisans from Australia or New Zealand who might seek to enter this country. It was not discriminatory in any sense against any race. It had and still has general application on the Pacific coast and also on the international border. It is greatly to be deplored that in the face of that Order in Council still in force under the legislative sanction of this Parliament this ship should have brought to our shores immigrants who cannot be admitted. I entirely concur in what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite that the laws of this country in that regard, and the regulations made under those laws, must have full force and effect and be carried out.
The only observation made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior to which the right hon. the leader of the Opposition took exception, was in reply to certain blame which the hon. member for Edmonton attempted to cast on the Government ior the admission of sixteen Hindus last year. The Minister of the Interior replied to that by pointing out that these men came in by reason of the fact that there was a certain alleged defect relied upon by the chief justice of the province of British Columbia under which those men had to be admitted notwithstanding the Order in Council, for reasons adduced by the learned chief justice. That alleged defect in the Order in Council has since been made good. My hon. friend from Edmonton has alluded to section 23, and I pointed out that we have no power to direct the court as to what writ it shall or shall not issue, or as to the proceedings it shall authorize to be taken or otherwise. It is of course, conceivable that a court might issue a writ or make an order so absolutely in the face of section 23, that the officials of the Government, after the matter had been placed before the law officers of the Crown for consideration, might direct that the writ or order be disregarded under the expectation that it would be withdrawn by the court or reversed on appeal. That would have to be a very extreme case and a very plain case. Apart from that, the

only way in which the Government could assert the provisions of section 23 would be to point out its provisions to the court and ask the court in view of these provisions to take no action and to make no order. The hon. member for Edmonton will of course, remember that the provisions, of section 3 declare that the decision or order of the Minister or Board of Inquiry in order to secure the protection of that section must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and a court might come to the conclusion-in fact, courts have sometimes come to the conclusion-that the particular proceedings which were attacked in the courts had not been begun or carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that therefore, the authority of that section could not be invoked. In the ordinary course it must be determined by the court whether a particular case is one in which the authority of that section can be invoked by the minister and his officers. It is intended to give very distinct protection, and it does give very distinct protection if the proceedings are under the authority of the law.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Militia and Defence-allowances, active militia, $123,000.
["With the permission ol\nthe House I wish to read further telegrams which have been received in reference to the disaster attending the loss of the Empress of Ireland, from Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General:\nLondon, 1st June, 1914.\nPlease transmit to Prime Minister following message received to-day from Government of New South Wales:\nBegins. New South Wales shocked at enormous sacrifice of valuable human lives in Empress of Ireland disaster; wish you favour by conveying to bereaved relatives on be'ia'f of Government and people of this sister British Dominion profound sorrow and sympathy.\n(Sgd) Harcourt.\nFrom Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General:\nLondon, 1st June, 1914.\nFollowing telegram has been received from Governor General of Australia.\n[Mr. Carvell.l\t*/\t,\nPlease convey Australia's deepest sympathy with Canada in terrible maritime disaster which has brought sorrow to so many homes in the sister Dominion.\n(Sgd) Harcourt.\nBrisbane, June 1, 1914.\nHonourable Premier,\nOttawa, Canada.\nOn behalf of Queensland Government and people please accept our sympathy with you at appalling loss of life in connection with sinking of Empress of Ireland and also deepest sympathy with the injured and bereaved ones.\nW. H. Barnes,\nActing Premier.\nOn motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.18 a.m.\nTuesday, June 2, 1914."]
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Before we proceed with these Estimates, I would like to refer to the purchase of a rifle range near Souris, P.E.I., for which fully three times the proper value has been paid. More than that, the opening of, this rifle range closes a public road which has been travelled for many years. If the Government proceeds with the closing of that road, I am informed that those who will be injured thereby intend to file a Bill of rights and claim damages against the Government. It would take me fifteen minutes to explain the matter as briefly as I can and it will not be worth while commencing the explanation now before one o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Joseph Hughes: No, I wish the
right hon. Prime Minister to be present to hear my statement of this case, because it is of some importance to the people affected by it. It involves a principle which is of considerable importance. This road was a matter in dispute between the man who sold the rifle range to the Government and those who had the use of 2881
the road. It was brought before the Supreme Court of the province and the Supreme Court decided that this road could not be closed. Now the Department of Militia and Defence and the Dominion Government are being made use of to close this road under these circumstances. It is a matter that the Prime Minister himself ought to take some notice of. I had! a question upon the Order Paper some time; ago asking the department if they were aware of the fact that by the opening of this rifle range they were closing a public highway, and the answer that was given by the minister was that they were closing no public highway. That showed me that the minister did not understand the situation. I wrote to the deputy minister last summer in regard to the matter and got no reply. My letter is on the file which I received. I also wrote to the minister and got no reply. My letter to the minister is not on the file. I want to bring the matter now to the attention of the committee in this public way and to ask that the necessary steps be taken to guard the rights of the people who will be affected by the opening of this rifle range. It is now one o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Other hon. MEMBERS:	Carried, carried.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers has been the subject of consideration by the department. There is no road whatever shown on the plan as submitted to us-no public highway; but any complaint that has been made, or may be made, will receive careful consideration.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) makes his statement that difficulties had arisen as to the existence of this road, that the matter had been in court, and that the Supreme Court of the province had decided that the road existed and that persons living in that portion of the country had a right to use It. Now, the contention is that the Militia Department have stepped in and by buying all this land for a rifle range have taken away from the people that which the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island says they have a right to. Perhaps after recess the minister will take up that view of it.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.

The committee resumed at three o'clock.


James Joseph Hughes: When the committee rose at one o'clock I had stated that the Department of Militia had purchased a rifle range near Souris, for which they had paid fully three times its value, and more than that, that the opening of this rifle range would close a public highway which would subject the people in the neighbourhood to a great deal of inconvenience and injury. I said that the department proceeded to the closing of the highway, and I am advised by counsel that he intended to apply for a Bill of rights claiming damages from the Government. I will state briefly the history of this transaction. To start with, the whole transaction is political.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are there any politics in the militia?


James Joseph Hughes: Some years ago
this man McAulay, who sold the rifle range to the department, was advised by the men in politics down there to close the road across his farm against his neighbours, who had had the use of that road for some forty or fifty years to enable them to go down to the shore to gather sea manure and to prosecute their fishing. McAulay was an innocent man and could be easily advised. All the parties who had had the use of this road happened to be Liberals. When the road was closed against them, one of the men named McDonald who was inconvenienced, as I have described, took legal proceedings against McAulay in the name of himself and others. The case went to the courts and it was of some importance, as in our province there are several places where such right of way privileges exist to the shore where there is a cove, because it is only in coves that sea-manure can be gathered, and it is only in coves, unless there is a harbour, that fishing boats can be launched. After considerable and expensive litigation, the Supreme Court of the province decided that inasmuch as this road had been used for upwards of thirty years, the owner of the land could not close it. McAulay was put to very great expense. I understood at the time that the expenses of the suit amounted to $500 or $600; a great many witnesses were examined, counsel was engaged on each side, and McAulay being a poor man was unable to pay this, to him, very large amount. The friends who are alleged to have advised him to take this course and who had given McAulay credit,

were afraid that they would not be able to collect their money, and he owed a considerable bill to Matthew and MacLean, Limited, the manager of which company is Mr. John MacLean who subsequently was interested m this rifle range. He had taken a mortgage against McAulay for some $400 or thereabouts. Mr. Fraser, who was one of the counsel in the case for McAulay took a judgment against him for $300. Mr. Fraser was one of the valuators who valued this land. McAulay was much worried and it *was reported that he had become almost melancholy over the situation. Some time after the present Government came into power, the idea seemed to have entered into the mind of somebody that a part of Mc-Aulay's land might be taken for a rifle range for the Government. Some few years before that McAulay had bought forty odd acres of land from his neighbour for $360, and he sold twenty and a half acres of that forty acres for $1,000 to this Government foT a rifle range.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: What is the date of the original sale?


James Joseph Hughes: On December 6,
1905, Alexander McAulay bought from Frank McAulay forty-three acres. We have seen that there were $700 against McAulay, $300 due to Mr. Fraser as counsel and $400 to Mr. MacLean. The records of the registry court show that these bills were paid to synchronize with the receipt from the Government of the $1,000 that McAulay received for his land. Mr. McAulay received, in addition to the payment of these bills, $300, which would be a good price for the land.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who was the appraiser?


James Joseph Hughes: On the 16th of March I asked the Government this question :
1.	What did the Government pay for the rifle range they bought at Souris, P.E.I. ?
2.	Did any ofllcial or officials of the Militia Department recommend the purchase of this range? If so, who?
3.	Did any other person or persons recommend this purchase? If so, who?
The reply to that was:
Mr. Hughes:
1. $1,000.
2.	O. C. 6th Division.
3.	The minister assumes full responsibility in the premises, but Hon. Mr. MacLean and others were consulted and gave valuations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is Mr. MacLean?


James Joseph Hughes: He is a member of the firm of Matthew and MacLean, Limited, which had a mortgage against the property.

4.S6J
The department were looking for a rifle range in that locality, and I have here a telegram from the captain of the company, M. A. Paquet. There is no date to this telegram, but it was some time in the month of April or May, 1913:
C. B. Russell, D.O. M.P.'s office,
The Lumber Yard, Halifax, N.S.
Knight refuses sell lighthouse range have secured option present site $1,000 prefer this to expropriating, writing to-day.
(Sgd) M. A. Paquet,
Captain R.S.A.
But the letter here referred to is not on the file. I find here a letter from the deputy minister, dated Ottawa, May 7, 1913:
Hon. John MacLean,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Please furnish names two competent men to value site present rifle range, Souris. This information required for Privy Council before purchase can be authorized.
(Sgd) Eugene Fiset,
Deputy Minister, Militia.
This is the reply:
Souris, P.E.I., May 8, 1913. Deputy Minister of Militia,
Ottawa.
Would name A. L. Fraser and C. H. Stearns.
(Sgd) John MacLean.
On the same page there are the following memoranda:
To Assistant Deputy Minister:
Write to these men to send valuation at once.
(Sgd) Eugene Fiset.
To Director Engineer Services:
Will you obtain these valuations, please.
(Sgd) E. F. Jarvis.
On May 10, 1913, the following letter was sent by the deputy minister to Mr. A. L. Fraser:
Dear Sir,-It is desired to obtain a valuation of the present rifle range site at Souris used by the Souris Rifle Association.
It appears that they had it rented for some time.
The names of yourself and Mr. C. H. Stearns have been suggested by the Hon. John MacLean to be competent to make this valuation, and 1 should be glad if you and Mr. Stearns would undertake this work on behalf of the Department of Militia and Defence, and forward your report at the earliest possible date.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Eugene Fiset.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who is Mr. Fraser?


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Fraser was the late member of Parliament, and one of the counsel for Mr. McAulay in this case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And he has the patronage of the county now?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. A similar letter was sent to Mr. Stearns. On May 14, three days afterwards, this letter was sent to the deputy minister by the valuators:
Eugene Fiset, Esq.,
Department of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your favour of May 10, we may say that we visited the present rifle range site at Souris, P.E.I., on May 13, and we valued the site at $1,500.
Tours truly,
(Sgd) A. L. Fraser,
C. H. Stearns.
1 know that these gentlemen, before valuing that site iat $1,500, knew that Mr. McAulay had offered it to the department for $1,000.	1 am just as sure of that as
I am that I am standing here, because I know that Mr. McAulay would not make an offer to the department until he had consulted with these gentlemen as to what price he would value it at, because Mr. Fraser had been his counsel in the case and had the patronage of the county, and Mr. Stearns was a man of affairs in the country. 1 am sure that before the department had offered to purchase this land, if any private individual had offered McAulay $500 for it, he would have almost fainted with surprise. For some reason or other these gentlemen valued the property at $1,500. The department, however, ignored their valuation; and as it had the offer of Mr. McAulay in its possession, it could not pay him more than $1,000, and he received that sum.
The minister told me to-day there was nothing on the plan which showed that theTe was a public highway across that piece of property. I presume that is quite correct.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	That is what I
said. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I am going by the plan.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister tell me who was the engineer or draughtsman who made the plan?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	The engineer is
Mr. Houliston, the best engineer in the Dominion of Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: Is he one of the officers of the department?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	He is the chief
engineer at Halifax.


James Joseph Hughes: The situation, is
this. I have pointed out that Mr. Fraser was one of the counsel to McAulay in this case. He is of the firm of Fraser and McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid was the agent of the department in this case who drew the deed from McAulay to the department. He was well acquainted with all the conditions, knew absolutely the decision of the Supreme Court and was therefore in a position to advise the department properly. The other counsel in the case for McAulay at the time was the present Attorney General and the Premier of the province. Mr. Mathieson, and I think Mr. MacDonald, his partner, though he may not have been consulted in regard to this deed at all

his name does not appear on the records. But Mr. Fraser's partner, as I have stated, was the agent of the Government, in that transaction, and if he did not advise the department that there was a public road across the property, he was, I think, remiss in his duty. I have here a plan which 1 submit to the minister which shows the location of the stop butt, and I have an affidavit from some of the people who are interested or will be interested. That affidavit is as follows:
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that the engineer who recently made a survey of the proposed rifle range at Norris Pond, Prince Edward Island, has staked and marked a ' stop butt ' directly upon the present-public road leading to the shore, and further that if the ' butt ' is built at the point at present indicated, it will positively close the road and prevent the public from using same, thus denying the people a privilege which they have now enjoyed for many years.
Patrick McDonald, Bernard Creamer, Donald P. McDonald, John J. MacDonald, tineas Macdonald, G. B. Creamer, D. F. McAuley, Jos. Macaulay, John McDonald.
Declared before me at Souris, Prince Edward Island, this 13th day of March, A.D. 1914.
James A. McCormack,
J. P. for Kings county, Prince Edward Island.
Here is a letter from Mr. Gaudet of Gau-det and Haszard, in reply to an inquiry 1 made of him. He encloses a plan showing the right of way across the landing in that neighborhodd and where the stop butt is proposed to be built, just where the road runs on to the shore, thus effectually closing the road.
Mr. Gaudet says:
Charlottetown, P.E.I., March 16, 1914. Hon. J. J. Hughes, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter, enclosing n

copy of a reply to a question proposed by you, concerning the rifle range near Souris.
Before receiving this letter, I had been consulted in the matter, and I immediately made inquiries, and I am now in a position to state the circumstances of the case, which are as follows:
You will understand that there is a right of way leading f*om Patrick McDonald's farm across Donald McAuley's and Prank McDonald's farm and from there to the shore at the landing sear Norris' Pond.
McAuley's farm from the main road to the shone seems to have been divided into three parts, a<3 follows:
The eastern part was owned by McAuley, the central division ow'ned by John S. McDonald, of Charlo tetown, and the eastern part was also owned by Alexander McAuley having purchased the same as we understand during recent years.
The part near the shore, or the western portion lately purchased by Alexander McAuley, is what has now been sold for the rifle range.
We herewith enclose a sketch made on the ground, showing where the road comes across the farm of Patrk. McDonald and cuts across Alexander McAuley and John S. McDonald's sections of the McAuley farm, and then follows the line towards the shore within 60 feet of the bank and then turns across the portion of the land sold for the rifle range, to the landing, a distance of 312 feet from the line.
The rifle range on which the Department of Militia is now erecting a butt at the shore, and this butt we have coloured green showing that it extends across the road and with the only and evident intention of debarring the parties who have a right to use this road from enjoying the same in future. We would like to remind you that this road or right of way has been confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court in the suit of McAuley vs. McDonald and the rights of the parties who use it indicated.
The attorney for the Dominion Government is Mr. A. A. McDonald, who is a partner with J. A. Mathieson, Attorney General-
He is in error in that, Mr. Gaudet was evidently under the impression that Mr. McDonald was employed by the department in this case. But it was Mr. McQuaid, Mr. Fraser's partner. However, I will read the letter as it stands:
-and Mr. Mathieson was engaged on the case of McAuley V3. McDonaM, and it woul 1 be interesting to know what report of the title of this land has been out for the department, as there is no question of the fact that the road exists and has existed for 100 years or so and that the parties who have been in the habit of using the same will insist on their rights being recognized.
We understand, however, that the parties concerned have no right to remove the butt, but as they have been deprived of an undoubted right of using the road, as you yourself will understand, the situation we propose if your remonstrances do not avail, to file a petition of rights on behalf of the parties for compensation in this matter.
Yours truly,
G. Gaudet.

457i
I have here the sketch made on the spot which showis, the road and right-of-way across this land and where the butt is being placed. So, we have here a nice little plot, a nice little frame-up. As I have pointed out, and as the minister can see, this land 43 acres was bought some few years ago for $360. Now, twenty acres is sold for a rifle range for $1,000. The parties who were defeated in their efforts to close this road against these men who have been using it for upwards of fifty years conceived the idea of getting the Government and the Department of Militia to close the road and apparently, so far, they have succeeded in doing it.
The expenses to which McAulay was put in consequence of the advice which he received to go to law with his neighbours, were paid by the Dominion Government under this arrangement, and the men who benefited by it were the men who valued the land. It is true that the amount involved is not large, but the violation of principle is as great as- has ever taken place in this country and is just as culpable as if the amount involved were $100,000. The money has been paid and cannot be recovered, but the question is: what action will the minister take to see that the rights of the people aTe protected in so far as that right of way is concerned? I am informed that this cove which has been used for years by the fishermen will not be available to them if the rifle range is to be continued as at present proposed.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Is it the same
cove that has been in front of the rifle range for years?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, but the line
of firing was different and the use of the cove by fishermen was not unsafe. This is simply a frame-up among parties, interested to get the Government and the Department of Militia and Defence to carry out their private purposes, and it is not creditable to anybody. What I am particularly interested in, however, is to see that this road remains open to the people who have been using it for the purpose of going to the shore foT sea manure and to fish, and that the Department of Militia and Defence will do nothing to take their rights away.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	This is the first
intimation, directly or indirectly, which the department has had that there is anything wrong in the purchase of the land. With all due regard to the hon. member and without any intention of slighting him, I may
say that I would prefer to take the word of any of the gentlemen who have spoken to me in this matter. Mr. McLean, Mr. Mathieson, and other gentlemen who are absolutely disinterested, than to take the statement as given by my hon. friend. I would hesitate a long time to think that gentlemen of their standing would stoop to any of these petty tricks that my hon. friend has ascribed to them. There was a rifle Tange at SouTis, the firing line of which was directed towards a cove in the gulf of St. Lawrence. The line of fire, which passed by a bluff sixty feet above the water level at high or low tide, as the case may be, was so high that a boat in passing could not be seen until she was almost directly in the line of fire. The consequence was that only the old rifle shots were allowed to fire there; the cadets were not allowed to fire, and a man had to be kept as a signaller on the point all the time to signal the approach of any vessel. Captain Paquet and a number of officers protested against this dangerous range and various expedients were resorted to. Finally a range was located in the same district, with an entirely different line of fire, as my hon. friend knows.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the
trouble.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	The line of fire
does not now pass this dangerous headland and a ship can be seen approaching before it gets to the line of fire. Nevertheless, we have given orders to the departmental officers that no firing shall take place unless a signaller be stationed at the point to observe the approach of vessels. As to the price, I do not know anything about it, good, bad or indifferent, but my hon. friend fixes the price at $50 an acre, and I do not suppose that that would be a high valuation for land in Prince Edward Island. Moreover, my hon. friend's own figures show that there was a $700 mortgage on this property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $700 in judgments
which the lawyers obtained against this man on account of a lawsuit which they prosecuted and lost.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I did not understand my hon. friend to say that; perhaps the hon. member for Carleton knows more about it than the hon. member for Kings.


James Joseph Hughes: $300 was the amount of a judgment that Mr. Fraser obtained; $400 was the amount of the mortgage.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Was the judgment against the land?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes; against the property of McAulay.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The valuation of the property is based upon the reports of the officers of the department. We have a very good range there now, and it cost us only $1,000; so far as the department is concerned, that is all there is to it. With regard to the road, I was careful to see that a proper title was secured. No report from the Justice Department shows evidence, direct or indirect, of a title so far as this road is concerned. I may say that it is the duty of the department not only to look into these matters but to meet the wishes of the people if they have any claim to make in regard to them. We have no evidence, however, except the word of the hon. gentleman in the House to-day, that any claim to this road appears on the records either of the Department of Justice or of the Department of Militia.


James Joseph Hughes: I have read the letter from the counsel who appeared on behalf of Macdonald and others in the case before the Supreme Court of the province.


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: Put it in the registry office; that is the proper place.


James Joseph Hughes: It is the record of the court.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister evidently does not understand the practice of the court. Litigation takes place over whether or not certain property is a road. The matter is tried in the ordinary course, with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the province, and the Supreme Court decides that it is a road and that the public have a right to it; we call it right of possession. That does not go on the record at all in the registry office, but it is the law of the land just the same. The official, whoever it was, that searched the title for the minister and for the Department of Justice must have known that the judgment was in existence, if it did exist. What looks suspicious to me is that the person who did the work for the Department of Justice was one McQuaid; McQuaid is a partner of the late member for this House, Mr. Fraser, and Mr. Fraser is the man who has the patronage of the county. Fraser is the man who recommended that this land be purchased; Fraser recommends that he be

appointed appraiser, and he is the appraiser.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. McLean recommended Mr. Fraser.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. McLean recommended Mr. Fraser; it is all in the family. McLean, McQuaid and Fraser must have known the existence of this judgment, if such a thing exists. If Mr. McQuaid, who represented the Justice Department, has not reported the fact of this litigation and extermination, then my hon. friend, if the facts be as he has stated, has certainly got a very grave cause of complaint against the agent of the Minister of Justice. The point I think my hon. friend ought to make is the fact that these gentlemen have taken this means of using the Dominion of Canada for winning a lawsuit which the courts of Prince Edward Island said they had lost. If the department have placed their stop butts right on this road, and if this road is the only way of getting to the water, it is pretty small business, and I hope the minister will look into the matter. Might I ask my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I., whether the targets and butts have been constructed yet?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know.
The engineer was there last fall or this spring and put down the stakes for them. That is the information I have from Gaudet, who got his information from the people on the spot who are the parties that will be injured by this action.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is the easiest thing in the world for the minister to find out what are the facts as to this litigation. If the case went to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island it is a reported case. While they might not have gone to the expense of printing it, it would be a very easy thing for the Justice Department to send a telegram to the court reporter at Charlottetown for the facts. If the case is more than a year old, and I think it is, it would be in the Parliamentary Library.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The land has already been purchased. I never heard of this matter before. We have no desire to interfere with the rights of any people and we shall certainly make an investigation. Whatever is right in the matter will be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to ask the minister how it is that there is a small increase in allowances? The item is a very small

one-$3,000, but my hon. friend's boast is that he is building drill halls. In fact, whenever he talks about financial matters, he uses drill halls as his unit just as the Indians used to use beads and wampum and things of that kind as their unit of value. Whenever a drill hall is built, I presume that the local militia corps is transferred to the drill hall and that their arms and accoutrements are stored there. My hon. friend from Guysborough says, ' If there happens to be any militia in the district I am assuming that there would be a militia unit of some sort. If there be no drill hall in the district I understand there is a regulation by which the officer commanding the unit, whether he be captain or major of a battery of artillery or of a corps of engineers, gets a small allowance for taking care of the arms, uniforms, and accoutrements. Where there is a drill hall tnese articles are placed in charge of its caretaker. Is that correct?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	The allowance to
the officer is then cut in half.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The care of these articles is then handed over to the drill hall?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: As a rule, but not always.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It must be so. Surely
if the allowance to the officer is cut down to one-half, the care of these accoutrements is handed over to the drill hall caretaker. What I cannot understand is why there should be an increase in this item. I am not grumbling at the amount, because $3,000 is an unimportant matter. What I find fault with is that the minister transfers the care of these articles to the caretaker of the drill hall. My hon. friend boasts and tries to make the country believe that he is running the Militia Department entirely free from politics, but the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. has just given us a little illustration Otf how politics is worked into the Militia Department. If a lot of good Conservatives cannot win lawsuits and close up a road and have things generally their own way, they simply apply to the minister and he does the trick for them.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Will the hon. member kindly furnish the evidence?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Kings, P.E.I. has just spent half an hour in giving the evidence.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Every time the
hon. member himself referred to the matter he said, 'if it be true'.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We legal gentlemen
sometimes like t-o put in a saving clause in order to make us out safe, but I have no doubt at all, and I do not think my hon. friend has, that the facts given by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. are true. Stealing a road away from a dozen people in Prince Edward Island may be an innocent joke to the minister but not to the people concerned, and perhaps if the minister would exercise a little less levity over important matters the people would take him a little more seriously than they do. I would like to see the minister at least affect sane moments over this question of expenditure on the militia.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I shall be very glad to avoid the line followed by my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The more important a subject is, the greater levity the minister shows in discussing it, and he seems to do that in order to get out of the hole in which we put him. It would do him a little more good-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I want the hon. member to go on talking and make an exhibition of himself.


John Howard Sinclair: Withdraw.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no trouble so far as I am concerned. If it was some other member of the Government I might ask him to withdraw, but, coming from the source it does, I do not think it is necessary. When we are discussing these Estimates this afternoon and evening, I would like the minister to act in a businesslike manner, but if he sits back in his chair with a grin on him like a chimpanzee or some other species of wild animal every time you refer to a cold-blooded boodling transaction, of course I am not responsible for the degree of understanding with which the Almighty has endowed him. I cannot make him listen to these things, but I think we shall get the grin off his face before we get through.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I will put a grin on the hon. member's face before I get through with him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is early in the day and there is lots of opportunity. If I have the minister's attention 1 will go back to the subject I was discussing. I think the

minister is making a very .serious mistake in taking away from the officers commanding these units the small allowance they have been accustomed to receive for taking care of the arms and clothing. )In my own constituency, and in many other portions of the Dominion, I know that the officers of the militia in the lower ranks are not overpaid. If my hon. friend would pay these officers, who are the real backbone of the militia, a reasonable allowance, and not give so much to the headquarters staff and that class of people, I think it would be a better averaging up of things. The captain of a company of infantry used to get about $40 for taking care of the arms, for the safe keeping of which he was responsible. Now, when a drill ball is 'built out in the country, the accoutrements are stored there in the charge of a caretaker, but the captain of the company is still responsible. I know for a fact that, when the inspecting officers find shortages, they call upon the captain of the company to make them good and he has to do it. They are not in his control. Cases have been brought to my attention in which the shortages occurred not through the negligence of the captain but through the negligence of the man who was in charge of the drill hall. These caretakers are all political appointments. They do not require to have a military training or knowledge and they do not care anything about how they discharge their duties. The arms and accoutrements are simply tumbled into a room and that is all there is to it. If the officer commanding was responsible, if he got whatever little pay there was, if he had these things under his control and if there was a shortage, it is only reasonable that he should be the loser and should be held responsible. But, when the minister puts these things in charge of a man who is not a militiaman and then holds the officer commanding responsible and makes him pay for the shortages, it is not reasonable. I think the minister would do well to investigate the matter and see if there are not many cases in whicn unfairness of this kind is being meted out to officers throughout the country.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: As far as command pay is concerned, the hon. gentleman is in error. Command pay goes to the officer commanding just as it always has.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not talking about command pay; I am talking about the care of arms.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The hon. gentleman used the words ' command pay Command pay, as it always has, goes to the officer commanding, and we pay for the care of arms and accoutrements, but if there is a caretaker appointed to the drill hall the arms and accoutrements are placed in the caretaker's charge and the caretaker is responsible for them. The results show that the losses are much less, in fact practically nil, when the arms and accoutrements are placed in charge of the caretaker than formerly when they were placed under the control of the officer in command. When the officer is in command of a company in the field he is responsible and he is the man that we look to when losses are to be made good. If the hon. gentleman were dealing with the losses occasioned by officers in command of units and subunits he would readily appreciate the necessity of holding these men up to the line. When an officer will let two-thirds of the saddlery be used throughout the country and will allow the riding breeches to be used amongst the cattle and so on my hon. friend will see the necessity of making these gentlemen realize their responsibility to the Government for losses of this kind. Most undoubtedly there are hard cases. I myself had to whack up $150 or $200 for a matter that I had nothing more to do with than the hon. member for Carleton. Before my time the captains of the companies had defaulted, I took the Regiment over, and the only way I could square it was by paying up. Undoubtedly, I repeat, hardships do occur, but all in all, I think the system is fairly well administered. The officer commanding has an allowance for the care of arms, he receives his command pay, an allowance for postage and things of that kind, and, all in all, I think he is not badly used. It is a part of the game but the boys should not look at it from a financial point of view. In so far as my hon. friend's little exhibition of temper is concerned, he will permit me to smile at it. He tried to back up the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes), and to show that what he had said was true but he will not mind my smiling at him.	.


Mr. GERMAN:: The town of Welland
was rath-eir expecting to see an amount in the Supplementary Estimates for the beginning of a drill hall there. The hon. gentleman has been there and he knows the circumstances. I see there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimates and there will be great disappointment.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No man is more disappointed than I am. I sent a recommendation for Welland to the Public Works Depajrtment but like many other public works this has been unavoidably held over for the present season.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry that I have not got any more satisfaction from the minister. I expected him to deal with the question or principle, with reference
4	p.m. to taking away from the officers commanding these different corps the duty of taking care of the arms.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: In the drill hall?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the drill hall. If in every case the ministec would appoint a man to take charge of the drill hall who had some knowledge of arms and the care of arms it would not be so bad but all these men are political appointments. The minister does not deny it.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	If the hon. gentleman will walk down to my office I will show him that I have been raked over the coals and told that I have appointed a Grit of fifteen years' standing to a position and a certain gentleman charges me with all scats of things.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are exceptions to all things.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I challenged my
hon. friend to show an instance where a man has been appointed for political reasons unless he was thoroughly qualified as a military man.	'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend puts in a later qualification that covers it all. If, twenty-five years ago, a man had gone to camp once, that, of course, would warrant the minister in accepting him as a thoroughly qualified man. I do not know that I am finding very much fault with the minister for these appointments. These are political appointments; there is no use of trying [DOT] to get away from it. There is not an hon. gentleman opposite who would allow the minister to appoint a Grit as caretaker of a drill hall. We did the same thing when we were in power and there is no use of my hon. friend assuming airs of superior virtue that he does not possess. The hon. gentleman .appoints a political friend to the position of caretaker in one of these drill halls. He may not know anything about a rifle, he does not know how to clean or oil it or to take care of it during the winter and the result is that the arms and accoutrements deteriorate. Then, the minister talks about an officer commanding a corps letting out two-thirds of the saddlery all over the country. I would say to get rid of that man. Surely the hon. gentleman is not keeping officers in charge of tlie different units of cavalry or artillery who have let out saddles to the boys, as he calls them, to use during the whole of the winter. That man should be cashiered and his services dispensed with because he is not fit to be an officer. I am discussing this question from a reasonable standpoint, from the standpoint of an officer who honestly tries to perform his duty and who turns in his clothing, accoutrements and equipment in as good a condition as possible at the end of the camp. The minister puts these .arms and accoutrements into the hands of a man who has no experience at all and who knows nothing about taking care of them. If the officer commanding the corps is to become responsible the minister should leave control of these things in his hands and let him have the pay. He does not, as a rule, live very far from the drill hall. He could even look after them himself. I have had brought to my attention the case of an officer commanding a corps who cannot get into the building except at certain times. He wants an outside key in order to he able to get into his room when he requires to do so but he can, only get in when it suits the caretaker of the building. The caretaker opens and shuts the building in accordance with his own. sweet will. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the Dominion, The minister would do well to consider this matter and I am satisfied that if he will consult the gentlemen sitting behind him he will find that there is the same cause of complaint all over the Dominion.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The rule has been the same for years: when a drill hall has been built and the officer is relieved of half the responsibility, he is relieved of half the pay. We insist now that the man in charge of a drill hall shall qualify to take up to a second-class certificate, and that he shall also qualify in the care of arms and so on. I ask the Conservative members, whenever necessary, to recommend me a man, but it will be found that the conditions laid down are very stringent, and fully one-third of those who have been recommended have not been taken on because they had not the

necessary qualifications. When a man is taken on he has to be reported on by the officer, and he must be competent before he is employed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister would get along more harmoniously, and it would be better for himself and for the militia and for those who recommend men to him, if he would get to take charge of drill halls men who are competent to keep the fires going and the places clean, and let the militia officers look after the other matters.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I do not quite agree with the last remark of my hon. friend. I think an efficient caretaker, who has seen some service, and has passed the necessary qualifying examination, is desirable, particularly in drill halls which have cost a very large sum of money. Of course, that remark would not apply so much to the smaller drill halls. On this item of allowances for active militia, there is an increase of only $3,000 during the present year it is true, but if ITinderstand the matter correctly, where there is a drill hall, the allowance of $40 to the captain is cut down by one-half.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	That is for
care of arms only.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Hugh Guthrie: I made a slip there; I should have said $11,500.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even if it did cost $11,000,000 it would not, surprise us; we have ceased to be surprised at anything now.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, at Norwood, near Omemee, where there is a population of 811, an armoury is to be erected to cost over $10,000. But, worse than that, at Orono, in the county of Durham, a place through which I have driven many a time, and with which I am familiar, and for which there is no population given in the census, it being taken in as part of the township, at Orono, which is practically a cross-roads village, the Government is building an armoury to cost $12,758. Worse than that

still, at Blackstock, in the county of Durham, which is situated some distance from a railway station, they are building an armoury. In the days when I remember it, it had a conveyancing office, a blacksmith shop, a store and an hotel, and the population of Blackstock is not given in the census returns, it being included in one of the townships I presume, and yet at this place they have erected an armoury costing $13,661. What this armoury can be for I do not know. It is possible there is or has been a militia company or half a company or something of that kind.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: At Blackstock?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. Use may be made of it; but are we justified in this Parliament in spending ten, twelve, fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars to maintain an armoury for a single company or two companies, especially when you consider that you have to add the cost of the caretaker and other expenses of light and heat, when, if I may express my own opinion, these armouries at Blackstock and Orono were erected simply and solely to help the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton) to come back to this House? These armouries were erected simply for political purposes. Perhaps there is good reason for the expenditure at Blackstock, because I heard a rumour in the county of Durham that the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence first saw the light of day at Blackstock-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	At Bowmanville.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, that is about
twelve or fifteen miles away-or that some relatives of the minister lived near this cross-road point of Blackstock, and that that was the real reason for the appropriation.	'
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I will give the reason.


Hugh Guthrie: There cannot be any
good reason for such an appropriation. The same may be said of a great many otheT places. I am going to put on ' Hansard ' a list of the armouries and drill sheds taken from the public reports of 1913-14, to which I think very strong exception should be taken. They are in villages or very small towns or hamlets; and I do not see the slightest justification for such tremendous expenditure, entailing, as it does, in every case the cost of caretaking, fire, light and other incidentals.
I take first Kincardine the population of which is 2,343. The cost there is not so very
great, namely $8,394. It is a very prettily situated small town. I believe it has a company or a company and a half of the Bruce regiment, and the Bruce regiment could not turn out to last year's camp with anything like its full strength.
Mount Forest has a population of 1,839, and a small armoury costing $3,000, to which I do not take much exception.
Then we come to Wingham. The erection of an armoury at a cost of $11,503 at Wing-ham, which has a population of 2,238, is, to my mind, out of all proportion. I would not have much objection if Wingham were placed in the Mount Forest class. If you bring these small drill halls for the use of a company or two companies down to the $2,000 mark, I do not take objection.
Then we come to Watford, which has a population of 1,092, where this Government is putting up an armoury at a cost of over $12,000. Watford will not support more than one company. I doubt if it has a whole company.
So far as Port Elgin, in South Bruce, is concerned, I cannot take so much exception to that, because the cost is under $3,000, and the population is 1,235.
So far as Markdale is concerned, this expenditure seems nothing short of an outrage, a piece of extravagance. Whether it is caused by the enthusiasm of the hon. minister, or by the fact that Markdale is a good Tory centre, I do not know.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: lit is the home of Mr. Speaker.


Hugh Guthrie: That might be some excuse. Markdale, according to the census, has a population of 925, and you are spending $14,278 on an armoury there. That is grossly out of proportion; it should never have been done and never have been contemplated. A $3,000 or a $2,000 or a $1,000 drill hall would accommodate for the next twenty-ffive years all the militarism of Markdale and the country round about.
Simcoe, Brampton, Orillia, Gananoque and Picton are fairly large places. Madoc seems entirely out of proportion. In Madoc you are erecting an armoury at a cost of $20,861, when the population is only 2,361. I mention that as another case of gross extravagance. 1 believe that, behind all these cases, there is some political influence, some political reason for enormities of this kind in the expenditure of money in connection with the militia of this country.
Kemptville has a population of 1,192. The

expenditure on an armoury there is $12,154. That is entirely out of proportion, just as much as the other places that I have enumerated.
When we add all these together and summarize the building operations of 1913-14 on armouries, we find the amount already expended is $474,800.54 and the amount in the Public Works Estimates is $680,000, making a total of $1,154,800.54. I would not so greatly object to part of that, but I want to protest against the use of the money of this country in (boosting the Conservative cause at the cross-roads in the various townships, where there is not a village, scarcely even a hamlet.


*Mr. HUGH CLARK:: Will the hon member tell us (how much the armoury at Guelph cost?


Hugh Guthrie: I think about $160,000.
One of the men who supported me in my request foT a proper armoury at Guelph was the present minister, and his reason for doing so was that Guelph had become a prominent military center. There we have the headquarters of the 30th regiment, we had the first brigade of Field Artillery, the original brigade. Now it has been turned into two howitzer batteries. We have also the Army Service Corps; and we require a large establishment or none at all.


Hugh Clark: Is the hon. gentleman aware that a number of cases that he has cited were approved by the late Minister of Militia?


Hugh Guthrie: Which ones?


Hugh Clark: The one in the
town of Kincardine, for instance.


Hugh Guthrie: When 1 mentioned
Kincardine, I think I paid it the compliment that I thought the expenditure there might >be justifiable. But in all the other cases that I mentioned, I think my hon. friend from South Bruce will almost agree with me in condemning such extravagant expenditure in places that are not villages, not hamlets, but mere cross-road points in the country. I believe in the establishment and maintenance of a proper militia; but what I object to is the manner in which this money has been spent on points	which	have	no	claim	at allfor expenditure of this kind, certainly not	on	the scale upon
which the expenditure has been made. These things not only entail present cost, but they entail future cost, not only in interest, but caretaking, light, heat, and all the 
rest will make up a considerable item. This year the item for caretaking alone amounts, according to the Militia Report, to $205,000. Repairs will be necessary, ordinary matters of maintenance must be provided for, interest on money 'will always have to be paid; and the amount, if we do not check it now, is going to reach in a few years a tremendous figure. I believe that the expenditure already reached has caused more disturbance in the province of Ontario than any other act of the present Government. And I feel bound to say, Sir, that I believe that the members who represent constituencies such as the county from which I come agree with me that the militia expenditure in Canada to-day is entirely out of proportion to our needs and our 'wealth. I have not the figures prior to 1896, but from that year the militia expenditures have been as follows:
Militia Expenditures under Liberal Rule (1896-1911).
1896-	97..
1897-	98..
1898-	99..
1899-	00..
1900-	01..
1901-	02. .
1902-	03..
1903-	04..
1904-	05..
1905-	06..
1906-	07.. * 1907-08
1908-	09..
1909-	10..
1910-	11..

Total expenditure.. . . $63,134,120 * Including expenditure of fortifications at Halifax and Esquimau formerly paid by British Government.
It was at that figure the late Government left the annual expenditure on militia in this country. That record covers a period of fifteen years. The total increase from 1896 to 1911 was $4,531,643. Under the Liberal Government the militia was well maintained and well equipped. In those days, it did not seem so difficult to turn out regiments with full enrollment and complete equipment. The force had been increased by the Liberal Government and advanced in many ways quite materially. The pay of the men had been raised, I know. I never was an officer and do not know how they were treated, but the men for one, two or three years spent in the militia were gradually increased and their increased pay would represent a large proportion of the increase in expenditure which took place under the Liberal Administration. And of course, the acquire-

457s
ment of Esquimalt and Halifax contributed considerably to the increase.
Now, turn from that picture to the present, and take the last three years under my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence. I agree that according to his own judgment he has been doing his best. But he is far too enthusiastic in the course he is pursuing. He is far ahead of his time. In fact, the time will never come in this country when the expenditure he proposes will be justifiable.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Take care, do not
be too sure.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not take much
stock in these warnings given by the minister at Victoria and Toronto as reported by the newspapers in those cities. We must realize,-and I am sure his colleagues do realize-that this is a country of peace and not of war. He had power from the beginning to maintain the militia expenditure at $7,000,000 or decrease it if he could -and if he had been able to accomplish the latter he would have made a great name for himself in the history of Canada. But instead of that he has started upon a career of the grossest extravagance in connection with militia affairs, and the attention of the country cannot be too pointedly drawn to it. W'hen I hear it stated in my county at public meetings and read in the newspaper press that the present Administration has granted one million a year for the next ten years for agriculture and when you hear Conservatives cheer that statement or read their comments upon it in newspaper articles, the fact that the military expenditure has gone up from $7,000,000 to about $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 in three years is enough to stagger the agriculturist, whose profession is to receive the benefit of only $1,000,000 a year for ten years. It seems absurd, ridiculous, on the face of it. The minister has allowed his enthusiasm to run away with his better judgment. And the result is that in three years the expenditure has gone up from $7,009,882, for the last year for which the Liberals were responsible-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: What year was that?


Hugh Guthrie: The year 1910-11.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not charge the hon. gentleman with deliberately falsifying the records, but I will not permit him to say that $7,000,000 for the year 1910-11 is the
last for which the Liberals were responsible.


Hugh Guthrie: The year 1910-11 is my statement.


James Joseph Hughes: I charge the Liberal party with the Estimates for 1911-12.


Hugh Guthrie: That year is very favourable to the Liberals, I have it heTe. I I was going to give the hon. gentleman credit for it. The expenditure for that year was $7,229,948, or an increase of about $220,000 over that of the year before. In 1912-13, it jumped to $10,272,759, and in 1913-14 to $10,938,905. This makes a total expenditure for these three years of $28,941,612. And this is exclusive altogether of expenditure under the Public Works Department for drill halls, armouries, ~and the like.
Now, I come to the year 1914-15. And in dealing with that, I would like to be corrected if I make any error. Newspaper statements are flying around the country and the figures generally vary. If the minister will give me his attention and will see if I am right as to the expenditure for 191415, I shall get through all the more quickly. The Main Estimates for 1914-15 total $10,845,400.
There is an item here of supplementaries, which, I assume, are the supplementaries voted early in the session to pay for last year's expenditure, of $339,975. Then follows an item, statutory pay to members of Militia Council and Imperial Council, $21,000. I do not know where that: figure is taken from, but I suppose the appropriation is made under the statute. Then, in the Supplementary Estimates which were laid before us a day or two ago, the Militia Department wants $741,682, more or about three-quarters of a million. All this is outside of the requirements for public works, which amount to about $260,000, as l make it, although I do not say for a moment that I have them all. It is stated in the press that about $1,250,000 is the amount for militia expenditures in the Supplementary Estimates; therefore, we stand this year facing an expenditure of $11,206,375, without drill halls or armouries, to which we add $741,682, in the Supplementary Estimates, and furthermore, for civil government, $186,900. I .. think I am well within the remark when I say that the militia expenditure this year, apart from armouries and drill halls, will be between $11,500,000 and $12,000,000. The figures can be ascertained exactly if one takes the time

to search through the Supplementary and Main Estimates and pick out from the appropriations for the various departments the items which are properly chargeable to militia affairs in Canada.
Another addition which should be made is that of the items under public works for drill halls and armouries. In 1914 these items amount to $2,355,000 and there is an item, * estimated amount spent by Public Works Department in 1912-1913 and 19131914, not included in above, $600,000.' That item I am not in a oosition to explain. But when I say that the total expenditure on militia in this country is going to be between $14,500,000 and $15,000,000, I think I am well within the mark. What is the necessity for this increase? I do not think that any one will say that the population of this country has greatly increased during the last three years; on the contrary, I am satisfied that during the present year there has been a falling off. If we can place any reliance on the statistics furnished by the United States, there was a falling off last year in the Englishspeaking population. Lamentable as the fact may be, we have no great gain in population. There is no danger in sight; why, then, raise the militia of this country to the enormous figure of between 75,000 and 80,000 men? There is no reason for it; there is no emergency in sight, and there will be none in our day and generation. The militia in this country is maintained, I believe, to keep peace and order within our bounds and to defend us from attack from the outside. Half the number, I submit, would do the job just as thoroughly as the 80,000 men, on paper, whom the Minister of Militia now considers to be the standing militia of this country. 40,000 men would be an ample militia force; 40,000 men could be better trained and better officered and better drilled; the maintaining of 40,000 men only would save the country a vast amount of money. But my hon. friend the minister seems to be running to the other extreme. He has told the House that he could turn out on short notice something like 75,000 or 80,000 men. On one occasion he said that he could turn out in all 750,000 if the necessity arose; this he stated in a speech made, I think, in the city of Toronto.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Made right in this House.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, he does not believe, I do not believe, and nobody believes, that

the occasion for turning out such a large number of men will ever arise in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of the children who are to come after us; consequently we are preparing far in advance of the requirements of the country, and we are spending far too much money. Nobody on this side of the House or on the other side of the House objects to the expenditure that gets down to the men who are serving in the ranks. I believe that they are not overpaid; I believe they are underpaid. But, if the minister will clip off some of his headquarters staff expenditure; if he will clip off some of those items that we cannot designate otherwise than as unwarranted extravagances, the men in the ranks would be able to get a little more money.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Why did not the hon. member for South Wellington grow eloquent when the headquarters staff expenditures were increased away and beyond what they are to-day by my predecessor, whom he followed so religiously in those years?


Hugh Guthrie: The matter was never
so marked and well defined in the old days when the expenditure was only $7,000,000 as it is to-day when the expenditure is $15,000,000. Too much money is spent on headquarters staff; too much money is spent on guards of honour, parades and various matters of that kind. I am informed, though I cannot verify the information by the figures now before me, that in 1910-11 all that was spent on guards of honour and salutes was something like $3,000, while last year that expenditure alone amounted to $10,000. I have been informed that nowhere can the Minister of Militia go on a visit accompanied by a British officer but there must be special guards and salutes, and special honours must be paid to them, all of which costs money. In the olden days we did not have the automobile staff that we have to-day; we did not have the junketing trips that we have to-day.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Oh, yes, three times as much.


Hugh Guthrie: Not nearly so much
junketing; we did not have expensive trips about Europe costing something like $24,000 or $25,000, with little or nothing accomplished.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	$48,000 one year.


Hugh Guthrie: That was on a different mission altogether. The occasion to which



[Stage Direction]
I refer was a sort of joy-ride which included the observation of some continental manoeuvres.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I want to point
out to my hon. friend that the junketing trips taken by my predecessor were not half so valuable to the militia as the trips which I took to Europe during the last two years.
Hugh Guthrie: I take exception to
that statement and I still stick to the assertion that the junketing trips, as he calls them, taken under the late Administration were business-like trips, where there was no joy-riding, where the officers went to Aldershot and received practical instructions the benefit of which is felt by the militia of Canada to-day. There were none of these flag-waving parades and guards of honour turning out all over the Dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as there were for the minister as he paraded Sir Ian Hamilton or anybody else across the continent. These are the small items that go to make up the tremendous increase in the expenditure. Do away with the automobile brigade, stop your joy rides at the manoeuvres-


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the picnics.


Hugh Guthrie: Cut out the private cars at the picnics, clip your headquarter's staff, give the man who goes to camp a little more money whether he be a private, corporal, bombardier, or gunner and then you will be able to recruit your regiments to full strength. These are the men that should be helped1, but they are not getting a particle of help or encouragement under the present system although the total expenditure has well-nigh doubled. It is said there is no politics in the Militia Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, my!


Hugh Guthrie: I grant that the minister has appointed men who have hitherto been Liberals, and I commend him for that but he requires that they put up the best certificates. I know one Liberal caretaker who was appointed, and he has given the minister every satisfaction, but it has not been the rule to appoint Liberals in the last three years. The most glaring case I ever heard of was placed in my hands by a member not able to be here to-day and who asked me to bring it to the attention of the minister. It concerns a corps known as Earl Grey's Own Rifles, established at Prince Rupert in the year 1910, I think. At all events, it was at the time Earl Grey visited 289
Prince Rupert. A hardware merchant in the town undertook to form a company as a guard of honour on that occasion. He picked out the most able-bodied and soldierly men who were to be found in that part at that early date. This company equipped themselves at their own expense and acted as Earl Grey's bodyguard. His Lordship seemed greatly pleased with his reception and the corps decided to continue as a permanent part of the militia force. The hardware merchant, Mr. Stork, happened to be appointed captain. One of hia lieutenants was a strong Conservative and the other a strong Liberal. Politics had not entered into the corps at all at that time. The corps was formed into a company and was recognized as such. It was inspected by the headquarters staff of Victoria and all went well until the end of the year 1912. These men had no drill hall, but drilled in the mud and rain, for Prince Rupert is a very rainy place. It was a very efficient company, their markmanship was of the best, and when the inspection report came out on the 12th December, 1912, they were very highly commended. So much was their conduct approved that it was decided to increase the corps to a four-company regiment, and the people of Prince Rupert were greatly elated. Hale, hearty, vigorous men, willing to serve in the ranks, were anxious to join, and the four companies were recruited almost at a moment's notice. When the Conservative machine in Prince Rupert got news of the fact they immediately made themselves busy with their headquarters at Victoria, and the headquarters at Victoria immediately got busy with the headquarters at Ottawa and only a few months elapsed before an order was issued1, Order No. 3, Military District No. 11, disbanding the unit with a view to its reorganization as a four-company regiment. Very soon after the issuance of that order, which pleased the people of Prince Rupert very much, news, came that the Conservative machine working in the inner circle in Prince Rupert was taking a hand in the militia affairs of Canada and was strongly backed at headquarters. They proposed to organize the Earl Grey's Own Rifles on strong Conservative lines, and would have nothing to do with the officers who started the original company which subsequently became the regiment. They were to be drummed out and were not even to be placed on the list of retired officers. Largely attended indignation meetings were held in Prince Rupert, and according



to newspaper reports-I will not weary the House with them, but the minister should read them-they were unanimously in favour of the old organization being continued. Men who had served in South, Africa belonged to the original regiment. These men stood their ground and said they would only serve under Captain Stork and the men who started the company, but the machine was too strong for them. They had the pull down at Victoria and a stronger pull at Ottawa, and the original regiment was wiped out by Order in Council and a new regiment of companies formed. The patronage was given to the local Conservative party at Prince Rupert, and I do not believe there was a military man on the committee, and yet the minister says there is no politics in the Militia Department. That is about as gross a case as one could imagine and Captain Stork naturally feels the matter very keenly. He has not even been placed on the retired list. The only charge made against him was that during the naval debate last year he had sent a private telegram to Mr. Pardee asking him to keep up the good fight, or words to that effect; but even that was not known when the company was disbanded and the new regiment formed. If men who have given their time and money to the militia of Canada are to be treated that way by Tory manipulators in an outlying place like Prince Rupert there is little encouragement for a man to enter the ranks or ,to take command of a regiment in the militia. That is a glaring case which I am able to substantiate by affidavit if necessary, but in the meantime 1 am giving the newspaper reports. I trust the minister will look into it in order that he will be able to say with as clear a conscience as he has already said that politics plays no prominent part in the militia affairs of this country. At all events, they play a part in Prince Rupert. The proceedings out there have been denounced by men of both parties, by soldiers and civilians, and ministers of the Gospel, but no action has been taken, and unless the minister takes prompt action Earl Grey's Own Rifles from this on will become just a part of the Tory machine which, I believe, is contrary to the minister's intention. I am bringing this matter to his attention as pointedly as I can so that he may take prompt action. My main charge in regard to these Militia Estimates is as to the great expenditure. When is it going to stop? Are we going to [Mr. Guthrie.!
have something lopped off next year or will the Estimates be larger still?
On their face these Estimates are wrong. There is a statement that there is less spent this year than last. I remember in the old days of the Conservative party, prior to 1896. That was a year very much like this.
There was a falling revenue and an increasing expenditure. Times were hard and unemployment was general throughout the land. How did the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), who was then Minister of Finance, face the situation? Did he increase the military expenditure? No, he did not send the men out to drill that year and he saved between $600,000 and $700,000 to the people of Canada by one stroke of the pen. A similar situation confronts us to-day-a falling revenue, a rising expenditure and the militia expenditure, of all others rising faster in proportion than the expenditure of any other department of the Government. I am not an experienced military man but I could sit down with four or five men from either side of this House and clip $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 from these Estimates and do the country a service if I had the technical knowledge, and I can pick men in this House who can give me the technical knowledge. This wild expenditure can be stopped by a small committee of the House if the minister will agree to it. Look at the other requirements of Canada calling for our attention to-day. I will give my hon. friend the contents of a letter that I received the other day in regard to technical education. There is an expenditure recommended to the Government of $3,000,000 a year for ten years, or $30,000,000 in all. I sent a copy of that report to a Presbyterian divine living at Elora in my county. He wrote me back to suggest that the Government should go ahead, even in this year of hard times, with the first $3,000,006 by cutting down the militia expenditure by $3,000,000. His language, if I can remember it accurately, was that the battles of the future will not be fought on land or sea but they will be fought in the schools and workshops of Canada. There is a crying need. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) has not brought the matter up; he has been ill for some time or I would have brought it to his attention. You could clip from $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 off the militia expenditure without decreasing the efficiency of the militia. Of course you cannot allow all these joy rides and trips, you cannot allow all these inspection trips in private cars, you cannot allow these large entourages

to go all through Europe; it is true you will have to decrease some of the headquarters staff and the gold lace and gold fringe will have to be curtailed somewhat, but you can save the money if you want to, and I would suggest that one way to do it would be by reducing the militia list from 75,000 to 40,000 men and if you do this you will render a service to the country.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Let me place the hon. gentleman right at the outset. So long as I am Minister of Militia the private car is going to remain; as far as I am concerned I am going to travel in a private car up and down this country.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman
travelled to Guelph in the month of March in a private car and I have been asking innumerable times how it came about that he came to Guelph in a private car not to attend to military business but to attend the grand lodge.


James Joseph Hughes: Whether it is militia
business or the grand lodge I propose to travel in a private car. There is no gold lace going to be cut off-not a particle of it. the militia force of this country is going to be made efficient; it is more efficient to-day than it ever was in the history of Canada before.


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt that.


James Joseph Hughes: I dare say that the hon. gentleman doubts it. He has been living for sixteen years in a town in which the militia, under Liberal rule, was reduced from the high position which it occupied under the Conservative rule of previous times. While his friends were in power he managed to secure an expenditure of $25 per man in his town, whereas at Omemee and the surrounding country there is an expenditure of about $5 per head of the population. He has feathered his nest pretty well during the time that his friends held office. He allowed the militia in the grand old county of Wellington to get into a run-down condition because he was using it as a political organization. We are getting the battery and the rifles back into something like their old shape.


Hugh Guthrie: I must object to that.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman
cannot take the floor. If he
5	p.m. asks my permission to take the floor I will give it to him, but he will not take it without my permission.
289-J


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, I will ask your permission.


James Joseph Hughes: Very well.


Hugh Guthrie: As far back as I can remember anything about militia matters the rifles and the artillery in the city of Guelph have always been commanded by Conservatives, as they are to-day, and they have been well commanded. The commands have been held by Colonel MacDonald, Colonel Petrie and Colonel Craig.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman
speaks of the drill hall at Blackstock. In 1885 Blackstock was called upon to furnish 42 men and it turned out 120. These were the gentlemen who broke the lines of the rebel ranks at Batoche. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what enthusiasm has led him to that town? He knows Blackstock; he went to that town once on a political mission, and I wonder he did not remain there. It was in a good Liberal constituency.


Hugh Guthrie: It was then.


James Joseph Hughes: It was then. The hon. gentleman does not seem to know much about Omemee, in the county I represent. The hon. gentleman could not change a vote there, because they are nearly all Tories, and at Blackstock they are all Tories too. They turn out a company there of 92, whereas they only require to turn out one of 42.' When we get companies which maintain ' such a high standard of efficiency as that, we recognize them by providing them with drill halls. My hon. friend feathered his own nest by securing $160,000 of an expenditure in Guelph and vicinity during the years that his party were in power, while other parts of the country were left unprovided for. By what authority is he going to spend the money in Guelph and in that locality, while he denies us the right to place a small amount of money in these Estimates for drill halls in other localities?


Hugh Guthrie: Blackstock is not a
locality; it is only a cross-roads four miles from the station.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that my hon. friend had to get out of that cross-roads in rather a lively manner on one occasion.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I never did.


James Joseph Hughes: Blackstock has always turned out one of the finest companies in the service. By what right does my hon. friend refuse to a minor locality a moderate

(expenditure- of public money? Notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman may say, I mean to continue such expenditures as {these. The hon. gentleman talks about technical education, and let me say that our opponents sent a party junketing around the world, at a cost of over $100,000, [DOT]and all the evidence of any value that was collected you could rest on the end of your little finger.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. From the viewpoint of technical education and of the upbuilding of the manhood of the country, no technical education can possibly approach the benefit that is being given to the people through these drill halls.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph Hughes: The more the hon. gentlemen criticise the more I am delighted. The hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) some time ago made a tirade even more violent than that made by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) and than that my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) is going to make in a minute ot two, against these drill hall constructions. The consequence has been that every village and town in western Ontario wants a drill hall, and the farmers are beginning to ask for them in order that their sons may become acquainted with military training.


Hugh Guthrie: Are you going to satisfy these demands?


James Joseph Hughes: Certainly, I purpose extending these drill halls throughout the length and breadth of the country and it will take a great deal more than my hon. friend's eloquence to stop the spirit that is abroad. The hon. gentleman says that the farmers are indignant, but he forgets that the half of them own automobiles themselves and they say that the Minister of Militia should have twice as many as he has, especially, as we are prepared to show that each automobile has saved its cost four times, and five times, and some of them six times over, as compared with a horse and carriage. The hon. gentleman tried to bring in the farmers as condemning the militia expenditure, but I can tell him that the agriculturists are behind the drill halls and the cadet system in Canada. As regards expenditure, when I took charge of the department in the fall of 1911, the Estimates were prepared for 1912-13 by the officers, for my predecessor, and we have
tMr. S. Hughes.]
tnese Estimates to show that they amounted to upwards of twelve million dollars for 1912-13. We cut them down to a respectable figure. Let me point out further to my hon. friend that the Militia Department, under my administration has. the lowest pro rata percentage record of expenditure that it has had for the last thirty years. I am down to four and two-thirds per cent of the revenue of the country, a figure which no Minister of Militia ever attained before. If I were to have my just demands, which would range from sight .and one-third to ten per cent, if I had my proper allowance for expenditure on the militia I would have $17,000,000. Let me point out that Switzerland pays for its militia twenty-six per cent of its revenue; Great Britain, forty per cent; France, thirty per cent; Germany, fifty-three per cent; Austria, twenty-seven per cent;- the United States, forty-seven per cent, including pensions; New Zealand, five and a half per cent; and Canada last year only five and two-thirds per cent. Switzerland takes twenty-six per cent of her entire revenue for the upbuilding of her militia, and they have a universal compulsory service. Canada has not yet attained to it, but we are attaining to it through the cadet system. According to our revenue and according to our population Canada has the lowest expenditure on her military service of any country in the world, except perhaps Korea, or those out of the way places that do not amount to anything on the map. My hon. friend waxed very eloquent about the expenditure for sending officers to England. Let me point out to him that whereas on former occasions the expenditure for sending officers to England was altogether on account of the permanent corps, since I have taken charge of the department I have been sending non-permanent as well as permanent militia officers to England, and I think my hon. friend will find no officer in the service, whether he be a Liberal or a Conservative, who will not give evidence as to having learned a great deal from these visits. If the hon. gentleman will find any officer, no matter what his politics, who will deny that, then I will retract the movement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many days were they in England?


James Joseph Hughes: The returns have all been brought down.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You would not expect one of those officers to go back on you?

45S5


James Joseph Hughes: I want my hon. friend to understand that a number of these officers are Liberals and every man of them is just as honourable, and his word is just as reliable, as that of my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not saying anything about their honour.


James Joseph Hughes: The insinuation is they
would not go back on me because they aTe not honourable, and whether their experience has been good, bad, or indifferent that they would say it was all right. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) must not bring forward any insinuation such as that; I will not permit it. I am not here to bow or to crawl; I am here to fight the thing out to a finish and the hon. gentleman might as well understand it first as last. These gentlemen opposite cannot draw the wool over my eyes. I am willing to compare the expenses of these trips with the expenses of their Minister of Militia, or their first minister, now the leader of the Opposition, when they were in office, or with the expenses of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to South Africa or to England or to Japan or elsewhere. I have the figures as to their junketing trips and joy-rides, and I am prepared to enter into a discussion with them on that subject any time they choose, and I will leave it to the country to decide which of us spent the money in the beet interests of the country. I am not here to apologize for anything, I am here to fight it out and to justify every dollar of expenditure that has been made in connection with the militia. The speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) was a campaign speech very largely and unworthy of serious consideration. It is astonishing how these gentlemen opposite want ,to stop expenditure when they are in opposition; it is a pity they did not command the confidence of the people of the country so that they would have an opportunity oif stopping expenditure. But I can tell them that the Estimates of my predecessor in office, which were prepared and handed to me two weeks after I assumed control of the department, simply astounded me. There were upwards of $12,000,000 in these Estimates, and I confess that I would have backed them up if they had been presented by Sir Frederick Borden and I were in Opposition. I am not Craven enough, now that I am in power, to turn around and blacken my predecessor. He fought, as beet he might, for the upbuilding of the militia, and although he did not succeed in all things he had a. mighty hard job of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were not the Estimates for the fiscal year 1911-12 placed before Parliament before the elections and before Sir Frederick Borden went out of office?


James Joseph Hughes: Certainly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister mean to say that these Estimates reached nearly $12,000,000?


James Joseph Hughes: I referred to the Estimates for 1912-13 which were all prepared.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sure that the minister said for the year 1911-12.


James Joseph Hughes: The Estimates were
' printed for 1911-12, but I distinctly said 1912-13.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, and they only amounted to $7,000,000.


James Joseph Hughes: The Estimates for next year are being prepared by my officers now, and-by the month of October they will be ready, and so it was with the Estimates which Sir Frederick Borden had prepared for him for 1912-13.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Please do not hold Sir
Frederick Borden responsible for what your headquarters staff did a year after he left office.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not holding Sir Frederick Borden responsible for anything. Sir Frederick Borden has a good deal of honour and backbone about him, and I wish his line were followed by some of the hon. gentlemen who were his colleagues for so many years and who backed him up in his headquarters expenditure, bus who are now condemning the same expenditure. Sir Frederick Borden was following Sir John French's report. These gentlemen opposite had their mouths wide open and swallowed that report at the time Sir Frederick Borden was Minister of Militia, and now they are going back on it. It is under Sir John French's report that these expenditures are now being incurred, and the House and the country might as well face the issue. I assumed office with a debt of over $4,000,000 for material ordered by my predecessor, and not a dollar's worth of which was delivered until quite recently, and I have been paying for that. I am not complaining, I have not said one word about it, I leave it to hon. gentlemen opposite

[DOT]who are responsible for that expenditure, to <do their whining, and their criticising, and their fault-finding. I accept the orders of my predecessor; I pay them as fast as I possibly can, and I am willing to justify 'do the House and to the country these expenditures, come from what source the criticism may.
I do not know that there is anything else of which my hon. friend spoke-


Hugh Guthrie: Prince Rupert.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know anything about it, except from the reports which I have received. There is one company there. Tihe report came in that it was a purely political organization, and we have evidence enough to show that its leader tried to make it so.


Mr. MACDONALD:: To show that the
*volunteer company was a political organization?,-


James Joseph Hughes: That is the only company that was there-the Earl Grey's Own Rifles. That company was organized there, *and the demand was made for a new regiment. It was pointed out that there was already a company there. The officer in charge of this company wanted to have command of the new regiment. I understand that he wanted to be 'it' all through, to run the whole show. He was not so recommended by the officers in control, and the result is, he is not in.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I regret that I was
not in my seat when the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) referred to Prince Rupert. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not exonerate the minister entirely from the criticism to which he has been subjected. I regret that my hon. friend from South Wellington had not the facts in hand so as to give the House the true condition of affairs regarding the militia at Prince Rupert. I defy him or any other member, either by correspondence or otherwise, to show that politics entered into the matter, so far as the militia at Prince Rupert is concerned. A year or more ago the officer commanding *at Victoria, B.C., recommended the abandonment of the Earl Grey's Rifles at Prince Rupert. There was a demand for heavy artillery, and I took the matter up with the Minister of Militia and Defence. Owing to the very great cost it would entail to establish heavy artillery at Prince Rupert, it was recommended that the Earl Grey's Rifles be abandoned, as was proposed, I believe, during the regime of the late
IMr. S. Hughes.]
Government. I was asked if I would accept a four company battalion at Prince Rupert, and I acquiesced. I may tell hon. members who have- not had the pleasure of visiting Prince Rupert that it is a magnificent city with a population of 7,000, which is bound to increase to 25,000 or 30,000 in the next seven or eight years. It is probably one of the most important points of British 'Columbia, and I am sure it is entitled immediately to the very best militia service that we can give it.
So far as Captain Stork is concerned, who had charge of the Earl Grey Rifles, if there has been any controversy at all, it has come through Captain Stork and his own particular friends and not through the Conservatives of the city of Prince Rupert. When I sent out the list of officers asking the city of Prince Rupert to accept the four companies proposed by the Militia Department, I distinctly stated that, so far as political matters were concerned, I, representing that constituency, would not allow them to enter into the choosing of the officers for the four new companies. Captain Stork was placed on the reserve list, as is the custom in all such cases. I understand that he and other officers apparently imagined that, being strong Liberals in that town, they were out of it. If there is any trouble or any correspondence, it comes through that source, and the Militia Department here are not to blame. The city of Prince Rupert was entitled to what was provided for it; and so far as I am concerned, representing that city, I am prepared to support the Militia Department in anything I recommend in so far as that city is concerned.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I cannot allow some of the statements of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr, Guthrie) to go unchallenged. I am surprised that he would make such glaring misstatements with respect to the expenditure of money on drill halls in western Ontario, and especially with respect to the one at Watford, in my riding. I do not need to take up the matter of general expenditure, because the minister is quite capable of taking care of that himself; but the hon. member for South Wellington and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardiee), who I am sorry is not in his seat, have made on the floor of this House some very glaring misstatements. It was quite all right for them, when they were in power, to spend $160,000 in the city of Guelph, $80,000 in the city of Chatham, $17,000 in

the town of Strathroy, and have under way an expenditure of about $100,000 in the town of Sarnia; but largely because that money has not been expended in the town of Sarnia on account of the lot on which it was to be expended being entirely unfit for the purposes of a drill hall, these gentlemen are objecting to-day to money being expended in other districts. The hon. member for South Wellington mentioned the fact that $10,000 had been spent in the town of Watford and that only one company was located there. In Watford there are two full companies.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be about
eighty men.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Let me get through
with what I have to say. There are 45 boy scouts, 60 cadets. There is a shooting club of 60 men, an armoury progress club, an orchestra, a choral society and a physical culture class, all operating in this armoury, and I think it is up to me to endeavour to show the hon. member for South Wellington that the armoury in the town of Watford is one of the most progressive institutions in that district. If my hon. friend will go to that town, he will appreciate the fact that amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of this proposition are his own Liberal friends. The principals of the public and high schools and the ministers and other prominent men of that town, irrespective of party, are enthusiastically supporting it, and I am surprised to hear my hon. friend make the statement he has made. I have a statement here of some of the affairs that were conducted in that hall, which was completed in the fall of 1913. This is in addition to the drills and other matters to which I have referred:
1913.
Dec. 8. Formation of H. S. Cadets, 40 strong. Drills twice weekly for cadets, outside regular drill in hall.
1914.
Jan. 2. Citizen's ball, 150 couples present.
Jan. 15. Organization of Armoury Progress Club consisting of 30 members. Every member of this club must belong to the militia cadets, or rifle club. The object of this club is for the good and welfare of the militia and community in general, and is composed of many of Watford's best citizens.
Jan. 30. Formation of rifle club. This has now a membership of 60, and have fired over 5,000 rounds of ammunition.
Feb. 2. Purchased a piano ($400) for the Militia of Watford, to remain in the drill hall and to be paid for by proceeds of concerts, etc. A payment has already been made. In this connection a choral society was formed on February 16. This consists of 40 members and practice twice weekly.	'
Feb. 3. Reception to general public by Progress Club, the main feature of which was an address on ' Canada ' by Rev. R. S. W. Howard, Hon. Captain and Chaplain 24th Kent Regiment, 542 present.
Feb. 10. Address on ' public health ' by Dr. D. B. Bentley, D.H.O. Two meetings, one in afternoon for children, 550 present. Night meeting for adults, 600 present. These lectures were illustrated by moving pictures."
Feb. 16. Choral society organized. Provisional school for signalling class of 11 under Sgt. Instructor May, 10 successful. Course lasted 1 month.
March 12. Provisional school of instruction. Infantry for officers and non-commissioned officers, under the instruction of Sgt. Instructor Prowse and Captain Brooks. 2 nights weekly for 6 weeks, class of 18, 14 successful.
March 13. Organization of a class of young ladies in physical culture. This class has been drilled daily from 4 to 5 p.m. This class has been very successful.
April 7. Public reception by Progress Club. Address by N. McDougall, B. A. inspector of public schools for East Lambton. Subject * Democracy and its Perils.' Music by Choral Society and Armoury Orchestra. 600 present.
April 20. Public reception by Progress Club. Address ' Some Problems confronting our Country' by Rev. Carlisle B. A. of Windsor. 650 present. An excellent address.
April 26. Sacred concert 'by Choral Society '. Over 500 present.
May 1 to May 6. Extra drill preparing for Guard of Honor to His Royal Highness at Sarnia, May 7.
May 13. Concert by Choral Society in aid of regimental funds, important feature of which was exhibition of drills by physical culture
Cl&May 18. Progress Club. Address by Rev. W. G. Connolly, B.A., returned missionary from Japan, and also a South African veteran.
And the Fruit Growers' Association, the Women's Institute and other bodies have had their meetings in this building. If the hon. gentleman will go there, he will find that the drill hall has been the means of taking the boys off the 'Streets of that town. And, as I am informed, he will not find a pool room in the town. The citizens in general are delighted with the drill hall and with the efforts of the Militia Department o.n the town's behalf. So that, so far as the building of small drill halls are concerned, if they are conducted in the manner in which the Watford drill hall is conducted-which has been referred to by the hon. gentleman as a wiaste of public money, and as having been put up for political purposes-there is no doubt that this policy will be for the general uplift and welfare of the young men of the district. I am sorry to hear such criticism as the hon. gentleman has made concerning it.
The hon. member for West Lamhton (Mr. Pardee), who I am sorry to say is not in his seat, spoke on this subject recently.

I had not the good fortune to be present, when he criticised the militia expenditures in Watford and elsewhere. But in the last election, borne around the streets of Watford-this very town-by the Liberal candidate were plans and specifications for a drill hall, all approved by the late Minister of Militia, It was quite all right for the late Minister of Militia and the member for West Lambton to approve of a drill hall being built there, but it wajs all wrong for this Government to go ahead and build it. Not omily that, but in the town of Petrolia, the town in which I live, the candidate had plans for another drill hall-a splendid, beautiful drill hall to be put up by the late Government. The cry was: See what we are doing for the welfare of the militia! The outcome of it is that Petrolia, with 4,000 or 5,000 people, has not a drill hall. It is all right for Strathroy, a smaller town, to have a drill hall provided by the old Government, at a cost of $17,000 'but quite out of place for us to ask for a drill hall in Petrolia-the companies there can be disbanded, not having a place to meet or to store their arms. Further, there came into my riding previous to the last election, the hon. member for West Lamb-ton along with the candidate, against me and met with the people of Forest regarding a drill hall to ibe erected in that town. It is all right to build a drill hall on the agricultural grounds in the town of Forest, on the outskirts of the town, in a place not easy of access, to say the least, and where the people are not taking advantage of it as they are in Watford. It is all right to build it there, mainly for agricultural purposes, but when it comes to building a practical common-sense drill hall which is for the general benefit of the people of the town, it is a ' waste of public money I do not feel that I need criticise further the statements made by the hon. gentleman, but if he will take up some of the Liberal papers in the western districts, he will find statements like the following:
The armoury is a lively place these days, several meetings being held at the same time some evenings. On Monday evening the Choral Society was practising in one room, a debate going on in another, the signal corps drilling in the drill hall and rifle practice going on in the basement.
He will find that the Liberal papers of the western district heartily approve of the establishing of that drill hall and others such as he refers to.

As to the Minister of Militia, you cannot but appreciate, and the people of Canada do appreciate, the stand he has taken in regard to abolishing liquor from the canteens of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who believes that?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What, who believes it? If the hon. gentleman will go to western Ontario and attend any of the militia camps in that district he cannot but go away with the impression that liquor has been abolished there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not include Petawawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nor Sherbrooke.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nor Sussex.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is all right, but there is no doubt that, so far as raising the standard in connection with this matter is concerned, the Minister of Militia is doing his utmost to abolish liquor at camp. He is enthusiastic, and he has done a great deal to increase the enthusiasm for militia affairs in this Dominion. And the people appreciate that, in spite of the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The people honour him for his earnest efforts to perfect the militia and make it what we should all like to see it, a thoroughly live organization.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) has stated quite correctly that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia is an enthusiast. He states also that the people are beginning to appreciate the minister's efforts to uplift the militia and make it .an efficient organization. However, the hon. minister is very sensitive, very touchy, when any hon. gentleman refers to his last junket to Virginia, and he waxes warm when people speak of his travelling in state on the affairs of his department. I do not pretend to pass judgment on the joy trips and junketing tours of my hon. friend, but I will give the House the opinion of a candid friend of the Minister of Militia on his last junket in Virginia, when he visited with some of his honorary colonels and others, the famous battlefields of the Civil	War	in the United States.
Nobody will deny that the Montreal Star is a stout supporter of the present Government. In fact, during the last election campaign the Montreal Star displayed throughout its many pages flags and flags and flags;

45S9
it started the real flag-waving campaign. It asserted that the Liberal party was not loyal enough to conduct the affairs of this country; that the finances of Canada, the army and the navy of Canada, should be under the direct control not. of the outfit, to use the polite expression of my hon. friend, but of the present ministry. Yes, my hon. friend a moment ago designated as an outfit the commission on technical education, presided over by that distinguished Canadian, Professor Robertson, a man who is not only respected in Canada, but whose name and fame are known throughout Europe, and especially throughout Britain. The people -of this country will appreciate the compliment paid to Professor Robertson and his associates by the minister when he terms as an outfit the commission which went round the world to find out what Canada had to learn about technical education. But with Tegard to the junketing tour of my hon. friend to Virginia, I will take the disinterested opinion not of the hon. member for South Wellington, but that of the Montreal Star under date of April 8, 1914, as follows;
The Colonel's discoveries.-It is a fact long acknowledged by the cognoscenti that the creation of multitudinous honorary colonels is the greatest single military achievement accomplished by any country in any age. The people of Canada, therefore, could not have complained if Colonel Sam. Hughes had rested on his sword, in a properly becoming attitude and dpent the remainder of his official days in the humdrum contemplation of his achievements. But that is not the Colonel's way. His restless brain, teeming with ambitious energy, cannot be shackled. ' Give me problems or give me death,' it cries out; and since the world will not answer with a real war, the Colonel goes out to fight over again the historic battles of Europe and America. He has just come back from the States, and the American people will note with pride that he has found much to approve of in the generals who led their opposing armies in 1861. They did not do quite as well as the Colonel would have done, to be sure, but then, poor Grant had no honorory colonels to help him. Standing on a blood-stained field, with his honorary colonels and a newspaperman beside him, the Colonel could see the (blunders which the less-gifted general made; and, knowing all, he forgave all.
He was the more ready to forgive since, as it has been duly chronicled, he made two great discoveries beside which even the inspiration which created honorary colonels pales into insignificance. 'One,' we are told, 'was that war can no longer be regarded as a series of haphazard and ill-conducted conflicts,' but as something in which strategy and military tactics are to the fore. Every schoolboy knows the principles on which Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Wellington and the others fought. Theirs not to reason why-theirs but to see a head and hit it. They had not heard of tactics and they
could not conceive strategy. Bluff, honest soldiers that they were, all they knew was that they had to fight. It is true they often won, but this was only because their opponents were even more ignorant than themselves. Had they met a single honorary colonel who had visited the battlefields of America, their fame would never have risen above the horizon. For he could not only have used ' strategy and tactics,' but he would also have learned (as we are told the Colonel did) that ' marksmanship is the essence of the military idea.' Those spoilt children of history used to imagine that the sight of their bows and arrows or rifles or cannons was enough to strike terror into the enemy and secure victors. Colonel Hughes proves the ridiculousness of that notion. He has discovered that the man who can hit the enemy he fires at is more dangerous than the man who can't. It is an overwhelming truth which should sink deep into every mind concerned for its country's defence. All the centuries have been waiting on its proclamation. There is not a military quidnunc in Europe who will not discuss it. But yesterday we were negligible as a military entity; to-day it is known that what we lack in numbers we supply in genius.
And one more bond has been forged between us and the great republic to the south, in that the lessons of its unhappy war have fertilized a genius which makes Napoleon look like a boy-scout.
I would not dare use such language to characterize the conduct of my hon. friend in his trip abroad, but I wish to say that nobody in this country except a few militarists and a few excited enthusiasts take seriously the trips abroad made by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and his staff. My hon. friend the other day opened his remarks by quoting the words of Machiavelli:
All the armed prophets have conquered; all the unarmed have perished.
And then he quoted from Eliza Cook:
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of Peace,
With a pledge-giving lip and a smile-lighted eye;
Hear it all with good will, but be Provident still,
With men that are earnest and powder that's dry.
My hon. friend, as we know, has a poetic vision in respect of all things military and perhaps it is because of that poetic vision that the people of this country on both sides of politics' do not take him seriously. A year or two ago the people might have smiled at his vagaries, and they did smile; but the time for smiling passes when they see the Estimates reaching the high-water mark of this year. I do not intend to make a pacifist speech, but I wish to speak as a Canadian representing well-to-do farmers who are directly opposed to the warlike madness of the hon. gentleman. We are not

opposed-and when we say 'we' I mean the people of this country-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The three tailors of Tooley street.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The three tailors of
Tooley Street are in the Militia Department. They are right here before me, where I see them now, three persons in one, the present head of the Militia Department. This is the three-bodied Tooley Street tailor. And speaking about tailors, my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) will speak shortly about the tailoring contract with the Militia Department, and how these Winnipeg contractors treat their poor employees. The people of this country, both Grits and Tories, are not opposed to a reasonable and legitimate expenditure on our militia, but they are opposed to militarism, and it is just there where the hon. minister fails to make a distinction. He cannot see the difference between a reasonable and commonsense expenditure on the militia of a peace-loving country, and the rampant militarism which finds favour in the Militia Council and those dancing attendance, around the Militia Department. Canada, Sir, is a peace-loving country and/ will not be made into an armed camp as my hon. friend dreams. The energies of the nation should be directed towards the farms and industries, of the country, and the husbanding of its resources. This is not unpatriotic or disloyal language, but simply the expression of the views held by such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Car-[DOT] tier, Sir A. T. Galt, and George Brown both previous to and after Confederation. Mr. Chairman, you have read history and you know that in 1861 a militia commission was appointed, and that it urged that the a dive militia of the country should be raised to 50,000 men with a reserve of an equal number. A Bill on those lines was introduced in this House by Sir George Cartier, if I mistake not, then Minister of Militia, but was defeated. Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Cartier, Sir A. T. Galt, and, I believe, George Brown, prepared on that occasion a memorandum which has become historic and from which, with the permission of the committee, I will quote because it ^contains some homely truths which in my judgment should be repeated once in a while especially when we have at the head of the Militia Department an extreme militarist. Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates pointed out to the British Government that:

While fully recognizing the necessity, and while prepared to provide for such a system of defence as would restore confidence in our future at home and abroad, the best ultimate defence for British America was to be found in the increase of her population as rapidly as possible, and the husbanding of our resources to that end; and without claiming it as a right, we venture to suggest that by enabling us to throw open the Northest Territory to free settlement and by aiding us in enlarging our canals and prosecuting internal productive works, and by promoting an extensive plan of emigration from Europe into the unsettled portions of our domain, permanent security will be more quickly and economically achieved than by any other means.
The Council showed how this might be done without cost to the British exchequer, and how it might actually lighten the burden of defence about to be assumed by the people of Canada. They said the expenditure for militia had increased recently from $300,000 to $1,000,000 a year, and they agreed to train a militia force,
Provided the cost did not exceed the last-mentioned sum annually, while the question of confederation was pending.
With regard to the recommendations of the Duke of Newcastle the Council pointed out that the preceding Parliament had rejected the military commission's scheme as ' extremely disdainful to the country' not only on the ground that 'the method of enrolment was highly objectionable' but because it established military machinery
At variance with the habits and genius ot the Canadian people and entailing an expenditure' far in excess of the sum which the legislature and the people have declared themselves willing to provide.
They added that the rejection of the measure was the result
Not of party combination but of a deliberate conviction that its principle was unadapted to the occasion, obnoxious to the province and that the financial resources available for military purposes were unequal to the outlay.
In their opinion volunteer organization alone was suited to the country and there was 'a decided aversion to compulsory service '-the very compulsory service advocated by my hon. friend on many occasions, although he says he speaks for himself and not for the Government.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	The hon. exminister will be good enough to withdraw his statement. I have never directly or indirectly advocated compulsory service, and I challenge him to produce one word that can be so construed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since there is a
challenge I will give my hon. friend the answer. The hon. gentleman from his seat in this House last year said, 'Yes, I am personally in favour of compulsory service.' '


James Joseph Hughes: Never.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He said he was speaking for himself and not for the Government.


James Joseph Hughes: You cannot produce anything to show I said I was in favour of compulsory service. I said I was in favour of universal service but not compulsory service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend said
compulsory service.


James Joseph Hughes: Produce your evidence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will. The hon.
gentleman in my hearing last year used the expression compulsory service. He said he was speaking for himself. He has repeated the statement on various occasions at banquets where there were no critics and where he had only his coterie of officers and sub-officers around him and could therefore speak at liberty.


James Joseph Hughes: Never.


Rodolphe Lemieux: According to the rules
of Parliament, I am obliged to accept his denial.


James Joseph Hughes: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. member must know that he is entirely in error. When I was speaking of compulsory service in France, South Africa, and so on I said that I did not endorse it in any sense, but that I was in favour of universal service.


Mr. CARROLL:: What is the difference?


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman is
past twenty-one and can easily find out. I will not take up the time of the House explaining it to him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is
quibbling. From his own lips we now learn that he is in favour of universal service. Universal service means service by every able-bodied young man in the land, and that is compulsory service. Sir, in this view the Minister of Militia cannot carry with him his colleagues in the Government and the gentlemen opposite who represent farming communities. Let me quote again from that famous memorandum because the words apply so well to the present situation. Here is what Sir John Macdonald said:
In their opinion volunteer organization alone was suited to the country, and there was 'a decided aversion to compulsory service.'
Which is Universal service, notwithstanding the quibbling of the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Moreover, 'the people of Canada are doing nothing to produce a rupture with the United States and having no knowledge of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to pursue a policy from which so dire a calamity would proceed, are unwilling to impose upon themselves extra burthens. They feel that should war occur it will be produced by no act of theirs, and they have no inclination to do anything that may seem to foreshadow, perhaps to provoke, a state of things which would be disastrous to every interest in the province. On this ground their representatives in Parliament rejected the proposal to organize 50,000 men or even to commit the province to a much smaller force, and the recent elections, embracing more than one-third of the population, have shown that public feeling has undergone no change.'
Let me quote again from the same memorandum. Referring to the Duke of Newcastle and his militarist views:
His Grace had expressed the opinion that by increased military preparations the credit of Canada would be improved, but the council contended that not the least important consideration was a due regard to the means at the command of the province, 'and that they hold that they are more likely to retain the confidence of European capitalists by carefully adjusting expenditure to income than by embarking in schemes beyond the available resources of the province. They are prepared to expend money on the Intercolonial railway and similar works, but they are not prepared to enter upon a lavish expenditure to build up a military system distasteful to the Canadian people, disproportionate to Canadian resources and not called for by any circumstances of what they at present have cognizance.'
This language has the same force and value to-day as it had in the days of yore when it was spoken by such a political giant as Sir John Macdonald. I prefer to take the calm iand deliberate judgment, the sane opinion of Sir John Macdonald to the immature judgment of my enthusiastic friend the present Minister of Militia and Defence.
Canada is simply going military-mad under my hon. friend. In 1868, while the excitement and provocation of the Fenian raids were still fresh in the public mind, Canada spent on militia and gunboats less than $1,000,000, or $960,946. In'1869 the total cost of militia and the gunboats was $1,058,832. In 1894, twenty years ago, shortly after Sir John Macdonald had disappeared, the entire cost of militia, including the fortifications at Esquimalt, was $1,284,517. In this year of our Lord we are spending,

according to the Main Estimates, $10,860,000. But if you add to these Main Estimates the naval expenditure, barracks, etc., we reach the extraordinary sum of $18,792,381 and this in a peace-loving country. Let us now take a few figures comparing 1894 with 1914:
Population	 5,000,000
Permanent force ....	1,000
Annual cost of permanent force. ...	$ 223,000
Pensions	 25,000
Total military expenditure	$1,284,000
8,000,000
3,200

I take the Main Estimates of 1914, and 1 leave aside the Supplementary or extra Supplementary Estimates. All these figures do not include the naval expenditure though Canada has no navy and though the Minister of Naval Affairs has cashiered the naval cadets who were on board the Rainbow and- Niobe.
This huge exipenditure on militia is simply monstrous, and the people of this country will revolt at -such useless extravagance.	The increase in population has been less than one-half during the last twenty years while the increase in militia expenditure has boon fifteen times more than it was twenty years ago. Again I say to my hon. friend that under him the militia expenditure has increased by leaps and bounds. In 1914^15 the expenditure wias $13,501,371, whilst the total exipenditure under the predecessor of my hon. friend was $7,009,822. We were severely criticised at that time, especially in the province of Quebec by the Nationalist allies of my hon. friend. We were taken to task, nay, we were cursed and damned because forsooth, we had raised the expenditure to $7,009,822. What will the people of Quebec, what will the farmers of Ontario and the good folks of the western provinces think when they read the Supplementary Estimates showing an increase to nearly double the amount that was expended when SiT Frederick Borden was at the head of the department?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Does the hon. gentleman know how many cadets were trained last year in the province of Quebec?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will not play fast and loose with me. The cadet movement is not a new institution. I favour it. The cadet movement has existed in every French-Canadian college in Quebec for years. I was a cadet myself in my younger days, at the University of Ottawa and at Nicolet College. Every French-Cana-

dian who has been at college in Quebec has been a cadet. That is the rule all over the province. My hon. friend has invented nothing and he will deceive no one. He ha3 simply perverted the old system, because in our day the Minister of Militia did not try to impress upon the minds of the youth the foolish idea that war was imminent, and that our country was to be a camp of warriors and barbarians as in the days of old. No, my hon. friend has invented nothing, and, in conclusion, let me tell him that we have here in this fair Dominion a condition that we ought to realize. The war which we have to fight is a war against wilderness, a war which calls for the expenditure of immense sums of money for the construction of railways and canals. This is for Canada an age of railways and canals, but not an age of joy rides and junketing tours.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Since the House rose at six o'clock, I have looked up the report of the case in Prince Edward Island to which allusion has been made, and I find it reported in the Eastern Law Reporter, volume 4 (1908), McAulay versus McDonald. In 1907 or 1908 McAulay brought an action against McDonald in connection with the closing up of a right of way which the public claimed they had for many years travelled over down to the shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, for the purpose of removing seaweed. McAulay put gates across the road.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Is McAulay the man from whom the Government bought?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. McDonald tore
down the gates and passed through and went to the shore and got the seaweed. McAulay brought an action of trespass, and the ordinary pleadings took place. In his plea McDonald alleges that for many years he, with others of the public, exercised the right of travelling over this road, on foot, and with horses, carriages, sleighs, etc., to the seashore. That was tried before Mr. Justice Hodgson and a jury, and the jury found, as a matter of fact, that the public including McDonald had for more than forty years occupied this right of way as a matter of right. That judgment was appealed from to the Appeal Court of Prince Edward Island and the decision of that court was given on the 7th of February, 1908, the court comprising Chief Justice

Sullivan, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Hodgson. They unanimously held that the finding of the jury was according to the evidence and refused to reverse the judgment of the trial court. They held that, as a matter of law, McDonald and all the public had a legal right to travel over that road. The minister can see that this would not appear in the registry office and if a search were made there it would not be found that the public had the right to pass over this piece of land. It is now alleged that the Militia Department is erecting a stop butt, which will have the effect of preventing the use by the public of that road, and I beg to read the following declaration on that point:
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that the engineer who recently made a survey of the proposed rifle range at Norris Pond, Prince Edward Island, has staked and marked a * stop butt ', directly upon the present public road leading to the shore, and further that if the ' butt ' is built at the point at present indicated, it will positively close the road and prevent the public from using same, thus denying the people a privilege which they have enjoyed for many years.
The minister will understand that the legal right these people have is a right ot way; it is not like a public highway; it is only an easement over the land of Mc-Aulay. The public can use that portion of the land which they have used hitherto, and it may be only six or seven feet in width. With a stop butt on this easement, the public will be deprived of the right of getting to the shore, which is a very valuable right to people living in many parts of Prince Edward Island. I realize that as the Crown now owns the land on both sides of the road-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	That is on both
sides of this easement?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. If the physical
conditions were such that the people could get down to the seashore at some other place, the minister might give them that right, but it is testified to, that this particular place is the only means of access to the shore. It is, without any doubt whatever, the intention of the people who are behind this scheme, to defeat the rights of these people which have been declared to them by the Appeal Court of Prince Edward Island, and when the minister comes to read all the facts in connection with the case and realizes who are the gentlemen interested, I think he will come to
the conclusion that a great big game has been put up on him. I hope it is not so bad that the minister may not be able to see some way out of it to protect the rights of these people. I find, in studying this case, that the counsel for the plaintiff McAulay are no less than A. L. Fraser, a former member of this House and a gentleman who was appointed by himself to be the appraiser of the value of the land, and J. A. Mathieson, K.C., the present Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island- I will exclude Mr. Mathieson because he may not have known of the later facts- but Mr. Fraser knew of the lawsuit, he knew of the decision of the courts, he knew that the public in 1908 obtained the legal right to travel over that right of way to the seashore, and he knows that if this stop butt is placed where these gentlemen allege it is to be placed, that he by his political influence is defeating the right which the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island gave to these people some five or six years ago. Not to say any more, it looks bad on the face of it. I will not say anything about the enormous price which the minister has paid for the property, further than to say I look upon the price as being an unimportant matter in comparison with the evident intention to defraud these people of their Tights. I am satisfied, from the papers and from the facts as we have them presented this afternoon, that the minister and probably the department would have no knowledge as to what was going on; but certainly the gentlemen in Prince Edward Island who have been advising the minister not only had a knowledge but have been acting with a degree of mala tides which I am glad to say w^e do not often find in the legal profession, because, as a rule, the legal profession does not play games of that kind. We win our cases if we can, but we do not attempt to go to the Government and get them to win our cases after the Supreme Court has decided against us. It is a case which the minister ought to look into, and one which I hope he will look into. The physical conditions of the country may be such that it is not possible to erect this stop butt in such a way as to give the people access to the seashore. The minister might change the line of fire, and thus leave an opening whereby the people of that portion of Prince Edward Island could get down to the seashore and exercise the right that they and their forefathers have exercised for generations.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	1 am very much
obliged to the hon. gentleman for the information he has given me. I looked into the matter during recess and I find that we have not heard of it in the department. It is 'all news to the department, as the hon. member can understand. The custom of the department before my advent and since has always been to deal fairly with the people in regard to these roads. If a road is to be closed, we meet the wishes of the people in every possible way, either by giving them what they think they are entitled to or by giving them a new road. There is not an instance which I can recall in which we have not satisfied the people in some reasonable way.
I do not know the location of the range exactly, as I have never been on the ground and I can only go by the plans. When we heard that this range was dangerous, these gentlemen proposed an entirely different range, one which we could not buy for love or money, which we could only get by expropriation. The Rifle Association in that locality suggested that 'we should utilize this range which was practically contiguous to the old range, only giving a much safer line of fire. I can assure my hon. friend that I never had any conversation with the gentlemen to whom he refers and do not know them; but as regards Mir. MacLean, he advocated an entirely different range, which he claimed to be a better range, but which, as 1 said before, we could get only by expropriation. I will, however, look into the matter.


Mat VERVILLE:: Is the department getting any work done by the Great West Saddlery Company of Winnipeg?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know whether they have received any contracts or not.


Mr. VERVILLE:: Probably they may be asked to tender on some work in the future; and, on behalf of those who have asked me, I wish to read to the House a copy of the contract under which the men are working for that company, and which is one of the worst agreements I have seen for a good many years. During the strike some time ago there was a good deal of comment in Winnipeg, even by the Ministerial Association. Many of the ministers of the gospel wrote to the papers stating the conditions under which the men were working for this company, and how they were being treated. This is an agreement that the company is forcing these

men to sign before it will take them into its employment. I want to read it .so that the minister will know under what conditions the men are working, in case the company is called to do any work for the department in the future. I know they have done work for the department in the past. The agreement is as follows:
Agreement.
1.	All persons on being employed by the company shall subscribe to the following rules:
2.	No person while in the employment of the company shall become a member of any secret trades or labour society, association, or organization in the city of Winnipeg, or any society, association or organization which has for its object, or which in any of its operations affects the counselling, aiding, or assisting of tradesmen or mechanics, labourers, or employees in procuring or enforcing by coercion, strikes, boycotting or in any other manner, any demands or claims upon or against their employer or employers, or upon or against employers of labour generally, or any society, association or organization the laws, rules, regulations or operations of which restrain or interfere with the free rights of Its members, individually to labour or restrain from labour when and as they may please or as their employer may require, and for such remuneration as they may choose to accept, and to individually deal direct from their employer or employers as they may severally wish in all matters respecting their employment and the remuneration thereof.
3.	No employee of the company shall participate in or actively assist any labour strike, or attempt at boycotting any industry or business.
4.	No employee of the company shall without the consent of the company, leave the employment of the company thereof without having at first given one clear week's notice in writing to the manager of his intention to do so.
5.	No employee shall he entitled to any remuneration for any work, labour or service performed or rendered by him during the first siz days of his employment by the company, or any employee who leaves or is dismissed from the employment of the company and afterwards returns shall not be entitled to any remuneration for any work, labour or service rendered or performed during the first six days of such renewal period of his employment by the company.
6.	Upon any employee completing his services with the company and leaving their employment, and upon such employee establishing to the company at all times since his employment began he has kept, observed and obeyed all the foregoing rules, then and in such event such employee shall be entitled to a bonus in addition to his wages equal to the amount which he would have earned during the first six days of such service had he been entitled to wages for the same.
7.	All workmen employed by the company shall be entitled to one week's notice before dismissal by the company, except for cause or neglect of duty.
8.	The company agrees to pay the employee interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the use of all money retained by them

after such money has been in the possession of the company for one year.
I do not want to put on ' Hansard ' the comments that were made at the time in some of the Winnipeg newspapers. In the future, if the Militia Department ever ask for tenders, they cannot say that they are ignorant of the conditions under which these men are working. According to the reports in the Winnipeg papers iat that time, the men were working for nine and ten dollars a week, and .members of the Ministerial Association considered that the conditions of employment were worse than in Russia.
I want to say a few words in regard to technical education. Nobody can say that I have not always stated in this House that I was against militia expenditures. I said that in 1910, when the present Government were not in power, so no one can accuse me of partisanship. I am sorry that the Government have not acceded to the recommendation of the Technical Education Commission to appropriate $3,000,000 for technical education. I happen to know something about what technical education will do, for I have the honour to be a member of the Technical School Board of the city of Montreal, and I know what they have been able to accomplish with the little money that is placed at their disposal. The minister may believe the commission has done wrong, and that the boys can learn a little more in the militia than they can in the technical schools. The minister will, however, agree that he finds it very hard at the present time to induce young men to join the militia, because, judging by the manner in which he is operating all through the country in putting at the disposal of young men everything possible to induce them to join, it seems to me he has great difficulty in attracting them. I will tell the minister also that in the near future it will be much harder to get men. The minister may have in the militia a good many men, but I fail to see that they are what you would call real soldiers, for this reason, that, in the event of war, the great majority of them would not do much fighting.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Alphonse Verville: Because they are not
used to hard knocks; they cannot fight. It takes another class of manhood altogether to fight. The minister has told us about the military expenditure of Germany,
France and England. If we were to ask the people of Canada to tax themselves for military purposes to the extent that is done in England, I believe the expenditure would have to be reduced, because if the people were called upon to pay directly what the minister wishes to expend, they would want him to spend much less. The minister referred to Germany. Of course, the military expenditure is very heavy there. But anybody who reads history and keeps in touch with economic conditions in European countries can plainly see that the last election in France had a great deal to do with military and naval matters. The same feeling prevails at the present time in Germany. Two yeaTS ago, when I spoke on the Budget. I advised the Government that they had better wait until January to see what Germany was going to do in the election. We have seen what happened at that election in Germany, and we have heard about the election lately, in France, and we see a peculiar condition. We shall probably see the same thing in England in the very near future. They are going to do away with spending so much money on military matters. Conditions in the United States are exactly similar now. The minister may not believe me; I do not ask him to believe me. I can tell him that I know what I am talking about, from the economic standpoint. There is a feeling of discontent growing steadily amongst thousands in other countries, and that feeling is growing in this country. If the minister would grant the Minister of Labour, for instance, the $3,000,000 that was asked for by the Technical Education Commission, I can tell him that it would do a great of good. There is one thing upon which the manufacturers and the industrial element will agree and it may be the only one; that is, in technical education, and it is a wonder that the Manufacturers' Association, who are very powerful with the present Government, have not seen fit to prevail upon the Government to vote a sum for technical education. The manufacturers themselves see the necessity of technical education, because, if we have good technical schools, they will not have to go abroad to find competent men. At the present time, we must admit that we have to go to France, Germany or Belgium to get technical men. We are doing nothing in that direction, and I do not know why nothing has been done this year.
The minister is expanding his department, and probably is increasing the Ted tape

Of course, everybody knows that I am against that. There is too much red tape, and there are too many officers who want to have braid on their clothes. At the same time, the soldier of industry is earning the money to pay for it-indirectly, to be sure. If we had a direct tax for militia, the minister would surely find out the answer of the masses of the people of the country. I am not speaking for the farmer, because there are others who can speak for him. I do not want to go into detail as to what the militia has done in the West, in Montreal, and in Valleyfield to keep 'peace and harmony ', as they say. I want to tell the minister that the mass of workingmen-he may say they do not amount to very much numerically. Well, they amount to more than he believes. I am not speaking only of organized labour. Organized labour, of course, represents a certain number of men in the country, and they are paying their share to the Militia Department's piper; but there are also all the other labouring men, who, though not directly affiliated, are in sympathy with them, and who are discontented with this large expenditure. When we see the amount of money we are asked to vote for the militia and consider the thousands of men who are idle in the country, we must admit that the amount asked for should show a reduction instead of an increase.
The minister will probably tell me that we have a very small number of regulars in the country. So much the better. Regulars are unproductive, and worth nothing at all to the country. I do not believe there will be war between Canada and any other country. At the congress between the workmen of England, France and Germany, it has been decided that before they will fight anywhere they will find out what they are fighting for, whether for the interests of the country ot for the interests of a few large private institutions.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the future not only of Canada but of the world is involved in this question. I shall probably have the. advantage of attending the congress to be held in England next September; I know that this question is going to be discussed and I will tell them exactly what I think. The minister says to-night that he is not going to take a back seat; he says, I am going to do this and I am going to do that. I give him credit for that; I would rather hear him express his views that way than beat about the bush and say that he is going to do something which he does not 
intend to do. It has been said time and again that the course taken by the Militia Department is all due to the minister; labouring men have said that it is the fault not of the Government but of the minister; that the Government is not behind the minister in the course which he has taken. But the minister told us very plainly this afternoon that it was not the minister but the Government who decided to do what the minister is doing, and that in the future they will increase as much as possible the expenditures in the Militia Department. I want to enter my protest in that regard; I do not believe it is fair. I believe that a certain amount of that ' money should be devoted not to this purpose but to the technical education which is so badly needed in this country. If that were done we would have better men and better institutions. It would please the Manufacturers' Association, perhaps; at any rate, it would please the masses of the workingmen far better.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation) :: Mr .'Chairman, before the estimates of the Department of Militia are passed, I wish to refer briefly to the matter of expenditure for militia purposes. I dealt with that subject last year, and I may be allowed to revert once more to it this year.
I listened attentively this afternoon to the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Although I do not wholly agree with him in all his conclusions, I heartily concur in his condemnation of the extraordinary outlay which this Government is making fo.r militia purposes, as well as ifor the building of armouries. 'The latter are, to my mind, provided in too large numbers in the province of Ontario, and are at times built in small villages with a population of only 500 or 1,000 people. From the remotest point of the Gaspe -peninsula as far as Quebec, that is to say over a distance of 500 miles. I believe there are not more than two drill sheds, while over a similar area there are scores of them in the province of Ontario.
I take the liberty of saying a few words in reference to the expenditure we are making for military purposes in this country. True, I am not an expert in the art of warfare, though my father served as volunteer at the time of the Fenian raids, and though I might have been a warrior myself, had I been bred in a -country where military life constitutes a special! calling.

However, under the Laurier administration, I was engaged in polities in my county, and I took strong exception to the expenditure for military purposes which was increasing at an alarming rate from year to year. At the time the estimates for 1913-14 were voted, on ,May 27th, I sounded a loud note of protest against that extraordinary outlay for militia purposes, and I again utter the same note of warning this year. I showed that the hon. minister in his Main Estimates was asking for $'10,917,305, anjd in his supplementaries, $1,938,905, for the building of drill halls in various localities, etc., making up a total expenditure of $13,196,185.
This year his estimates are not quite so high, though they are yet much too high. We are called upon to vote $10,840,400 on the main estimates, besides $671,000 included in the Estimates of the Department of Public Works, for the building of drill halls, and in the Supplementary Estimates, $741,682, making a total of $12,498,082, which, compared with last year, shows, it is true, a decrease of $684,000.
It must be acknowledged that if the Liberal party had remained in power, we might have had to put up with expenditure even on a larger scale; for the Laurier administration was entering with all sails unfurled into the vortex of militarism. However, I do not propose to be very bitter with the hon. Minister of Militia on that account, for I appreciate his great qualifications as a soldier, and I wish to assure him that he has all my sympathy in the trying task imposed upon him in the country's interest. At the same time, I am a citizen of Canada and the representative of an agricultural county, and my constituents are anxious that I should give expression in this House to their decided views in this connection. I am sincerely of the opinion that fully one-half of the money which we vote for the militia does not reach its proper destination. The annual drill has for its only result the wasteful and useless expenditure of public funds. When the time has come to recruit the required number of men to make up the various companies, the captains or other recruiting officers collect all the loafers, unemployed and drunkards and fill the camp with them. I do not mean that all the .men who go into camp belong to that class, but a goodly number of them do. What military training can they receive during those two weeks in camp, part of which is spent tramping 290
the streets of our cities at night, and getting drunk? Numbers of young men who were leading good lives when they left home, have returned in quite a different disposition. If I had any advice to tender to the hon. Minister of Militia, it would be to revert to the former system which was in vogue thirty or forty years ago, and which may be described as follows:
In every parish there was a captain of the militia, who recruited a company, among people whose ages varied between twenty and forty. It was always the same men who, from year to year, went through the military exercises, generally on Sundays, and they received very little paj for it.
I believe it was not more than fifty cents per day; that was at the time the regular price. If to-day the Government are willing to pay one dollar per day, so much the better, no one surely will object. But those .men were always the same, since they were bound to sign an agreement for three years. During those three years, it goes without saying, that they acquired military training and acquired some experience which turned them into good soldiers.
To-day everything is changed. iSoldiers are enlisted anew every year, and are selected most of the time out of those young men who do not go into camp two years in succession, so that every year a new set of soldiers .are recruited among young men, fifteen, sixteen or eighteen years old at most, who, having nothing else to do in the meantime, enlist and go into camp. As soon as they find a job elsewhere, they leave the camp and never return, so that the whole work has to be begun over again. If the former system to which I referred was reverted to, I think the money would be expended with much more benefit to the country at large.
I do not know whether the suggestion I am about to make is practicable, but it seams to me, from the information I gathered and from my own experience, that the Department of Militia should send every year a certain number of young men taken from the various counties of the Dominion to the military schools, with a view to providing the companies with efficient captains. I do not know whether the suggestion is such as could be just now toe carried out under the law, tout it might be made so, and it would supply military instruction free of charge. If the case if provided for, it is not generally known, and I



would request the hon. minister to advertise the tact, as I am satisfied that should such an offer be made to our country folks, some of our youth would take advantage of it every year; in that way we would have a number of proficient officers who might undertake to form companies in their various parishes, as I stated a moment ago.
I realize that the hon. Minister of Militia is a practical militia man, qualified in every respect to fill his part, and most anxious to be of service to his country; but I do not think he will attain his object along the lines he is following just now, and I would like to tell him so without bitterness and in all sincerity. However, in my opinion, it is not so much the military art as agriculture which should be encouraged, if we are really desirous of developing the country. Let us cut down the expenditure for militia purposes and increase correspondingly the outlay for agricultural purposes, and thus shall we do good work for the Dominion. As a matter of fact, agricultural production in this country is not in keeping with consumption, and why? Because the farmer's son gets discouraged and migrates to the cities; there he finds employment which in the meantime seems more profitable, though it imay hold in *store for him at times bitter disappointment.
The high cost of living is complained of, and meanwhile nothing is done to prevent the abandonment of the farms and the flocking of people towards the towns and cities. A stop should be put to that evil by encouraging the farmer and settler by all possible means, not by voting hundreds of thousand dollars that are distributed at the sweet will of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, to subserve the interests of his party, that is to entice his friends into voting against us and turning our own friends .against us. Instead, let us put that money to some useful purpose, in the shape of grants to agriculture and the establishment of further experimental farms and illustration stations.
A moment ago the hon. member for South Wellington stated that we were only spending one or two million dollars on agriculture. However, I notice an increase of $1,266,500 over the last year's vote for agriculture, which now reaches the total, amount of $3,950,000. Nevertheless, even that amount does not seem sufficient to me. I would prefer spending $12,000,000 for the promotion of agriculture and only $3,000,-

000	on the militia, and I am satisfied that, throughout this whole country, the welkin would ring with the praises of so beneficent an administration. We have no need for soldiers if we have no crops and no money wherewith to provide for their requirements. The springs of 'Canada's wealth and of Canada's welfare are in farming and manufacturing.
I wish, therefore, to enter my humble protest against this too heavy expenditure for military purposes, and in so doing, I believe I am voicing the feelings of a good number of my colleagues and of the whole of the people of Canada, barring the milijt tary. In so doing, I am not impelled by any feeling of ill-will, but solely by a desire to acquaint the hon. Minister of Militia of the general feeling of the Canadian people as a whole. Of course, he may not approve of my point of view, but I may remind him of the old saw to the effect that one is a very poor judge in his own case.
Now, the hon. gentleman stated some time ago, and the statement was repeated this afternoon by several hon. gentlemen, that European nations expend 30 or 40 per cent of their yearly income for military purposes, while the hon. gentlemen does not apply more than 5 or 7 per cent of this country's income to the same end. To that,
1	may answer that we are not in Europe, and consequently not all the time, as these countries are, on a war footing. In Canada there is no fear entertained of any war, and our military expenditure should be made to conform to the numbers of our people, to the amount of our revenue and to the requirements of our geographical situation. We are not threatened with such dangers as are the European nations.
Our hon. friends opposite should not be too hard on the hon. gentleman, for I believe he is playing into their own hands, though a member of a Conservative cabinet. I for one cannot take him to task on the ground of partisanship, for if there is a man who never extended any political favours to me it is the Minister of Militia. So much so, that at times I am taken to wondering whether he was the choice of the Conservative or of the Liberal party.
There is only one position connected with the militia in the county of Bimouski, and in spite of my repeated requests that it be given to one of our friends, it is left in the hands of a Liberal.


Mr. PAQUET (Translation):: Who is that?

Mr. BOUlLAY (Translation): The brother of the Deputy Minister of Militia. While the Liberals were in power, the military training camp was almost invariably held at Rimouski. That necessitated some expenditure which the people profited by, and it was only fair it should be so. In spite of my requests, though our friends have been in power three years, I have not as yet succeeded in having the camp held in my county.
Mr. PAQUE'T (Translation): If the hon. minister expended public moneys in his constituency, would the hon. gentleman take exception to it?


Herménégilde Boulay: I would not, if things were managed as they were in the past.
Mr. PROU'LX (Translation): What difference does it make?


Herménégilde Boulay: But I complain of the manner in which the money is being spent at present. I am free to say' that the hon. gentleman does not extend any political favours to me; and I am rather surprised to hear hon. gentlemen on the other side criticise him, )as very often I am at a loss to know whether he is with us or against us.
Now, in reference to drill sheds, as I stated at the outset, in the whole eastern part of the province of Quebec, with the exception possibly of River du Loup, I know only of a single drill hall, and not very large, I do not think it cost $2,000; and there is not a single one in the county of Rimouski. If there are in Ontario such large numbers as they say, I really believe they are much too numerous and that the militia estimates might with advantage be materially cut down.


William F. Carroll: I have heard a good
many charges made against the Minister of Militia both in this House and in the country, but it has fallen to the lot of my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) to be the first to charge the Minister of Militia with being a Liberal. The minister is a Liberal in some ways. In my estimation, he is rather liberal in appropriating millions of dollars for the militia of this country. I have no criticism to make of any particular item either in the Main or Supplementary Estimates, but when it comes to expending $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 on the militia in this country, I think we are going at too fast a pace. If the 290J
militia gave us the benefits that the minister would have us believe, I would hold up my hands and say that we should expend not $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, but $20,000,000 or $30,000,000; but I have not very much faith in the minister's statement that military camps, and military enterprises generally, make for the spiritual uplift of Canadians. In my humble estimation, nothing in this life has a more contrary effect than miltary camps or any place where military men congregate.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I did not catch the first part of my hon. friend's remarks.


William F. Carroll: I was pointing out that if the militia and military enterprise generally had all the merits the minister would have us believe, I would hold up my hands and say, go ahead, dash away and spend the money-not $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, but $20,000,000 or $30,000,000. I do not agree with the minister that military enterprise tends in any way to the social or spiritual uplift of Canadians, young or old. But there is a movement in this country that has my hearty support, and that is the scout movement. That develops manhood in our young boys, and if the Militia or any other department of the Government would give that movement some financial assistance, or aid in some other way, such proposal would have my hearty support; but to spend $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 on military matters in a young country like Canada is going too fast.
I got a return the other day from the Department of Militia with reference to some difficulties and misunderstandings that occurred between the Intercolonial and the tToops that weTe being transferred from Petawawa to the eastern sections of the Maritime provinces. I am not going to say whether the reports furnished to the head of the Intercolonial railway by the conductors of those trains are right or not, but if they are true it is a disgrace to the militia system of Canada. I am not going to read the report, because I understand it has been contradicted, but it is in reference to the transport of the troops from Petewawa in the summer of 1912. It is reported that they were drunk on leaving and drunk en route, that they smashed cars, that the various regiments from different parts of the Maritime provinces pelted one another with empty bottles from the time they left Montreal until they reached their destination. If that sort of thing is for the

spiritual uplift of Canadians-I do not say it is true-then I have a very hazy idea of what spiritual uplift means. I do not say the present minister is responsible for any wrongdoing that goes on in the camps, or that occurs in the militia. Far be it from me to charge any Minister of Militia with responsibility for such a condition of affairs; but if we are going to have an efficient military system in Canada, either as regards the active or permanent militia, the discipline should be such as to prevent anything like this happening in any portion of the militia. Neither do I blame the present minister any more than his predecessors for asking for a larger expenditure on the nrlUary forces. I do criticise him because I think he is spending too much, and I would have had the same criticism to make of his predecessor in a similar case. I do not know whether the minister will agree with me in this or not, but I believe that we had a more efficient militia force in the province of Nova Scotia before we entered Confederation, when we were spending scarcely a cent on it than we have to-day, when millions are being spent on the militia of this country. We had then 57,000 men who could be called out at a moment's notice to defend our country. These men did not congregate in any special camp in the summer. Officers were sent down from the headquarters at Halifax to different sections of the country, where the men were drilled and became efficient militiamen. To-day we are spending thousands of dollars for transporting the militia from various parts in the provinces to some central point. I do not know whether it is true or not, but I have heard it rumoured in Nova Scotia that the annual camp is a place for debauch from the beginning to the end of the training. I do not make that charge myself, but that is the current idea in Nova Scotia. If it	is true,
.it	i3 going altogether too far. I
think	if	we	spent $7,000,000 to
maintain both the active and permanent forces, we would be doing quite enough to promote military enterprise in this country. I was surprised and pained, for I have considerable regaird for the minister, to hear him make a comparison between the benefits that would accrue from developing the military spirit, and the benefits to be derived from technical education. There is one thing that can be said about the minister. I certainly believe, as he says himself, that he is an enthusiast on this question of the militia, but where I find fault with him is this. Instead of telling 
the House in a reasonable manner what benefits might be expected from military enterprise, he is altogether too extravagant and decries every other enterprise in the country to advance his military theories. When the minister tells the House, as he did this evening, that nothing good came out of the commission on technical education, on which was expended hundreds and thousands of dollars, I want to tell him that he is reckoning without his host; and if he made that statement knowing what he was doing, then he does not know vary much about what technical education has done or is capable of doing for the young men of this country. For myself, I would be quite willing to give the Minister of Militia $7,000,000 or $8,000,000. I say that would be plenty. I think the Government should take that into consideration and as suggested by my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville), spend $3,000,000 on technical education. This is not the time nor the place to discuss the merits of technical education, but it may be the time and the place to compare the benefits to be derived from technical education for our young men with the consequences of developing a military spirit in this country.
I do not have to go out of the constituency of South Cape Breton to show you the wonderful things that could be accomplished by schools for technical education. We have in Nova Scotia a fairly good system of technical education but the revenue of our Government in that part of the country is very limited and therefore the amount which can be devoted to technical education year in and year out is not large. Every one of the many hundreds employed in the great works we have in Sydney, and in the mining centre of Glace Bay, from the general manager of the coal company down to the humblest official, received the technical education, which was necessary to enable him to fill his position, in the technical night schools of Nova Scotia. The city of Sydney is willing to vote some thousands of dollars and to give a site for a technical school if this Government will come to their assistance, as advised by the Technical Education Commission, and give them a share of the $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 which was to be divided amongst the various provinces for technical training. I do not wish to -be understood as saying that I am against any particular item that the minister is asking us to vote, but surely something ought to be done to curtail the

4C01
ever increasing volume of money which this Parliament votes year in and year out to meet the military expenditure of this country. This year I find $800,000 in the Main Estimates and $60,000 additional in the Supplementary Estimates for clothing in a country in which there is no standing army We have several people in the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt who are our standing army, or as they are called, our permanent force, but $10,000 would be sufficient to clothe these people and yet we are asked to expend $800,000 in clothing, an increase in the Main Estimates of $100,000 for this item alone. There must be something wrong about that. - This is an item in the bill of fare that I do not understand.
I have no particular fault to find with any of the drill halls that the minister is providing for in these Estimates. He will remember that two years ago I brought to his attention the fact that in Sydney the military boys were clamouring for an armoury. The minister very courteously told me at that time that, providing certain things were accomplished and a regiment was formed, Sydney would get an armoury. We have a regiment in the city, but we have not got the armoury. The minister visited Sydney last year and I am sure that he was very much struck with the very rapid growth of that great centre. Notwithstanding that we find little towns in Ontario-I do not say that they are not entitled to all they get-are being provided with armouries and drill halls, Sydney, with 23,000, and Glace Bay, with 20,000 people, have none of these things. One almost might come to the conclusion that the minister, although he may not wish to do so, is looking on the political side of this matter a little too much. I hope that the minister is not influenced with regard to the question of the armoury at Sydney by the fact that the city is represented by a Liberal. I know he is not but there are a great many people in that constituency who think that is the reason. I do not want to blame the minister for anything I cannot substantiate and I certainly cannot substantiate that. But there is a notion prevalent in that part of the country that owing to the fact that there are so many small towns in Ontario represented in this Parlia-, ment by good Conservatives and good men, they are getting their armouries and drill halls because they are so represented, and that the city of Sydney is not getting an armoury because it is represented by a Liberal. I shall not be betraying any
secret if I remind the minister that he was very courteously received by the Liberals of the city of Sydney during his stay there last spring.
I do not beheve in developing a military spirit amongst Canadians generally. I do not believe in expending as much money as we have been expending, either under the late Administration or under the present Administration, for the upkeep of the militia of this country. I do not believe that it will tend to make a happy and united Canadian people. I believe that if there is a military spirit in Canada it will manifest itself by Canadians forming corps throughout the country and doing as they did in the old pre-Confederation days in Nova Scotia^going out voluntarily year in and year out and not looking for any consideration for doing so. When the people wish to develop anything they develop .it voluntarily and they do not call upon the Government to help them. We did it in Nova Scotia and we did it in other Maritime provinces. I do not know much about the older provinces of Canada but whenever there was a call in the days before Confederation, when wre were not spending any money on the militia, the people responded, and those who did respond were not trained military men. They were men who picked up a little knowledge in their annual drills w'hich cost the country nothing. If the time ever comes, and it does not look a?
if it will come in the near 9 p.m. future, when Canadians will be called upon to defend their country, there will come in response a free people who never earned a dollar from the militia of Canada, a free people who never had colonel, captain, adjutant, or any such titles prefixed to their names.
Military enterprise has been a burden on the countries of continental Europe. There is no question that so agitates the common people of Great Britain as the great burden of military expenditure that forms so important a part of the Budget of Great Britain every year. While we do not feel it very much now, I hope that this Government, has gone the limit in military expenditure. It does not help the country; it gives the country no return. Spend money on agriculture, on technical education, in subsidizing railways, in giving subventions to steamships and we get a return, not directly, but in the development of the country.
Our object should be to develop along us^

ful lines, to have our commerce increase and our financial institutions become stronger. But you can see no such good flowing from expenditure on militia, and that alone is a reason why the people on both sides of politics in Canada should awaken to the fact that we have reached the limit in military expenditure. It is time to call a halt. While criticism for this huge expenditure has been levelled at the present Minister of Militia, I am not so sure that past ministers have not sinned in the same manner. I suppose the present Minister of Militia, when he came to power, seeing that Sir Frederick Borden could spend nine or ten millions a year on militia, thought he should spend twice as much because he _ considered himself twice a greater soldier, and twice a greater military enthusiast. It is always a good thing to have a minister who takes an interest in his department, and if I have one criticism against the Minister of Militia it is that he takes too much interest in his department, that he becomes over-enthusiastic, and that he allows his enthusiasm to get the better of his usual good judgment.
The minister told us to-day that the farmers of the country were behind him in this extravagant expenditure on military matters, but I believe he will awaken to find that he has reached a wrong conclusion as to the public sentiment of the people of Canada, and that they will demonstrate this to him in a very forceful manner, as soon as the opportunity comes. That is my personal opinion and it is confirmed by the people I meet. There are in my county some very genial gentlemen who take a great interest in military matters, and I know that they would do their duty if there was real duty for them to do, but the time has come when the members of both politicial parties should set their faces against extravagant military expenditures. I am glad to see some spark of independence left in the Conservative party; I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) has the courage of his convictions and isnot afraid to get up m the House and criticise his minister for extravagance. I think there are others on that side of the House who, if they had equal courage with the hon. member for Rimouski, would also arise to criticise this enormous expenditure. I should not have discussed that question at all, had it not been for the fact that I understood the Minister of Militia to make very unfavourable comparisons between the benefits that accrue to this country from

developing the military spirit and those which accrue .from expenditure in aid of technical education.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I did not think I was enthusiastic until my friend (Mr. Carroll) spoke. I recall with the greatest delight the splendid reception he accorded your humble servant when I was in Sydney last year. I had a liking for my good friend before that, I have admired him since, and I have a greater admiration for him to-night than ever. He has mildly found fault with me for expenditure on the militia, but in the same breath he gently admonishes me that there should be some more drill halls in his county. I believe with the hon. member that there should be a drill hall each in Sydney, Glace Bay, and North Sydney. These places are entitled to have a regiment, and if I had the money they would have a regiment in very short order.


William F. Carroll: Does the minister not
think that the city of Sydney, with a population of 22,000 and a population of 43,000 immediately contributory to it, is more entitled to have an armoury than a small town in Ontario with a population of 500?


James Joseph Hughes: It is not any more entitled to it, but it is just as much entitled to it. There is no regiment in Sydney but I would be delighted to have one there, and if I remember aright I offered to make my good friend (Mr. Carroll) not an honorary colonel, but if he will only take hold of the business, a lieutenant-colonel. But he pointed out that he had not done hie training, and that his business engagements would not allow him to do that. I would not have any fear whatever to entrust a regiment to my hon. friend.


William F. Carroll: The regiment might
have some fear.


James Joseph Hughes: Not at all; my hon. friend would make a splendid soldier. I believe that each of these three places I have mentioned is entitled to a regiment, and should have one. The difference 'between my hon. friend and myself is that I have the temerity to stand up here and say that Sydney is entitled to a regiment and should have it, and Sydney is entitled to a drill hall, and should have it.


Mr. PROULX:: But you will not give it.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I will give it with the greatest of pleasure. If I had the time

to spare I would be delighted to visit these places and see what could be done. I know there is a spirit of manhood there and that these places would give us three fine regiments, one in Sydney, one in Glace Bay, and one in North Sydney.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No taffy.


James Joseph Hughes: There is no taffy about it, they axe honest men down there; they are Nova Scotians; they turned out in 1366.
iMr. A. K. MACLEAN:	Did you ever
ask the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) to .command a Highland regiment?


James Joseph Hughes: 'I would be delighted
if he would; he would look well in kilts. My hon. friend says that $10,000 should uniform 3,000 men, but if so they would have to be Highlanders; it would not buy boots fot them. The boots cost about four dollars a pair, so that your $10,000 would be gone and some of them would have to go barefooted. My good friend has referred to an incident that occurred in connection with the 1912 camp. There was some little trouble in the city of Montreal, but the boys were not to blame in a sense. I have no use fox a fellow who turns out a ruffian, but at the same time I am willing to look at both sides of the question. These soldiers reached the city of Montreal from Sydney; I think they came from my hon. friend's county.


William F. Carroll: No.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Mr. BICKERDIKE:: But not in Montreal.


James Joseph Hughes: If my hon. friend had
seen them, I am sure he would have entertained them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought the spiritual advice they get in the militia, would keep them from doing suoh things.


James Joseph Hughes: I have been at militia
camps for upwards of forty years, and the militiamen will compare favourably with any other class of men for good behaviour. The militia in this country has turned out more good men and men of high standing in the community than any other single organization in the country. Look at my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., it is his militia training that has made him what he is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I left it.


James Joseph Hughes: Nevertheless the hon.
gentleman got his training before he left the militia, and many of his high qualities are due to the training he got in it. Look at the way in which he controls his. temper and I control mine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You pay your militia
too great a compliment.


James Joseph Hughes: Take the ease at Resti-gouche, where the American flag was hauled down. We have .affidavits from people saying that they were sure that these men were intoxicated. There were four men/ concerned in this little incident, three of whom ^ had never touched liquor in their lives; but they saw the American flag flying and they could not see any British flag flying, because it happened to be behind some trees in a hollow. They had been detained there for an hour or two in the train, and they pulled the flag down. I am giving that illustration only to show how reports are exaggerated. In that case three or four of the steadiest fellows in the country pulled the flag down, and yet the rumour went out that it was done in a drunken debauch.
My hon. friend from South Cape Breton referred to Nova Scotia before Confederation and after. Before Confederation they had compulsory training in Nova Scotia, and the men had to turn out and train for nothing; they even had to buy their own outfit. But let me point out to the hon. member for South Cape Breton that at that time Nova Scotia did not have to spend one dollar for armaments. The muskets and weapons were largely those furnished

by the British Government. The belts were those that had the marks of the battlefields of the Crimea on them; they were old belts handed over free by the British Government; and the cost was very little for the upkeep of these men. The days of smokeless powder and long-range rifles have completely revolutionized manoeuvring. Any one familiar with modern strategy and tactics will realize that to take a lot of untrained men, no matter how loyal and good-looking they may be, along the lines, would be worse than hauling empty boxes, because they would be practically useless when it came to actual fighting unless they were properly trained. Boxes would not cost anything to feed, whereas these men would have to be fed and supplies carted along for them at great expense.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) referred to technical education. I said nothing against technical education. The suggestion was made that we should spend $3,000,000 on technical education, because some person had said that we should do so, instead of spending it on the militia. I am happy to say that the clergymen and the good women of this country are behind the Militia Deoartment for the first time in its history. I am not objecting to technical education. I appreciate the value of technical education; but I fully appreciate the value of manhood and womanhood in the community. You can take all the men you choose and pump them full of technical education, and, unless they have the spirit of men developed within them, you will never make men out of them. The cadet system, as we are now carrying it out in this country, takes no second place to technical education in developing the manhood and womanhood of the people. It is not necessary to enter into the details of that at the present time.
Let me assure my pion. friend from South Cape Breton that I am more than anxious to give him a regiment at Sydney.
* It will cost $45,000 to organize that regiment, because you cannot organize a regiment without money. The men have to be clothed, and I do not know how my hon. friend can imagine that $10,000 would clothe 3,000 men for a year. They would have to have second-class clothes and boots.


William F. Carroll: I think that would be
enough for them.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend being a Highlander, may think that amount sufficient, but he would not take very much pride in seeing those men turn out in (hose clothes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I object to claiming
him as a Highlander. He is no Highlander.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought my hon. friend had all the brogue and canny and genial manner of the Highlander.
My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was quite content with an expenditure of $20 a head for a drill hall in his community. I do not think that any town is entitled to any expenditure to which any other town is not entitled. Therefore he would be committing the country to an expenditure of $160,000,000 for drill halls throughout the length and breadth of Canada. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) is as anxious as I am to give the hon. member for Sydney a drill hall in his city. I think there should also be a drill hall in Glace Bay; but if one town gets a drill hall, every other place is entitled to one. We cannot take them all at once; we have to take them in turn.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend
say that in every place for which he has an appropriation he has a regiment?


James Joseph Hughes: Or a company. The small drill halls are for companies, the medium ones for two companies, some for four companies, and some for battalions. My hon. friend .surely does not wish me to build him a little one-horse drill hall for Sydney. I would not insult Sydney, by offering it such a drill hall, because I consider that city is entitled to one of the best drill halls to be found in the Dominion of Canada, and I do not think $100,000 at all extravagant for that purpose.


William F. Carroll: I understand there is an appropriation for a drill hall at Amherst, where there is no regiment.


James Joseph Hughes: A city corps is being organized at Amherst; and, more than that, Amherst is getting only $50,000 or $60,000.
I have no hesitation in saying that Sydney is entitled to a $100,000 drill hall, because it is bound to have a large regiment.
My hon. friend referred to the militarism of continental Europe and Great Britain. I do not know whether I am yet understood by the people of the country or not; but

I am gradually getting to be understood; and some of my hon. friends opposite through their criticism are getting me better understood. My object is exactly to avoid that militarism of Europe. Europe demands that the men shall be taken from their employment. My idea is'that a man can be engaged in his daily labour, as a labourer, a clerk, a farmer or anything else, and, by giving a certain amount of his time in his youth and early manhood, become just as capable a soldier as any man who ever was drilled day in and day out in the regular service, and, in addition, not be a weakness and drawback to the country. Moreover, the expense will be kept down to a minimum.
Before I sit down I wish to draw attention to a remark made by my hon. friend the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville). I do not know whether he wishes to put words into my mouth or not, but he said: 'The hon, minister may say that labour men do not amount to much.' I do not want to charge the hon. member with anything in the form of equivocation; but it might possibly appear in some of the papers that he had said that the Minister of Militia might say so, and that it would be interpreted that the Minister of Militia had said so. I am very much surprised that the hon. gentleman should have used such words. I want to tell him that the labouring men of this country do amount to a great deal. My hon. friend has posed in this House as the advocate, friend, director and adviser of labour for a great many years. I want to tell him that there are labouring men and labouring men; and I want to tell him that the labouring men of this country are strong and firm in the ranks of the militia of this country, and they are to be found in his own nice little city of Maisonneuve. There are men enrolled there to-day sufficient for two regiments, who are demanding the formation of a regiment, and four-fifths of these men earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. I have upwards of eight companies there to-day demanding organization in the ranks of the militia, and I am only sorry that I have not the money to do so this year; but I trust that by the 24th of May next year my hon. friend will see them on review.


Alphonse Verville: I will not see them.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend claims that the militia are waning. The year before I took office 44,000 men were
drilled; in the following year, 47,000 were drilled; last year we drilled 57,000; an increase of 13,000 in two years. All the stories about the workingmen of this country not going into the militia will not hold water, because I have upwards of 80,000 enrolled; and there are hundreds in Maisonneuve, who want to become active and uniformed in the militia of the country, and we have not the money or equipment to take them in. I see no reason why Maisonneuve should not have its regiment, to which it has as much right as the city of Montreal or any other city in Canada. Vve have 80,000 enrolled; we have 44,000 cadets enrolled, organized and trained, who have passed their examinations; and we have upwards of 100,000 men who are partially trained. That is not a bad showing; it does not look as if the labouring men of the country are opposed to the militia.
I want to say again to my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) that at the very earliest opportunity I will take the matter he has mentioned into consideration, and he will find that politics takes a second place.


William F. Carroll: We have between the
city of Sydney and the town of Glace Bay a rifle range, known as the Reserve Rifle Range. I understand there is a movement on foot to have that rifle range done away with and another established near Sydney. To have the rifle range there affords a good deal of pleasure and entertainment to the surrounding country.


James Joseph Hughes: And instruction too.


William F. Carroll: They are talking of doing away with that and putting one near Sydney. While I have nothing to say about the establishing of a range at Sydney, the people of that part of the country will certainly not wish to have the present range done away with. [DOT]


James Joseph Hughes: How far is it from one town to the other?


William F. Carroll: About ten or twelve
miles. I would like to know before the Estimates are through how the Sydney proposition is coming along.


James Joseph Hughes: We will look it up tomorrow and let the hon. member know.


Mr. KYTE:: During the many peregrinations of the hopn. minister throughout Canada seeking for fields in which to sow the seeds of militarism, it i3 strange

that he overlooked the city of Sydney and. the town of Glace Bay. My hon. friend now realizes the possibilities of that tenri-tory for the sowing of these seeds and the reaping of a profitable crop in the near future.


James Joseph Hughes: I offered them a regiment.


George William Kyte: Public Works Department.
Main Estimates.
Drill hall, Amherst	$	70,000
Drill hall, Halifax	 45,000
Drill hall, St. John	 50,000
Armoury, Coaticook	 20,000
Armoury and gunshed, Devis . . ..	35,000
New barracks, Montreal	 100,000
New ordnance depot, Montreal	..	50^000
Drill hall, Quebec	 115,000
Drill hall and armoury, Westmount	30,000
Drill hall, Barrie	 25,000
Drill hall, Brantford	 75,000
Drill hall, Fort William	 30,000
Drill hall, Galt	 35,000
Drill hall, Ingersoll	 15,000
Kingston Royal Military College	..	is'oooKingston covered drill hall ..	..	15,000Kingston Ordnance Stores' building	10,000Drill hall, Listowel	
20,000Drill hall, Napanee	
25^000Drill hall, Ottawa	
50,000Drill hall, Owen Sound	
25^000Drill hall, Pembroke	
35,000Drill hall, Port Arthur	
100,000Barracks, Toronto	145,000New stores building, Toronto	..	..	75,000Drill hall, Portage la Prairie	..	..	20,000Drill hall, Souris .(	
15,000Drill hall, St. James	
25,000Barracks, Winnipeg	
150,000

Drill hall, Winnipeg	 300,000
Drill hall, Winnipeg North	 75,000
Drill hall, Prince Albert	 40,000
Armoury and drill hall, Regina ..	75,000
Drill hall, Saskatoon	 30,000
Drill hall, Swift Current	 30,000
Drill hall, Calgary	 100,000
Drill hall, Edmonton	 50,000
Drill hall, Fernie		20,000
Drill hall, Kamloops	 30,000
Drill hall, North Vancouver	 30,000
Drill hall, Prince Rupert	 35,000
Drill hall, Vancouver	 100,000
Drill hall, Victoria	 150,000
Supplementary Estimates.
Armoury and gunshed, Levis .. ..	10,000
Drill hall, Ingersoll	 10,000
Drill hall, Kenora	 20,000
Drill hall, Lindsay	 25,000
Armoury, London	 50,000
Drill hall, Oshawa	 15,000
Drill hall, Sault Ste. Marie	 25,000
Drill hall, Altamont	 10,000
Drill hall, Prince Albert	 25,000
New drill hall, Edmonton (revote)	50,000

Civil Government, Main Estimates 187,900
Total militia expenditure	$14,528,582
So you will see, Mr. Chairman, that the minister !is- making good his threat to levy ten per cent of the total revenues of Canada for purposes of militia and defence.
The total amount of money that is to be spent upon this non-productive branch of industry in this country is $14,528,582. Let us-take the amount that has been voted for agriculture at the present session of Parliament. In the Main Estimates $3,850,000 has been appropriated; civil government, Main Estimates, $509,637; civil government, Supplementary Estimates, $4,000; Meat and Canned Foods Act, $15,000; making a total of $4,378,637. The hon. Minister of Agriculture thinks that the farmers of Canada ought to be extremely grateful to this Government for applying the sum of $4,378,637 to the interests of agriculture during the present year. The value of the agricultural industry in Canada during the last calendar year was as follows: Principal field crops, estimated, $552,771,500; live stock, estimated, $659308,222; total, $1,212,079,722. For the purpose of maintaining that industry, which is vastly more important than all the other industries of Canada put together, we get the paltry sum of $4,378,637, whereas for the purpose of militia and defence, which yields no revenue, and which is of very little actual value to the people of Canada, we have the enormous sum which I have just mentioned.
Take another great industry ir:	this

[DOT]country, that of fisheries. Burins' the present session we are asked to vote the sum of $1,602,725 for the purpose of supporting that important industry, the value	of	which	to	the	Dominion
of Canada during the last year was something like $33,000,000. Hon. -gentlemen will see, therefore, that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence is getting more than his full share when he asks the Parliament of Canada to vote for his department the amount which I have named.
This question of drill halls and armouries is becoming most interesting. It would appear as though the hon. minister	were	going	over this country
with a pepper-box and was shaking -drill halls and armouries in every available portion of this Dominion. I remember hearing an address which the *hon. minister delivered to a gathering of military men in the Railway Committee room of the House of Commons some two years ago; if I remember correctly his words, he stated that it was his ambition and desire to place a drill hall or an armoury beside every schoolhouse and every church in the Dominion of Canada, the hon. gentleman rather boasts of his success in having developed a military spirit throughout this country. He stated that for the first time in the history of Canada the women were with him in this movement. No doubt the women are induced to be with him in this movement; is he not building places throughout Canada where their choral societies can meet; where they can have tli fir quilting bees and their physical culture classes?
The hon. member for West Lambton this afternoon stated that last year a drill hall was built in the town of Watford and amongst the other activities that developed as the result of the construction of that drill hall, certain societies were formed which held their meetings in this building. He stated that the choral society met there; that physical culture classes were held there; that addresses were delivered upon public health; that meetings for adults were convened and that several other social entertainments were held in that drill hall. There are such things as choral societies in other parts of Canada; there are quilting bees and there are physical culture classes, but they are conducted in the way that any ordinary social entertainment or physical or mental development society is carried on
in those communities. In all these places there are buildings where entertainments are held. I think that it is quite probable that in the progressive town of Watford the good citizens would have their choral societies and their quilting bees if the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence had never built a drill hall there. So that is one of the developments of our militia spirit. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence is putting up these buildings throughout Canada; he is providing places where the young women may meet and have their little social entertainments and social gossip at the expense of the people of Canada and thereby the hon. minister is able to claim that he is developing a spirit of militarism among the young women in this country.
The hon. minister stated, that he had also succeeded in enlisting the sympathy of clergymen in the military movement. Within the last three months a social organization met in the city of Ottawa, at which question of social and moral reform were discussed by leading educationists and clergymen of this country. If the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence is correctly reported, he stated in an address which he delivered at one of these meetings that while he did not talk half as much hot air as the clergymen did, he was doing more for the moral uplift of this country than all the churches and all the clergymen in Canada. It is a hopeful sign that the hon. minister is developing a more friendly attitude towards the clergymen of this country than that which he evidenced a few years ago. We remember that in the session of 1910 the present Minister of Militia felt it his duty to make some observations in Parliament, the resjult Of which was that several of the members sitting around him and supporting his party were obliged to get up and protest against the uncalled for attack which the hon. gentleman made upon certain clergymen in the city of Ottawa. But the hon. gentleman has adopted a new scheme whereby he hopes to enlist the sympathy of the clergymen of this country. He got after the women folk by providing them with places to hold their quilting bees and he got after the clergymen by imposing upon them the obligations of accepting colonelcies and other military titles, no doubt against their will. 1 have here a list of honourary colonels which was brought down to the House by the Minister of Militia some time ago, and I see that a large number of clergymen have been se-

lected for high military titles. I have here also a list of gentlemen who were appointed as officers of commanding divisions in certain districts, and the names of a great number of clergymen appear in that list. I do not know whether or not these titles have been accepted, but certainly if they have not been accepted it is not owing to [DOT]any fault or oversight on the part of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. If, then, he is able to get these clergymen to accept military titles and military positions, we would naturally expect that he would (succeed in developing a miltary spirit among the clergymen of this country. But I do say that the hon. Minister of Militia is proceeding .upon a wrong premises entirely when he states that toy the building of these armouries and the providing of places in small towns where the young men and the young women may congregate during the evenings, he is thereby providing a means of elevating the social and moral dispositions of the young men and women of this country. I deplore the fact that the hon. minister is taking that view. I think that there are other occupations which might be found for the young people of this country besides their being brought together under those military circumstances and their minds being filled with ideas that are not calculated to make them the most practical people in the world.
The hon. minister claims that the farmers are behind him in this military movement. I would say to him that that is not the judgment which I have formed after having given the matter careful consideration One of the great difficulties that we have in this country at the present time is the circumstance that the young men are being drawn away from the farms. Other attractions are growing up in the towns and villages which take away from the old homesteads, and as a consequence the farming communities are peopled largely by the fathers and mothers in homes from which the sons and daughters have departed.
I say that the spirit that the Minister of Militia is developing is calculated more and more to draw our young men away from useful occupations on the farm and elsewhere, and to fill their minds with the notion that there is nothing in this world but a military career for them to follow. What is to become of the farming and other interests of this country if, by reason of the spirit which the minister boasts he is

creating in this country our young men are to be taken away from useful occupations where they can do much more to promote the welfare of this country than by anything they attempt in the military line which the minister prescribes for them? For my part, I feel that the spirit which the minister boasts he is developing does not exist. If there was a time when the minister had the sentiment of the people with him, that time has gone by. There is a limit to everything that is undertaken by individuals, no matter what position in life they may occupy. When they run to extravagance or extremes there will be a reaction with the consequence that the people will get back to sanity, and sanity is very much required in respect to military matters in this country. If we have money to spend, if the Parliament of this country must devote its time to voting supplies, let us vote the money for the important productive industries of this country, and let us have less of this fuss and feathers which the minister has been endeavouring to develop throughout this country during the past three years.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: It is
only once a year that members of this House, particularly on this side, have an opportunity of expressing their views of the high and mighty on the treasury benches, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Militia seems to be obsessed with the idea that the military spirit is the great panacea for all the ills that are in this country, it is proper that the time of the House should be taken up in disabusing his mind of some of the notions that seem to possess him. According to the minister, if men were trained for the military as he would have men trained you could do away with schools and churches and reformatories and prisons and asylums and the eleemosynary institutions of the country generally. But although the minister has been in office for a good many years, I observe that there is still the same need for the prisons and reformatories and jails and the penal and charitable institutions that we have throughout the country.
While the Minister of Militia may have the notion in his head that this military spirit he is developing is making for morality and correct living I venture to say to him with all respect that he is entertaining a false nation in that regard. The

trouble is the minister has so many sycophants and hot air artists telling him what a great man he is. We had illustrations of that to-day. Men would get up and talk about the valour and fearlessness and independent spirit that the minister shows on all occasions, and the wonder is that the minister's head is not turned far more than it is in view of all the flattery he receives. But if you size up the sane calm opinion of the people of the country, it will be found that the sentiment is not by any means such as the minister has described.	-
I had occasion a short time ago to look up the word 'paranoia' and the definition of that word which I saw in a medical work describes the disease of the Minister of Militia pretty well. Its characteristics are found in a very highly developed condition in him. You can tell him from morning till night, in season and out of season, that the spirit of militarism which he is seeking to develop does not meet with the approval of the country, and that he is spending altogether too much money on these fads of his, but he still continues to entertain the .same notion and thinks he is in the right. He glories in the fact that he is spending this money, and that he is absolutely independent of the will of Parliament. To-day, when he was criticised on account of the automobile trips and junketings throughout the country he stood up and said: 'I am spending money on automobiles and roaming around in private cars and I am going to continue to do so.' One would imagine that he does not realize the fact that he is spending the people's money. It is the money that has been hard earned by a great many of the people of this country which is being wasted in automobiles and junketing trips. It does not lie in the mouth of the minister to make such a bold statement as he made this afternoon that he was going to spend this money whether the people liked it or not. Apparently we are not here for the purpose of voting this money, but just to bow to the will of the imperious minister who says he wants this money, he has to have it, and that is all there is to it.
It is only on occasions of this kind that both sides of the House have an opportunity to express their views. It is well the minister comes to Parliament seeking the money wherewith to carry on the affairs of his department, for it gives us an opportunity of meeting him on even ground. One of the peculiar characteristics of the minister is that, when you ask him any question about his department in an
ordinary civil way, he very rarely treats you with the courtesy you would expect from a man occupying his high position. This winter, when proper and jegitimate questions had been placed on the order paper concerning his department, how did he answer them? Many of them in the most contemptuous manner possible. So contemptuous and discourteous was he that on several occasions I have observed his own colleagues in the Cabinet frown upon him when he sought to extricate himself from the humiliating position that he had got into by his braggadocio and boastfulness. But, on occasions of this kind, when he is seeking money from Parliament, it will be observed that he is a Imle more meek and considerate, and we can hope to get some consideration from him.
The minister pretends to be absolutely non-partisan. He pretends that he is above the ordinary human politician who has not been trained in the proper military way. He is above and beyond partisanship, so he says. I used to think so myself, and I have often1 admired the minister for the seemingly independent manner in which he conducted and expressed himself. I have had some admiration for him, but I have discovered that he is very human after all. I find that, as a partisan, he is just as bitter as the rest of us, and, as for carrying out the high ideals he professes, we do not find him doing very much on that job. What is the situation so far as his partisanship is concerned? Does he allow it to interfere in the conduct of his department? There was an incident mentioned this afternoon at Prince Rupert which he did not attempt to deny. Other instances were mentioned in connection with armouries. It will be observed that most of the places where armouries have been built, some of them with only 500 or 600 population, are represented by Conservatives.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: What about South Renfrew, Sherbrooke and several other, places?


William Chisholm: I said in most cases; there are a few exceptions. If the minister is so very anxious to do what is right in the building of armouries, I submit to him that he will find a good place for an armoury or drill hall in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Chisholm: I am not now making any appeal for an armoury because of the fact that it is necessary. I am going to refer to the minister's own record and upon the minister's own record I am going to point out to him that if he had been disposed to be fair he would have had an armoury established in Antigonish. The 18th Field Battery has been there for years. The record of the department under the late Administration will show that they proposed to establish an armoury there but that there was some little difficulty about obtaining a proper site. The matter was delayed and in the meantime a new Government came in. What happened after the new Government came in? The Minister of Militia is very human and he carries the spirit of partisanship just as far as any minister ever carried it. He is ready to use his position for the purpose of helping out his political friends. I was not disposed to believe that, but the evidence is coming out every day to show it. We had a case in Montreal where he allowed friends to impose upon his department and to take a large amount of money out of the treasury of the country for which no reasonable value was given. The land which was sold in Montreal for a barracks was sold for a great deal more than it was worth. He was either imposed upon there, or he neglected his duty, or his officers neglected their duty. But I am going to refer particularly to the property in Antigonish which was bought for an armoury. Mr. L. C. Archibald had a property which, he was trying to sell to the late Government for <$2,500. The late Government found the property was not worth that amount or one-tenth of that amount. They found that the property was not assessed at all. They then obtained an independent appraisement of the property and these appraisers, on the 10th March, 1008, valued the property at between $800 and $900. They submitted a confidential report. They knew that they were likely to be called upon to give evidence in court, as it was alleged that there had 'been an agreement entered into between the department and Mr. Archibald for the purchase of the property for $2,500. Therefore, they put the valuation as high as they possibly could. They were anxious to help out Mr. Archibald in every way they could but they knew that they were likely to be called upon to pledge their oath to the valuation that they placed upon the property. The late Government would not have anything more to do with the lot when they found out what it was like. When the present 
Government came into power Mr. Archibald got busy. He happened to be a friend of the party in power and he tried to sell his property. The present Minister cif Militia sent one Captain L. H. Bingay down to investigate and report. Captain Bingay's report is dated the 23rd July, 1912, and in it he says:
As instructed I proceeded to Antigonish and inspected this armoury and lot which may ho described as below:
Lot-frontage of 66 feet on Victoria street and 90 feet deep.
Building-size 40 feet on Victoria street and 61 feet long.
I consider that this building should he abandoned as a gun shed. With a heavy gale of wind it could be easily blown down. It serves at present for protecting the guns, etc., from the weather, hut it hardly seems to he taking a fair risk to expose valuable ordnance to the danger of fire in a barn of this description. It is not safe to have a fire in the building in winter and the equipment suffers in consequence.
True, the minister will tell us that this is a building the late Government had and in which they stored their equipment. It is true that at the time they had to take his building because there was no other building available but they did take it on the recommendation of the major of the battery who happened to be the solicitor at the time for Archibald. The late Government were imposed upon not only in having this building shoved upon them as a storeroom for the guns but by having an agreement entered into afterwards for the sale of this property for $2,500. As soon as they discovered that they had been imposed upon, they repudiated the whole thing, and when subsequently they were threatened with an action to enforce the alleged agreement they said:	Bring on
your action, wTe are prepared to defend it. The reason that the late Government did occupy this barn was that there was no other place for the armoury and they were not aware that the building was as bad as it really was. They had been imposed upon, as I said, by the major who was the solicitor for Mr. Archibald. Then Captain Bingay says further in his report:
After looking over the building I spoke to several people in Antigonish about it and it is common knowledge in the town that the property is worth nothing like the $2,500 the department originally had arranged to pay Mr. Archibald. .	. With regard to the land it
is only worth from three or five cents a square foot in the neighbourhood and as the back of this lot is flooded in the spring three cents would be about the value.
I desire to call the attention of the minister to the fact that his own officer re-

ported that this land is flooded in spring. He seems to have a peculiar propensity for buying property that is flooded in spring when he seeks to secure 6ites for armouries as was shown in the investigation of the purchase of the Belair property. Here is a case where his own officer says that this . property is flooded in spring. He goes on to say:
Also a much larger plot on Main street can be purchased for $1,000 and land there is very much more valuable. And a new building of this size would hardly cost $1,600, and even If it did, to value a building 40 years old in this state of repair at two-third cost is ridiculous.
Then further:
I consider that the valuation made in March, 1908, as from $800 to $900 is, if anything, high but it might be accepted as the worth of the property.
The field battery at Antigonish appears to be very much in need of a fire proof drill hall similar to that proposed for the battery at Digby, and the most suitable site seems to be that marked A in red on the attached plan. It can be purchased I am informed for $1,000.
(Sgd) H. L. Bingay,
Captain (R.E.) C.M., C.R.C.E., 6th Division.
The officer went down there and reported that the building was not fit to store the armament in, that it was liable to tumble down, that it was liable to take fire, and that it was an old barn. You will observe that the officer reports that the lot is absolutely. unsuited for an
10 p.m. armoury or drill hall because of its location and because of the fact that it is flooded in spring. He says that there are other properties in the town which could be got at a reasonable figure. He speaks of a property on Main street, which might be bought for $1,000. If I understand the plan aright that is a property owned by Mr. Angus McGilMvray. Mr. McGillivray is a good, loyal Conservative and I am sure there will be no objection to purchasing this property from him. If the department purchased that they would have a lot that is dry and if a building were put up on it, such as has been suggested, something similar to the drill hall at Digby, it would be an addition to the town. Nobody in Antigonish would want to see the drill hall or armoury away back on Victoria street and on the edge of the river. Antigonish is one of the prettiest and cosiest little towns in eastern Nova Scotia and the citizens would like, if they are going to have a drill hall or armoury, to have it located where it could be seen and where it would be an addition, and an improvement, to the town. I
would suggest the property which Captain Bingay recommends, which is owned by a good Conservative. I did not make an appeal for an armoury; I said that the officers themselves had made an appeal and I shall read this letter which appears on the file:
Bamax, N.S., July 26, 1912. From the General Officer Commanding 6th Division,
To the Secretary, Militia Council,
Armoury for 18th Field Battery, Antigonish, N.S.
sir>-Adverting to previous correspondence on this subject, H.Q. 14-159-1, and verbal instructions from the Hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence while on recent visit to this divisional area, I have the honour to forward, herewith, copy of report from the commanding engineer in regard to armoury at Antigonish, N.S.
1 fhlly concur in this officer's suggestion that a fireproof drill hall similar to that proposed for the battery at Digby, N.S., should be provided for the Antigonish battery as soon as possible.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
.	(Sgd) C. W. Drury,
Major General, Commanding 6th Division.
In the face of a report of that kind, would any one believe that the Minister of Militia or any officer of his department would approve of instructions being given to purchase the property of L. C. Archibald, And yet the Militia Department purchased this property which their own officers condemned as absolutely unfit for the purpose. An Order in Council was passed to purchase that property which I venture to say will never be used for an armoury or a drill hall because the minister is not so unbusinesslike or impracticable as to erect a building on it. Remember, the Government bought this place not for $800 or $900, its outside value, but for $1,200. The marvellous thing is that they did not give $12,000 for it. They paid fifty per cent more for it than their own officers say it is worth, and fifty per cent more than two appraisers, one of whom was a contractor and a builder, and the other the registrar of deeds and the assessor of the town, had valued it at some years before. Twelve hundred dollars may not be very much money for the Minister of Militia to throw away, but it is not his money; he is simply a trustee of it for the benefit of the people, and it is just as dishonest for any man who is entrusted with money to give that money to his friends as to apply it to his own purposes. When the Minister of Militia takes $1,200 of the money of the people and gives it to his political friend, L, C. Archibald, for the sole reason that he is a leading Conservative of the town, it is just as dishonest as to apply the money for any other improper purpose. Hon. gentlemen opposite sneered at the idea that I was looking for an armoury, but I have pointed out that the suggestion came from the officers themselves. I may say that previous to the change of government the late Minister of Militia had decided on having an armoury there, and there was a question of finding a suitable location. The man who has charge of the patronage in Antigonish county having recommended the payment of this money to I-. C. Archibald placed the town in the position that it will be very difficult now for it to get an armoury or drill hall at all, because the minister has a white elephant on his hands now in the shape of this property and he is not likely to buy another property in the town. The right thing for the minister to do, if he wants to keep that battery together, and it has been doing well lately, is to erect such an armoury as Captain Bingay has recommended. I hope, however, that he will never dream of building an armoury or drill hall away down on the site he purchased. I do not know what put it into the head of the minister to buy that property. Where did the suggestion come from except from Senator Girroir, who sent a telegram which appears on the files saying that he got Archibald to agree to take $1,200, and urging that the thing be put through quickly, as it was. With the knowledge before the minister that that lot was unsuitable, that a lot could be	bought on	the	main	streetof	the town	for	$1,000, and
with the suggestion on the part of his own officers that a suitable lot should be purchased, I cannot understand how he came to ignore these suggestions and to act on the representations of Senator Girroir. Am I not then justified in saying that the idol whom I used to worship has feet of clay, that he is as human as the rest of us, and that he brings politics into the Militia Department, just as the Postmaster General does into his department, and the Lord knows that department is steeped in partisanship. I believe the purchase of this property was an honest mistake on the part of the minister himself; I do not think he looked into the thing, for if he did I do not believe he ever would have recommended the purchase; I believe he was imposed upon.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is guilty of negligence just the same.


William Chisholm: He may be technically culpable, but I do not think there is any moral turpitude on his part in this matter. The minister took the recommendation of the man in charge of the patronage, who was desirous of helping out his political friend Archibald. There is no recommendation from the board of trade or from the town council, and there is no suggestion from anybody that this property should be bought, while at the same time there is absolute condemnation of the property by the minister's own officers. I know from my own personal knowledge that the property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it was purchased. As far as Mr. Archibald personally is concerned I have nothing to say against him. I am glad he made the sale of his property, but when the late Government was in power I protested when I heard that through some manipulation he had arranged for the sale of the property to the Militia Department at $2,500.1 plainly stated to the officers of the Militia Department that if that deal went through it would go through without my acquiescence in it, and I was ready to denounce the thing. I do not desire at all to say anything against Mr. Archibald; I would like to see him get $2,500 for the property if he could, but as the representative of the county I could not justify a steal and a scandal of that kind and I protested against it.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman
says I have a white elephant on my hands in the shape of this property, and as a matter of fact I did have a white elephant in the shape of an agreement solemnly signed and sealed by my predecessor in office with the owner of this property to pay him $2,500 for it. My hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm) will not deny that. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chisholm) knows, I refused again and again to pay any such 6um, although application was made again and again by the owner of the property for permission to enter an action to force the department to carry out the Agreement that my predecessor Sir Frederick Borden had entered into to pay $2,500 for this property.
I sent Engineer Bingay, a very excellent officer, and he reported that he had seen the property in bad weather. He reported, however, that the lot was absolutely unfit for a drill hall, and I believe he reported correctly. He gave in a very adverse report, and he said he thought the lot was not worth more than $900, and the building on it not worth more than $300. We

considered the matter; the thing went on, and, finally, we decided that, as we were paying a very high rent for the property, we would possibly save a good deal of money by buying the property, thus avoiding having to pay rent and the heavy cost of a lawsuit as well. Therefore we took this property over at $1,200, believing then that we were not getting a suitable property for a drill hall. It was, however, the property that had been selected by my predecessor and by the hon. member for the county.


William Chisholm: I did not know anything at all about it. As a matter of fact, under the late Government, as far as Antigonish county was concerned, there was no political interference, and the major of the battery did the whole thing. It happened that the major was the solicitor of Mr. Archibald, and he succeeded in unloading the property on the department. I knew nothing about it until afterwards.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not responsible. All I knew was from wihat my predecessor did. The astute member for the county was there and knew the place. He knew that the guns were liable to be destroyed and the place blown down; yet I do not find in the records of the department one word about the matter, and therefore 1 think we got out of the deal very well. If we had gone into a lawsuit, we might have spent $1,200 in law costs and rent. We have bought the property, and we have saved the rent, although we feel that we have not got a very good bargain at that. I presume the building, bought under ordinary conditions, would be worth about $1,200. We took it in order to carry out, as I have endeavoured to do in every instance, the agreement made by my predecessor in office. I refused, however, to pay the enormous sum of $2,500 for this property. I am not going to drag in local politics, because it is nothing of my concern; but we were told that the reason it was not carried out as it was was because my hon. friend had not been a personal friend of the owner.


William Chisholm: I always was and
still am.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not listen to any of that at all, but I refused to buy the property at $2,500.


William Chisholm: If the minister had
taken the trouble to look up the files, he 291
would have found a letter of March 25, 1912, from Mr. E. L. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, in which he states:
For these reasons, In view ot the fact that the Government is in the circumstances asked, to take over a property for $2,500 which is said to be worth only $800 or $900, I think that Mr. Archibald may advisedly be left to his recourse. His attitude with regard to the termination of the present tenancy is not disclosed in these papers, and I would like to have the matter referred to me again after the end of next month, when I presume the property will have been vacated and turned over to Mr. Archibald.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
-	(Sgd) E. L. Newcombe,
Deputy Minister of Justice.
That was after a change of Government, while the present encumbent occupied the exalted position which he now occupies, and the Deputy Minister of Justice told him that, in view of the circumstances, Mr. Archibald might well be left to his recourse. Why did the minister not follow his advice?


James Joseph Hughes: That was the reply to
*a. letter from our department stating, that we did not want to buy the property.


William Chisholm: I mention this to
show that there was no legal liability on the department to pay Mr. Archibald one cent for the property. That is not the first report that the Deputy Minister of Justice made. He reported long before then that there was no legal liability; that Mr. Archibald had imposed upon the department, and when Mr. G:'u'oir. who was acting as solicitor for Mr. Archibald, threatened to bring action, the department wrote in 1908 or 1909 to him to go. ahead with his action. Several letters are on the file which were written before the change of Government. Mr. Archibald threatened action; Mr: Girroir on his behalf threatened action, and the deputy minister wrote to Mr. Archibald and Mr. Girroir, after getting the advice of the Department of Justice, that they were not prepared to carry out the agreement; that they repudiated it; that they did not recognige it as being in force or effect at all. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the minister now to say that it was an inheritance of his predecessor. . The condition was established before he took office; but there was no legal liability, and the department acted as if there were no lega! liability. After the change of Government,


James Joseph Hughes: I again repeat there is an agreement signed by the Liberal Government to pay $2,500 for this property.


William Chisholm: Obtained through
fraud and misrepresentation.


James Joseph Hughes: It was not obtained by fraud. What is the use in talking like that? I do not know anything about it, and do not care anything about it. My predecessor refused permission for the matter to go into court. In order to save the rent we are paying for it, we bought the place. I do not know whether it is worth the money or not. We have saved it nearly in rent already.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I would like to get an explanation from the minister in regard to the armoury which was to have been erected at Lethbridge prior to 1911. The late Government made provision for the erection of an armoury at Lethbridge, a place of about 12,000 inhabitants, and at that time represented by an opponent of the Government. In 1911 the constituency returned an opponent of the present Government, and immediately the item for

that armoury was dropped, and it has not been in the Estimates since. Lethbridge is a place of some importance; we have a first-class artillery regiment there, commanded by a first-class man, a friend of the party in power; and Lethbridge is much larger than some of the places that have been getting drill halls. I would like the minister to explain the reason for dropping this particular item from the Estimates, especially as the city purchased lots for the purpose and was prepared to hand them over to the Government for an armoury, and I think these lots are still there for the same purpose, but the armoury item is not in the Estimates.


James Joseph Hughes: So far as Lethbridge drill hall is concerned, I think my hon. friend is right. There was provision for an armoury, not a drill hall.


William Ashbury Buchanan: That is right.


James Joseph Hughes: I am satisfied that on inquiry hon. merhbers will agree with me that for a place like Lethbridge, or any place, to have an armoury alone would be of very little advantage to the militia. I will not go into the merits of the question-as to whether it should be an armoury or a drill hall; but the hon. member will remember that I took the ground that drill halls should be erected instead of armouries all through the country. When I became minister there.were one or two armouries under way, and in every instance I stopped
them,	and have erected drill halls with
armouries attached to them. The great ' thing, to my mind, is the hall for drilling in, and not the offices for	sitting	and smoking in. That
is why the original item was dropped. I think the hon. member will bear me out that it was proposed to go oil with a drill hall in Lethbridge the year before last or last year. Communications were received
then,	but the site that had been picked out was limited. I do not know where it is, but I understand it is a small site.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The site is made up of seven or eight lots, and they were purchased with the idea of an armoury. We want to be in the same class as Medicine Hat, Calgary and. Edmonton.


James Joseph Hughes: My recollection of it is that the officers there thought that the battery of artillery and: the regiment they are going to have also could not be accommodated on the site, which would not con-2911
tain a hall large enough for the two combined units. I was asked last year not to proceed. I hope to1 visit Lethbridge with my hon. friend and meet some of the. officers, but I have not had the opportunity of doing so. I recognize the rights of Ledibridge, as I do those of other large places, and I am only sorry there is nothing in the Estimates for a drill hall there. I do not know what the population- is now.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Going up.


James Joseph Hughes: Our desire is to give a drill hall suitable to the wants of the place, and Lethbridge is certainly entitled to a good one.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Just a word to take the last prop from under the Minister of Militia in the defence of the Archibald case. I will quote from the officer of the department, which, I think, will settle the question once and for all, and which will preclude the minister from stating any more that this is an inheritance from the late Government and that he was obliged to carry out their arrangement. On February 22, 1912, the deputy minister writes to the Minister of Justice as follows:
It having been considered desirable in the public interest that the agreement should not be carried out by the Crown, you were asked for your opinion as to how far it was binding, and you stated:
I think you would do well to inform the owner of the property that Parliament not having provided any means to enable the proposed purchase to be carried out, it will not be proceeded with. You should, of course, see that possession is given up immediately, if this has not already been done.
Mr. Archibald was interviewed then, and this report of the deputy minister goes on further:
On 10th of June, 1908, the deputy minister wrote to the officer commanding Maritime provinces:	Mr. Archibald's letter of the 1 Itli
instant is not before me, but it must be distinctly understood that your agreement with Mr. Archibald is to be for a lease of the armoury for one year from May 1 only, for which period he will be paid $200. The department does not recognize that Mr. Archibald has any rights to reserve in regard to the question of the sale of his buildings for $2,BOO, which matter must be considered at an end.
Then the report goes on to say:
On 23rd November, 1908, a letter was received from Mr. Girroir, a lawyer of Antigonish, threatening proceedings to enforce Mr. Archibald's claim respecting agreement for sale, (See folio 100, vol. 1.)
That letter was referred to you with a request for your opinion, and on December 16, 1908, you advised:
I think you should inform Mr. Archibald's lawyer, in reply to his letter, that his client

has been already advised this proposed purchase will not be proceeded with, and his client *will have to take such action in the matter as he may be advised.
On the 22nd of December that opinion was duly communicated to Mr. Girroir, who, no doubt, communicated it to Mr. Archibald. The report says further:
On the 1st May, 1909, another agreement was entered into between Mr. Archibald and His Majesty, for the lease of the same property for one year.
Where is. your binding agreement.it 'Where does Mr. Archibald recognize that as binding? When he found that he had to go into the courts of the country he .knuckled down, and was willing to enter into a new lease, and he entered into a new agreement on the 1st of May, 1909, for the lease of the same property for one year. There was nothing in the agreement for the sale of the property. To return to the report from which I have been reading, the Deputy Minister of Militia goes on in his report to say that the lease was entered into and they took possession and rentals were paid regularly, and he asks the Min-of Justice in conclusion:
Reference is now requested to Mr. Archibald's letter of 11th October, 1911, on folio 19, vol. 11. That shows that he still looks to this department to carry out the purchase of the land, and I am now to request that you will please to favour my minister with an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Archibald's claim should be denied and he be left to his legal course.
The Deputy Minister of Militia asked the Minister of Justice in the report or memorandum from which I have quoted, [DOT]whether Mr. Archibald had a legal claim, *or whether the claim made should be refused. The deputy replied there was no liability under the alleged agreement. I have read that written opinion of the Justice Department, a moment ago which is as I have just stated. I think it is therefore, clearly established by the minister's own record, which I have quoted from, that there was no inheritance of the kind referred to by the Minister of Militia.


Mr. LAMARCHE:: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that a few years ago land was chosen in the upper part of Three Rivers for the purpose of holding yearly military training camps. Since that time the Three Rivers camp has seemed to decrease in importance from year to year, and only last week I read in the Montreal papers that the military camp at Three Rivers is to be done away with almost entirely in favour

of the camp at Petawawa. I would like to know from the minister what are the intentions of his department with regard to the camp at Three Rivers. The district surrounding Three Rivers is peopled largely by farmers. It is true that they are not, perhaps, very enthusiastic over military matters, but they are interested by reason of the benefit they derive from the sale of foodstuffs to the few thousand men who congregate there eveTy year for military training. I have had the best of relations with the Minister of Militia. I have up to the present moment escaped being appointed honorary colonel, probably due to the fact that I have had a few years of training in military matters. I will not follow the arguments which I have heard to-night on the other side of the House in connection with the granting of drill halls. I have listened very closely to those arguments and I find that in every instance hon. gentlemen contend that the expenditure of the hon. Minister of Militia is very high, but wind up their speeches by regretting that an additional $100,000 has not been added for a drill hall in their own constituency. I have not asked for a drill hall for my county; I shall not ask for any, nor has my hon. friend asked me to accept one. It is' not that I am opposed^ in principle to the erection of a drill hall in my county; but under the present circumstances if the hon. minister were to offer me a drill hall I would ask him if it were constitutionally possible for me to obtain a credit note which I could use in the department of my hon. friend the Minister, of Agriculture. If expenditures are to be voted for Militia and Defence, however, I am anxious that the camp at Three Rivers shall not decrease in importance. I have received petitions and letters from prominent citizens of the locality asking me, as representative of the Three Rivers district, to voice their sentiment,' and I am sure that the Minister of Militia will to-night set all rumours aside by giving us a declaration with regard to the camp at Three Rivers next summer and the ensuing years.


James Joseph Hughes: Two city regiments from Sherbrooke were in camp at Three Rivers last week or the week before-; three others are going to camp there during the month of June, and the rural corps will, as usual, go into regular camp. There is no change whatever. I may mention the fact, however, that some of the city corps from Montreal, part of the Grenadiers and

part of the Royal Highlanders, wish to take part in the manoeuvres, and are going to Petawawa.
Mr. I.AM ARC HE: In connection with the rural corps, how many men will be called into camp this year?


James Joseph Hughes: I have not the list before me; as many as have turned out in former years.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: About ten years ago, when the infantry and cavalry were all together, the camp at Three Rivers included about six thousand men; over five thousand at any rate. Since that time many other local camps have been held, to the detriment of the Three Rivers camp. My information is that the plateau in Three Rivers is an ideal spot for camping, and an ideal situation, from the strategic point of view, for manoeuvres, sham fights and so on. The people of that locality are very sorry that the Three Rivers camp every year is drained for the benefit of other localities which do not possess equal advantages.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I am not going to ask the minister for a drill hall or an armoury, but I wish to ask him if it is his intention to carry out his promise of a year ago, when he assured me, at the same time lavishing some pleasing compliments upon myself, that he was going to see that an armoury was built in the town of Inverness. As I do not see either in the main or in the supplementary Estimates any appropriation for this purpose, I presume that it is not the intention of the minister to build it this year?


James Joseph Hughes: The Inverness drill
hall was to have been constructed out of the general vote of $200,000. We built the Renfrew and Sherbrooke drill halls out of this sum, and the amount of the appropriation was overdrawn, otherwise the Inverness drill hall would have been built last year. I understand that it is down in the list, and that it is included in the $200,000 grant for this year.
, Mr. SINCLAIR: I did anticipate that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia would make some defence, if he had any to make, with regard to the extraordinary circumstances connected with the land purchase at Antigonish. 1 am surprised that, after the reading of the correspondence which has been presented to the committee by the hon. member for Antigonish, the minister should state to the House that he inherited
that state of affairs from his predecessor, because it appears quite plainly from the correspondence that such is not the case. It appears that the proposed land purchase in the time of the former Minister of Militia had been abandoned, and that Mr. Archibald, the owner, had accepted the situation and had leased the property to the department prior to the time when my hon. friend came into officer If that'is the case, my hon. friend must have been misinformed when he made that statement to the House, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation in regard to it. My hon. friend from Antigonish has made the direct charge that the department has purchased a piece of .land for a considerable amount of money which is altogether unfit for the purposes for which it was purchased, and the minister has admitted that the land is utterly unfit for that purpose. It simply comes down to this: A political favourite in the town of Antigonish had a piece of land which he wished to put off on the department, and he has succeeded in doing so and getting the money although the land is worth practically nothing to the department now that they have it.
I do not know that I have very much to say in regard to- these Estimates. In conversation, a few days ago, with an hon. friend supporting the Government I was informed that we were not making much headway on this side of the House in our criticism of the Estimates, and that the proper way to defeat the present Administration was to give them rope enough to hang themselves. I have no doubt that if we -allowed the Minister of Militia to go on in the way he has been' doing the last two or three years it would turn out just as my hon. friend said. I do not think any of the departments aire making as great strides in that direction as the Department of Militia and Defence. I iam not asking for any drill ha.ll or armoury in the county which I have the honour to represent. In my county, the people are not at all warlike nor are they clamouring for any of the gaudy things that seem to be so much sought -after by people in other constituencies : they are. devoted to the arts of peace. I would be very glad, however, to get expenditures in other directions. A few days ago I mentioned to the Minister of Public Works that a small expenditure to extend the breakwater to protect the fishermen on the stormy coast of my con-

stituency would be very acceptable, and the minister informed me that there were other more important things to be done than building breakwaters to protect fishermen. I submit that these drill halls, these sheds that are being built throughout this country, are not as important as shelters for the fishermen on the coast. They are not to he compared with one another at all, and while the Government have refused to expend a few thousand dollars for that purpose in my constituency they are lavish in their expenditures of money on the militia in other places.
I listened with some alarm, I must say, to the figures that were read to the House to-night by my hon. friend from Richmond. I had not gone over the Estimates very carefully, but my hon. friend pointed out that the Estimates for the Militia Department and the Estimates to be found in the Public Works Department relating to the militia totalled up to the enormous sum of $14,518,582 to be expended this year. While he was speaking, I was figuring how much that would be a month, and I find it comes to $1,209,881 a month, or $279,203 a week, or $39,749 a day. In Nova Scotia a small farmer works hard with his family throughout the year and thinks he has done very well if at the end of the year he is able to pay his debts and invest about $200 in the savings bank. I am talking about the average small farmer in the country districts, and I am sorry to say that many of our farmers are not able to do as well as that. If the figures I have just given are correct, it will take 200 families working on their farms for a whole year to keep my hon. friend the Minister of Militia going for one day. That is a serious state of affaire. At that pace, it seems to me the militia expenditure is growing a great deal faster than it ought to. I do not know which branch of the militia ought to be criticised the most as I am not very familiar with the various expenditures in the department. I am not sure that it is altogether a case of drill halls. I think there is extravagance in every branch of the Militia Department as well as in connection with drill halls. I had the curiosity the other day, to look back over some literature in connection with the Militia Department, and I came across a statement made by the present Prime Minister in a manifesto that he issued in 1908, in which he describes the Militia of Canada as * top-heavy and makes the statement that the permanent force is over-manned

and that there are too many' officers compared with the number of men in the permanent force.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is one to eight now.


John Howard Sinclair: 
James Joseph Hughes: What is it to the total of the force?


John Howard Sinclair: I have not figured it up for the total number of men, but I am comparing the number that joined with the number that deserted. We were told last year that there was no use in trying to run a navy in Canada because there were so many desertions from the ships, but the proportion of desertions from the naval ships was never 57 per cent in one year.


James Joseph Hughes: There was no 57 per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: The desertions as compared with the enlistment numbered 57 per cent. More men deserted than joined. With regard to the officers, you will notice that during the three years prior to the defeat of the late Government the officers remained stationary in number; in 1909 the officers of the permanent force numbered 341; 1910, 342, and in 1911, 341, whereas the number has increased to 404 in 1913, or practically one officer to six men. The Prime Minister told us in 1908 that the condition of the force was top-heavy. I have pointed out that the force has become smaller year after year, that the enlistments are dwindling and that the desertions are increasing. I have pointed out that officers are increasing and that they have increased by 53 per cent in 19*13-13. While the total amount of the permanent force is .smaller we
have a larger expenditure. We have an increase in the expenditure on this permanent force since my hon. friend came into power of $614,547.07. It amounted in 1908-9 to $1,938,333.21, and in 1912-13 to $2,552,880.28. Yet this is for a smaller force than was available at the time my hon. friend took office.
I	submit that these figures do not show very much progress as far as the permanent force is concerned. They call for some answer from the minister. The question of drill halls is not the only difficulty about the management of the militia. The expenditure seems to be going up while the force is going down. If we are to have a permanent force surely we will require to have a larger number of fighting men than we have compared with the number of officers in command. Six men to every officer strikes me as a ridiculous kind of an army as a fighting force. I would disband half
II	p.m. of these officers. Surely instead of
400 officers, 200 could manage a permanent force of 3,000 men. I am not an expert in these matters, but I would make the suggestion to my hon. friend that he retire half of these officers and give his attention to training an efficient force of fighting men. We do not require 400 officers for a small force of that kind. We had the statement of the right hon. leader of the Government that we had a large enough force of officers in 1908 to command an army of 100,000 men. We have not to-day anything like an army of 100,000 men and yet, in the meantime, the staff oh officers is increased very largely. I would like to have an explanation from the minister.


James Joseph Hughes: We have largely increased the instructional staff during the last two years. We have now 251 instructors visiting the various regimental and company headquarters. Then we have twenty officers for our cadet service, and all that in general terms will explain the increase. I do not want to be charged with being inimical to the permanent force, but both in opposition and in power I have always taken the ground that the permanent force should fulfil its- proper function of being an instructional force, and that it should not become a standing army, as was the desire of many in the force and outside of it. I realized that the staff in these divisions was fairly heavy and we will endeavour to see to their utility. I am not blaming my predecessor who- followed the recommendations of the highest officer in the empire in the establishment of the staff, and Parliament endorsed him. I have never yet been able to see why in time of peace we should have in this country a staff necessary for a standing army. The office of Inspector-General for Canada has become vacant, owing to the lamented death of that very excellent officer, General Cotton, and I have not filled it nor is it my intention to do so, at all events for some considerable time. I regard the permanent army service corps and the engineer forces of this country as greatly over-manned. I do not think that the militia army service corps is too numerous, and I believe they are doing good work, but the permanent army service corps is one-quarter the size of the same corps in the British army, including regulars and irregulars, and I think that is out of proportion in a country 'like this.


John Howard Sinclair: Why not reduce it?


James Joseph Hughes: We will.


John Howard Sinclair: You are increasing it?


James Joseph Hughes: I am not. The general
plan is to reduce the permanent army service corps this year, and of course we have to give the officers- service in some other direction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I see that the army service corps in 1911 was nine companies and in 1914 ten companies.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the non-permanent militia. I am speaking of the permanent Army Service Corps. I cannot see that the engineer force is doing engineering work to any appreciable extent, except in Halifax, Quebec and Esquimalt, where there is a small force. I have conceived the idea of

laying plans for the transference of these men into the artillery or ordnance department. I consulted General Sir Ian Hamilton about this and I learned that my views are borne out by the practice of General Wyndgate, who commands in Egypt, and that these two branches of the service are regarded, even in high imperial military circles, as not being absolutely necessary to maintain at high istnengthq We purpq|se making changes this year with a view of bringing the regular service more in line writh the general conditions.


John Howard Sinclair: It is extraordinary
the number of men who are deserting. Is the minister taking any steps to prevent desertion, or is it to be understood that a man can take off his coat at any time and leave the service.


James Joseph Hughes: The desertions for the
last year are less than they have been for a number of years.


John Howard Sinclair: It is said that when a man has nothing to do in the winter months he enlists and has a nice warm time of it for two or three months in barracks, and then when the springtime comes he van

ishes and nothing is said to him.


James Joseph Hughes: That is not a fact. The
number of desertions, in proportion to the number of enlistments, are fewer now than they have been for some years. It came, to my notice lately that a number of gentlemen were offered more pay and skipped to the United States from Winnipeg, and one morning these gentlemen were missing. After a time a number of them returned to Canada finding that all was not gold that glittered on the other side.


John Howard Sinclair: Did they re-enlist?


James Joseph Hughes: No, they were punished. A great many allurements are held out to these men when times are good, and when times are not so prosperous the enlistment is good and the desertions few.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear the minister admit that he can get along with a smaller engineer service corps, although he refers only to the regular corps and not to the militia. In my humble judgment he could get along without a whole lot of militia engineer companies that he has at present. The principal cause of the trouble with the minister and his top-heavy militia is the report of a general by the name of French, who came to this country some years ago, and in my judgment his visit

was one of the greatest misfortunes that has befallen Canada. General French maybe all right from the English standpoint. He is a general of distinction, but he is a man who has been educated entirely along different lines from those which the conditions in Canada present. His life has been spent soldiering, he is a born soldier; he does not believe a man has any business working on a farm or in a factory or anywhere else, except a few who should work in order to make money to keep the soldiers. If you had half the people in the empire in the army you would not have enough to satisfy General French. I told the late Minister of Militia publicly and privately that in adopting the ridiculous and unreasonable report made by this gentleman, he had committed a great mistake. It might be all right if General French was reporting on the conditions in Bulgaria, or Russia, or Germany, or even in Italy, but whefi it comes to a. country like Canada where there is not a possibility of trouble, his ideas are ridiculous. There is no more possibility of a war breaking out between Canada and any country in the world than there is of the Minister of Militia or myself committing suicide between now and tomorrow morning. There might, of course, be a possibility of the empire being at war and -we might find it our duty to volunteer, as in the case of the war in South Africa. But so far as its being necessary that Canada itself should all be divided up into these districts, and that we should have all this great headquarters staff and all this great top-heavy officialdom in order to be ready to prepare for 'nvasion i3 concerned, who on earth is going to invade Canada. It seems to me so ridiculous that I often wonder if my judgment is warped, or if the judgment of the minister is warped. It is very hard to argue with the minister. He seems to be thoroughly obsessed with the idea. It has become a passion with him. It seems to me that the last thing he hears when he goes to bed at night and the first thing he hears in the morning is the bugle of the invading army. He must be surprised every morning when he gets up and sees that this country is going on in the usual peaceful way, and that there is not an army invading the whole border from one end to the other. The department brought over a man like General French and he lays out the country in divisional areas. That was not enough and they had to increase the divisional areas and get more officers. That was not bad enough, although the Lord knows it was pretty
bad. Last year they brought over another of these gentlemen, General Sir Ian Hamilton. I do not think we have suffered so much from his report as we did from that of General French, because the most of the damage had been done already; but we are suffering just the same. We suffered to the extent of about $30,000 to whisk General Hamilton from one end of Canada to the other in special trains, private cars and that sort of thing. He was taken to all the Tory picnics to which my hon. friends could get access. He was taken to all kinds of Borden clubs and Hughes clubs and so on. They were all Tory clubs. We are suffering from that; we are suffering from reports that gentleman made, because I find on page 17 of the statement issued by the minister that in 1913 an. inspection was made by General Sir Ian Hamilton, who reported that:
He found the six-division scheme in operation, and he endorsed it; hut not without calling attention to gaps which require filling in.
Every time one of these gentlemen came to Canada, it was a case of fill in gaps or make more gaps to be filled in. If my hon, friend brings another of these gentlemen here this year, he will find more gaps to fill in and he will create more gaps to be filled in. Perhaps I am not voicing the sentiment of every one in this House, and I presume I am not; but I want to give the minister credit for getting rid of this foreign-I will take that word back-this English Ceneral Inspecting Officer, or whatever you call him. It is a good thing to think we can get rid of one of them. We could get rid of about a hundred more of them, and Canada would be in just as good condition a hundred years from now as she is in to-day.
We do not want this top-heavy militia force. When my hon. friend speaks about the great educative principle and use of the militia, the difficulty in arguing with my hon. friend is that he seems to believe in it. When a man really believes in such a policy as that, it is arguing with a crazy man, because there is no good in arguing with him. Does the minister believe that the Canadian militia works for the benefit of any man in Canada, morally, religiously or in any other way in the world? He does not have enough of it to improve him physicaL'y. When I was in Germany. I admit that I could see the result of the military training there; you could see it as the men walked along the street. In Canada you do not get enough military training for

it to be of any benefit physically. All you get in the Militia of Canada is that you teach about 25 per cent of the men in Canada how to get drunk. That is the size of it.


Mr. SMITH:: No, you do not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend does not know what he is speaking about. He never was there. I have been there.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: So have I.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have been with the militia for a good many years; and I would not dare to tell the minister my real experience, because I would be reading a chapter out of the book of the life of some gentlemen to whom I would not care to refer particularly. My experience with the militia has been very bitter and I had twenty odd years of it. It did not affect me personal'y I am happy to say: but I have seen man after man go down to practical drunkenness through the militia.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That is not true.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want my hon. friend to take that back.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: No, I will not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend should take that back. He does not know anything about it. I am speaking about my experience, not his. I ask my hon. friend to take that back.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: "My experience-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not care anything about my hon. friend's experience. I made a statement about my experience, and my hon. friend said it was not true.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: You must have seen a great deal harder life than I have.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Take it back.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blain):: I think any hon. friend should take it back.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: All right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend can give his experience later on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Forgive him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I forgive him.
The militia force is a necessary evil, and the important thing to do is to make it of as great value as we can and to cut down some of this enormous expenditure. My hon. friend tried to make the people of this country believe that one-half of the men of this country are simply lying awake
	:	,
at night to devise some scheme in order to get their names on' the militia roll. My hon. friend knows that is not true. When he speaks about having 75,000 of a force, he knows it is simply on paper. He admits, on page four of the statement with which he has furnished us, that although the total strength of the non-permanent militia is now 75,000, all ranks, from fifteen to twenty-five per cent fail to turn out for training.


James Joseph Hughes: Excused.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Excused, because you
cannot get them together. , (Excused, because after the recruiting officers have drummed every man that they could possibly get into the ranks; after they have shaved the beards of men seventy years of age; after tlhey have taken into the ranks boys fourteen years of age; after they have begged and cajoled and prayed and sometimes given men extra pay out of their own pockets to get them to go, even then they cannot get within fifteen to twenty per cent to go to camp. It is true in Quebec; it is true in New Brunswick; and I presume it is true throughout Canada. My hon. friend speaks about a thousand men in Maisonneuve trying to get into the militia. One would think the whole country was living in such a state of frenzied excitement in order to get a chance to join the militia that it would be like the rush when oil was struck in Calgary a few weeks ago. The Double is, my hon. friend is living in a fool's paradise over this. I believe he is sincere about it; and as I said before, that is the difficulty. I am sincere when I say that I believe my hon. friend is sincere about it. He lives in this thing; he is dreaming over it and he believes all these fairy tales he is telling us. I want to tell him that they are only fairy tales and that they do not exist. ' There are gentlemen sitting around him who know they are only fairy tales. I have known in the last two years of men over seventy years being cajoled to go to camp on specious promises. Any man who knows anything about militia affairs in this country knows that to be the truth. You cannot get the men to go to camp; they are not to be had. Down in New Brunswick-and I presume it is true in other places-the only corps that you can possibly fill up	are	the corps
which have horses; and as I said before, the horses bring the -men.
I can tell my hon. friend that in New Brunswick they en'list the horses, and no

man can get his horses on unless he goes himself. The result is that he enlists horses, and the horses bring the men. I am talking from the experience of a man who has,had charge of these things. I had charge of a battery of field artillery for some years, in as fine a section of Canada as you could possibly find, where there are a good lot of men and some horses.
(Mr. SMITH: When?
Mr. CARVELiL: I had charge of a battery of field artillery from about 1900 to 1905 or 1906, and it was in the town of Woodstock. Perhaps my hon. friend thinks I am just joshing him, and do not know what I am Talking about.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That is what I thought.
Mr. CAEViELL: The trouble with my hon. friend is that he has another thought coming to him, and if he had half a dozen Thoughts he would not be any more than an average man even then, because if there is anything he is lacking in it is in his thoughts.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In what?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thoughts. I have had the experience, and I know what it means. I know how they get these men to come to camp. There is an engineering corps in my constituency that has never had but one qualified officer in it since it was formed, perhaps two-there was a good man who started it-a corps that takes some twenty *or thirty horses to camp every year. They do nothing in the world but stand on the picket line and haul water for a hundred men who go to camp, a corps that is not only worth nothing, but which is a positive hindrance to any army, and, if there is any trouble, the men have not the first principles of engineering, and would not know how to go to work to learn the first principles of engineering, but they have their horses, and they paid the price. My hon. friend says it takes $6 on an average to transport a horse, and they are transported some years to Sussex and some years to Petawawa, and that is how the thing goes on. That is not bad enough. A short time ago there was another mounted corps organized, 1 think the 28th Dragoons. That may have been all right when it was organized. But they have the horses now. I will tell my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fowler) they are all there. This engineering Company is the most useless unit I ever saw in my life. What is the good of an engineering corps unless
you have highly trained technical officers? If you would take farmers or lumberjacks they would be some good because they know how to do a good many things. The men there are dudes, lying around and drinking booze. They are good enough, decent fellows out of camp, but when they get into camp it is simply drink booze from the day they come until they leave. I know that these statements will be read down in New Brunswick, but every man who reads them will know the truth of every statement I am making. Now, that was not enough. A few years ago they organized another mounted corps. That is not the fault of the present minister. -It was organized in the lower part of the province.


James Joseph Hughes: What was it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The 28th, not the Sussex Cavalry, which is an old corps that has been in existence for thirty of forty years; I am finding no fault with the Sussex Ckvalry at all. Then the 28th Dragoons were formed, and I do not know why it was but they must have run short of horses because now they are organized, having one or two troops in my own constituency; because they have the horses up there and the horses bring the men. When I was home I had a very plaintive wail from one of the officers, finding fault because the minister was allowing more militia to be organized in that part of the country where they have the horses. The trouble is there are mo-re horses than men, and they cannot get the men, and if I am not very much mistaken the minister has received exactly the same protest against this recruiting going on for the 28th Dragoons in the counties of Car-leton and Victoria that I have heard, at least the officer who complained to me said he had written to the minister, and I am bringing it up at his request, and he is a good Tory at that. The trouble is there is too much militia, more than they can possibly recruit; and they are resorting to all the schemes I am telling you about, shaving the beards off old men in order to fill up the ranks. What is true in my portion of Canada is true in very many other portions. This thing is going on everywhere and the minister thinks that this country is wild to join the militia. If the minister would reduce the force to one-half or two-thirds, he could have a reasonable force.


James Joseph Hughes: A dragoon force.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not altogether dragoon, but let these men come to camp every year

and teach them something of the rudiments of military training, which would be of some value, but as it is it is practically money thrown away. There is such a scramble to get men to fill up these units. The men come one year, and they have no way to compel them to come another. The camp fails to be even a military educational force, but when it comes to moral education it is simply pitiful to hear the minister talk the nonsense he has talked to-day, putting military camp against the churches and against technical schools as a moral force, and referring to the Technical Commission that* travelled all over the world and made such a valuable report, as an 'outfit ' squandering $100,000. He has something else to think about too.
The minister tries to make out that he has not increased the force any. I have taken the trouble to make a short comparison between the force as he found it and the force as it is to-day, or the cost of the force. I find that in 1911, from the sessional papers of that year, that the total Estimates for militia in 1911-12, the last year of Liberal Administration, were $7,524,000, but I find this year they are between fourteen and fifteen millions of dollars.


James Joseph Hughes: Does that include drill
halls?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes if does. I will read them to the minister: Armouries generally, $100,000; Kenora armoury,, $15,000, Kingston Royal Military College, $4,000; Kingston Royal Military College, $11,000.


James Joseph Hughes: The Public Works items are not there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the minister will
possess his soul in patience he will be satisfied. Parry Sound armoury, $10,000; Prince Albert armoury, $10,000; Quebec, alterations to lower park stores, $15,000; construction of promenade around the fortifications, $20,000; cove field danger buildings, $63,000, and so on, a total of $330,500, making a grand total of $7,529,000. As I said before, (this year the expenditures will amount to $14,500,000 for militia alone.


James Joseph Hughes: If the hon. gentleman
will turn up the public accounts for that year he will find that drill halls cost-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am giving the minister what I find on page 48 of the sessional papers of that year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the amount for drill halls?	i


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman has-the information, he can turn it up under public works account. I am not making the-speech.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. minister
knows that he has practically doubled, militia expenditures and that he has doubled them through fuss and frills and feathers, not by the application of expenditure to anything that tends to the real benefit-of the militia, excepting these drill halls. I am not going to say that the construction, of a drill hall is money actually wasted, but I do think that my hon. friend the minister has gone crazy over the question of drill halls. Of course, they are good for the movies and the boys and girls will go-there Saturday evenings and enjoy themselves. There is a drill hall .and armoury in my town; I was responsible for having it built and I had exactly the same hallucination as the minister has. I thought that I was .getting the most wonderful thing when I got the armoury and drill hall for our town. We were going to have Y.M.C.A meetings there and all those great and elevating influences that make men better, morally, mentally and physically. And what have we got? We have a storeroom, we have a place where the boys can go in and have a' good time, drink some booze and play poker.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not believe that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is responsive but not responsible. I want to show him wherein he has increased the militia expenditure and how he is applying the money. In 1911-12 the amount of expenditure for annual drill was $1,325,000; this year he expects, to make it $2,000,000. That is something, but it is nothing at all compared with the fairy tales the minister tells as to what this drilling is doing for the people of Canada. The men who would be of some value to this country in case of trouble, the men" who make up the real military force, do not figure in the thing at all. It is true that they get a little more wages than they got before, but I would point out to the minister that practically the whole increase in the case of annual drill is in respect of horses. Ten batteries of field artillery have been added since my hon. friend came into power, three engineer companies, and I do not know how many cavalry companies. These are the things that take the money. From what my lion-friend has said about the drilling of horses,


19J4
[Stage Direction]
one would almost think that the horses are drilled so perfectly that you can turn them loose and say: there is the enemy, -and the horses will do the rest. In the whole scheme of my hon. friend the minister this talk about drilling horses is the worst nonsense I have heard. That is where the money goes, but the real soldier, the real volunteer, the man behind the gun, is getting nothing whatever. I desire to point out a few of the means whereby my hon. friend increases the militia expenditures. The last year the Liberals were in power $475,000 were spent for clothing; my hon. friend this year appropriates $800,000. Even that is not enough; he has $60,000 more in the Supplementary Estimates. Three years ago the amount for engineers' services and works was $300,000. That was bad enough, but this year the .amount is $916,500. Last year the amount was $1,205,000, but when you come to look -at the supplementaries you find that the amount is just as large this year, if not larger. I suppose the item ' engineers' services and works ' includes rifle ranges and things of that sort. Let me point out do the minister one of the most glaring cases of the absolute squandering of public money which has occurred in Canada or perhaps in the British Empiire. The hon. minister had a splendid range within a mile or two miles of Ottawa, the finest in the country. There are forty or fifty targets there; the range is located on a beautiful level spot along the banks of the Ottawa river, and electric cars connect with the city every five minutes. I do not know what this range twelve miles out in the country in the county of C-airleton is going to cost; it will cost at least $500,000 -or $600,000. I am told that they are spending $40,000 in an electric device to operate a buzzer at the target when the shot is fired in order to wake up the man: behind . the target and have him get- up and attend to the signalling. When I was a boy I at-*tencTed a great many target practices and I did not at all feel the need of any elec-trie buzzer of that kind. However, if there is anything which takes the money, tmy lion, friend gets after it right away. He lias no more regard for the public money of Canada than he has for the dirt he walks upon. What difference does it make to him whether something costs $50,000, $100,000 or $500,000? All he has to do is to go to the council and tell his colleagues that he wants the money, and he will get it. This
afternoon the minister stood up in the presence of the Prime Minister and said:	I
am not going to curtail my private cars, I am not going to curtail my junketing trips or the mile expenditure; I am going to increase them. The Prime Minister had to acquiesce, although I thought he took it with a very wry face. Every man behind him, save the hon. member for Rimouski, had to take it as well, and I know the whole Government is committed to it. I know there are men behind the minister who feel just the same as I do. How long they are going to ward off the catastrophe I cannot tell. My hon. friend from King's lives right in the midst of one of these military camps, and he knows the truth of what I am talking about, but the Minister of Militia says: Half a million dollars for a rifle range twelve miles out of the city-what is the difference if we want another $100,000; all we have to do is to turn on the tap? It is no use going into details, it is simply one b'g debauch, this expenditure of money for militia purposes, and when we bring the subject up the minister makes light of it and treats us with contempt. I am sorry for a statement I was compelled to make to him earlier in the day, but men cannot stand everything.
James Joseph Hughes: I would not be sorry;
nobody cares a continental.
Mr. G'ARVELL:	My hon. friend knows
we got under his hide good and deep this afternoon. The trouble with my hon. friend is that when yon try to be real decent with him, he does not know enough to appreciate it. I used an expression this afternoon that was hardly parliamentary, and when I was decent enough to apologize, that is the way he treats it. It is no use trying to treat the Minister of Militia as you would the Minister of Public Works, for he simply laughs at you. He thinks he is right, and there is no use arguing with him. But we are not talking purely for the fun of it, and I want to tell him that the country will know what we are talking about. If the minister thinks this country is crazy enough to stand behind him on his expenditure on the militia he will have a rude awakening, and not only in the country hut in his own party. I think he is hearing about it already as he goes along. He does not mind spending half a million dollars in building a rifle range a few miles out of the city of Ottawa, but

the only thing for which the militia of Canada ought to be trained and the only object in the world for their existence is to know how to handle a rifle, and when it comes down to something that is of any value and for which the men ought to be trained we find a mere bagatelle in the Estimates-$80,900 for rifle associations and bands for the whole Dominion. If my hon. friend would cut out his half million dollar Tifle ranges and fifty or one hundred of his drill halls,, and spend half a million dollars a year in teaching the men how to shoot, I, for one, would say the minister was doing something that was of some use. I know enough about militia matters to know that the only thing that really matters is to learn how to shoot. All this talk about discipline and army life is simply nonsense of the very worst kind. Teach these men how to shoot, and in two weeks you can put these raw men into just ae good a condition eo far as drill and discipline is concerned, as any one could want. It is drill and discipline that the colonel makes so much talk about, and that can be learned in a couple of weeks, but you cannot teach men how to shoot in that time. You have to catch men young and teach them for a good many years before they can learn how to shoot. If my hon. friend would spend half a million dollars in teaching the younger men how to shoot instead of squandering the money on rifle ranges, there would be some sense in it. I admit he has to have rifle ranges in order to teach them, but you can fix up the average rifle range for $5,000. In fact, you can hardly invest $5,000 in a rifle range uniless you buy a very expensive piece of land. At the outside, $10,000 would buy a splendid rifle range in almost any part of Canada. I do not mean you would have a rifle range good enough for the Dominion rifle matches, but for half a million dollars the minister -could have a decent rifle range in almost every constituency in Canada that would be of some real value to the militia; but that seems to be the very last thing that my hon. friend wants to think about. I know that I am not going to make myself popular discussing these things, certainly not with the minister and a good many people in the city of Ottawa. I made some remarks three or four weeks ago, and I find they did not increase -my popularity to any great extent with a certain portion of the people 
of Ottawa, but fortunately I do not have-to make my living in this city. I have a habit of saying what I think, and if it does not suit the people of Ottawa that is all right. I am like my hon. friend from Kings in that respect. If the minister would spend this money in something' that was of real value to the people, I would not mind so much, although I would not consent to spending $15,000,000 a year. On rifle associations and bands

something of real value-he is only spending $80,000. If he would take half a million dollars of this money he is squandering and get some-decent bands in the country he would be doing some good. There is not a militia officer in the country who has not the life pestered out of him in keeeping up his-band, and many of us who are not officers have to contribute too. All the minister spends on a band of fifteen or twenty men is $75 a year, but he can spend $25,000 for a junketing trip through Europe for himself and friends. I do not think there is a greater asset in the militia than a good band. It helps to recruit, gives entertainment to the men, and zest and life to the camp. It is of some value, but the moment you get to anything of value depend upon it the present minister will have nothing to do with it. My hon. friend the minister is spending $400,000 more this year than four years ago on the permanent force and yet, according to him, the force has decreased by 300 or 400 men. He says he is sending out a lot of officers on an educative campaign. That is ail right. I want to give credit where credit is due, and he deserves credit for that; but if he was sending out the right kind of officers he would be entitled to a great deal more credit. The trouble is that a great majority of these men do not know what they are talking about. I will give a. little illustration just to show the ability of the officers he is sending out. Not very 'long ago I was walking around one of ' these camps of instruction where one of these officers who are sent out to teach the troops, was doing some range finding. He had a lot of scales and sextants and quadrants and things like that, and after *making a certain mathematical calculation he announced that the target was a certain distance away. When I went to school T learned that two sides of a triangle were always greater than the third, and in going over the man's figures I found that he was wrong because he was violating that axiom of Euclid. He was in-

dignant, and he said that it was impossible. I admit it was impossible to do it the way he did it. We induced him to go over the calculation again, and he found out that Euclid was right. It surprised this officer very much to find out that Euclid was right, but he did find it out, and he had to revise his figures. He did not have the faintest idea why he was right or why he was wrong. He knew he was wrong according to the instrument, and, after he had made the calculation right according to the instrument, he knew that he was right, but if he happened to make a little mistake in the use of the instrument, he was wrong, and he did not know why he was wrong or why he was right. Unless the minister educates his officers to know why tney are right and why they are wrong, he might as well keep them in Kingston. I may be talking like a schoolmaster this evening, but there is truth in what I am telling the minister. As far as the engineers and the artillery are concerned, he had betteT keep the money in the coffers of the country than spend it, because it is being squandered. He is not placing competent officials at the head of the force. The men are not technically trained to know whether they are right or wrong. Unless he gets men who are technically trained he might as well save the money and let us use it for agriculture or something else of more value. Coming down to stores, I find that three years ago we spent $350,000 for stores, and that this year we have spent $680,000.
Now, I come back to the headquarters staff. I have had a good deal of fault found with me for some remarks I made a short time ago. iMy hon. friend says that he found the headquarters staff when he went into office. I admit that it is one of the legacies that the late minister left to him, and it is one of the legacies that General French left to the late minister. In 1911-12 there was only $150,000 for headquarters staff, but now we are spending $205,000 annually, or $56,000 of an increase, for headquarters staff. That is reducing it with a vengeance. He has got rid of one of his $6,000 officers, and I give him credit for that. But the trouble with the minister is that it is a question of spending all the money that his colleagues will give him for pomp and show, junketing trips, private cars, and everything in the world except that which makes the militia force of some value. I know
the minister does not take much stock in this, because he is so thoroughly satisfied with himself with regard to militia matters that he looks upon the rest of us as only parasites. Nevertheless, we have some common sense, and the people will show that they have some common sense when they get an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon this subject. If the minister would only get down from the ethereal position that he occupies and strike earth once in a while, we might do something with him.
I shall not take the time to say anything further, although I expect we will have another opportunity of discussing this question. We have just touched the fringe of the mismanagement of the Department of Militia and Defence. I do not presume that there is boodling going on, but it is simply the useless squandering of money for which there is no return to the country. The minister may say that it goes back to the people. I suppose that is a truism to some extent, but there are very many ways in which the money could get back to the people and do the people a great deal more good. In my own town we have just completed a building which we call a vocational school. A public spirited gentleman, by his will, some years ago, left a large amount of money for a building in the town to be used for what he called a technical school. It has not been worked out altogether according to his ideas, but there has been established a vocational school. This cost $75,000 or $80,000. The Government of New Brunswick are doing something in order to give some of the rudiments of agricultural education in that building. But there it stands, a monument to Mr. Fisher, but practically of no use to the people of Woodstock. If the minister will cut out two-thirds of the militia in Carleton and take the thousands of dollars that would thus be saved and give us that money, with a little more, start some sort of a technical school in Woodstock and let us utilize this building, the people there would get some benefit from the money that was being expended. But in my judgment the expenditure of this money is not only of no benefit but is a positive injury in many cases.
I see the right hon. Prime Minister in his seat. I hope he will take this matter in hand and see if he cannot cut off $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 of this expenditure next year and let us try to devote it to some more-

suitable purpose in the Dominion. There are plenty of purposes in Canada to-day to which this money could be devoted much more to the benefit of the people than by being squandered in useless expenditure upon militia matters. If somebody does not take hold of this question there is no telling what the end will be, because the expenditure has doubled in three years, and surely $15,000,000 ought to be enough to satisfy even the longings of the present Minister of Militia. But he told us this afternoon that if he had his proper proportion of money he would spend $17,000,000 instead of $15,000,000. Unless something is done to curb the ambition of this gentleman this country will go bankrupt because of the expenditure on military affairs. It is time the Prime Minister took this matter in hand and see if he cannot bring about an improvement in this matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I have some further remarks to make, but I am going to reserve them for a future occasion. I want to give notice of an amendment that I intend to move to the motion for concurrence in the report in the following language:
Moved by Mr. Guthrie, seconded by Mr. Sinclair, that in view of the present condition of the revenues and the requirements of the public service, the resolutions containing items for Militia and Defence from No. SO to No. 101 inclusive be not concurred in, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House, in order that the appropriation for Militia and Defence may be reduced by at least a sum of $3,000,000.
Progress reported.


THE EMPRESS OF IRELAND DISASTER.
Robert Laird Borden: With the permission ol
the House I wish to read further telegrams which have been received in reference to the disaster attending the loss of the Empress of Ireland, from Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General:
London, 1st June, 1914.
Please transmit to Prime Minister following message received to-day from Government of New South Wales:
Begins. New South Wales shocked at enormous sacrifice of valuable human lives in Empress of Ireland disaster; wish you favour by conveying to bereaved relatives on be'ia'f of Government and people of this sister British Dominion profound sorrow and sympathy.
(Sgd) Harcourt.
From Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General:
London, 1st June, 1914.
Following telegram has been received from Governor General of Australia.
[Mr. Carvell.l	*/	,
Please convey Australia's deepest sympathy with Canada in terrible maritime disaster which has brought sorrow to so many homes in the sister Dominion.
(Sgd) Harcourt.
Brisbane, June 1, 1914.
Honourable Premier,
Ottawa, Canada.
On behalf of Queensland Government and people please accept our sympathy with you at appalling loss of life in connection with sinking of Empress of Ireland and also deepest sympathy with the injured and bereaved ones.
W. H. Barnes,
Acting Premier.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.18 a.m.
Tuesday, June 2, 1914.