1915-04-10

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 9th inst., respecting the appointment of Mr. Douglas W. Cameron to the position of Chief Accountant of the House of Commons, was concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Perhaps I might be permitted to give to the House some information with regard to the Commission of Conservation, which was asked for while we were in Supply, but which was not available at the moment. The following memorandum has been handed to me by the secretary of the Commission:
The work to be carried on in 1915-16 can best be described as being, substantially, a continuation of that undertaken during the year which has just elapsed, although investigatory work of a nature not entered upon heretofore Is being instituted by one of two committees and later developments may further modify the proposed work. In 1914-15, investigations have been carried out under the direction of the various committees as follows:
Waters and Water-powers.
The preparation of reports based on information secured by field work conducted by the commission in preceding years constituted the main task of this committee during 1914-15. Mr. Denis has been engaged in assembling and arranging in proper form the material to be embodied in a comprehensive report on tse water-powers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan

and Alberta, The collecting and collating of data from all available sources to supplement that obtained from reconnaissance surveys has been a task of considerable magnitude. The report is now being passed through the press, as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Denis has practically completed the preparation of a second edition of " Water-Works of Canada," which, it is anticipated, will be published early in the ensuing year. In addition to the original material, revised and corrected, the new edition includes information relative to sewerage arid sewage disposal.
Special effort has been made to advance the completion of the proposed report dealing with the water-powers of British Columbia. The work of collecting data has been completed and Mr. A. V. White will direct his attention to the preparation of the manuscript, for the printer.
Forests.
Early in the past year, the Trent watershed report was issued. It is of special value in respect to the conservation of the water-supply of the Trent canal and of the water-powers along the Trent river. The area selected also typifies the large portion of central Ontario which has been nearly denuded of forest wealth; fires have raged practically unchecked and nothing has been done in the way of reforestation, although the agricultural resources are known to be extremely limited.
During the past summer, Dr. Whitfcrd and Mr. Craig continued the inventory of British Columbia's forest resources commenced in 1913. Data respecting over 200,000 square miles has now been secured. During the summer, Mr. J. C. Blumer was engaged on similar work in Saskatchewan. In British Columbia, the provincial forestry branch, and, in Saskatchewan, the Dominion forestry branch are giving valuable assistance. It is hoped to complete ttus work in the coming year.
Dr. Hcwe has submitted a report embodying the results of his studies undertaken in the summer of 1913, with special reference to the rate of growth of timber trees and to the damage done by the disastrous fires of 1913 in the Trent regions. It will be published shortly together with the results of an investigation conducted last summer by Dr. Howe to determine the most favourable conditions for the reproduction of commercial tree species in the coastal regions of British Columbia, more particularly of Douglas fir, the most valuable and most widely-distributed species in the province. Dr. Howe emphasizes, that reliance cannot be placed on nature alone to provide adequately for the replacement of commercial forests on cut-over and burned-over areas.
As chief fire inspector of the Railway Commission, the chief forester, Mr. Leavitt, has again supervised the patrol work of the railway lines of western Canada, the immediate supervision being entrusted to the field staff of the Forestry Branch of the Department of the Interior, and of the chief forester of British Columbia. In organizing this work throughout the Dominion, co-operation has been effected with the governmental fire-protective forces of every province, except Nova Scotia. Through the action of the provincial governments and through the reorganization of the Canadian Northern railway system, nearly all provm-cially chartered lines have been subjected to fire-protective requirements similar to those

imposed by the Railway Commission upon lines operating under Domnion charters.
Public Health.
The outstanding feature of the work of this committee last year was the development of town-planning activities. In May the commission acted as host to the National Town Planning Association at the convention held in Toronto. During the early part of the year, Dr. Hodgetts was engaged chiefly in the study of town-planning legislation until called in September to take the place of Colonel Burland as Canadian Red Cross Commissioner to England. His absence has necessitated the temporary abandonment of public health work of the nature usually undertaken. Subsequent to the convention in May, it was decided to create a town-planning branch of the commission, and the services of Mr. Thomas Adams, the foremost English authority on the subject, were engaged. Since taking up his duties in October, Mr. Adams has been investigating Canadian problems and conditions and has conducted an educational and publicity campaign. His services and advice have been eagerly sought by municipal and provincial bodies.
Bands.
An agricultural survey has again been carried on, the work being conducted along the same lines, in the same districts and by practically the same staff as in 1913.
The illustration farms, thirty-three in number, have been carried on as in the previous year. The travelling instructors visited the farms as often as possible to confer with and discuss methods and results with the farmer on each one. During the summer months, meetings were held on many of the farms and the work undertaken by the farmers was closely supervised and inspected. As the purpose of the commission has been achieved in placing this illustration work on a sound basis, the farms have been turned over to and will hereafter be conducted by the Department of Agriculture. The commission intends to continue the survey work, although along lines somewhat different from those hitherto followed.
During recent months the agriculturists of the commission's staff have participated in the platform work connected with the " patriotism and production " campaign.
Mining.
A report on " conservation of coal in Canada " was published early in the fiscal year. During the year, substantial progress has been made by Mr. Dick on a power survey of Canada. The information collected will be published in a report showing the amount, proportion, source, cost and purpose of utilization of the various kinds of power, water, steam, electric, etc. The completion of the report will require the greater portion of the ensuing jtear. During 1914, the mining engineer has furnished brief reports relative to briquetting of coal in Western Canada, mine-rescue work, first-aid, trade with Germany, etc.
Fish, Game and Fur-Bearing Animals.
A third edition of "fur-farming in Canada " has been issued. Two editions of this report, first published in 1913', had been quickly exhausted and the third edition, thoroughly revised and somewhat enlarged, has met with a heavy demand despite the check imposed upon the expansion of the fur-farming industry by present financial conditions.
Special attention has recently been paid by the editorial staff to fisheries questions, particularly to a publicity campaign to popularize the use of fish for food purposes. In the ensuing fiscal year, the committee intends to prosecute active study of practical fisheries problems.
Press and Co-Operative Associations.
The value of the commission's investigatory work depends largely upon efficiency in publishing and distributing reports embodying the results of the field investigations. During the ensuing year the publishing work will be unusually heavy. Manuscript for the following reports is now either being passed through the press or undergoing final preparation for that purpose: Sixth Annual Report, Water-Powers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Forest Protection in Canada, 1914, Water-Works of Canada (2nd edition), Water-Powers of British Columbia, and Power Survey of Canada. In addition to these bound reports, two periodical bulletins, Conservation, a monthly, and Conservation of Life, a bi-monthly, are published and widely circulated.
I beg to submit herewith the estimates for salaries for the Commission of Conservation for, the fiscal year, 1915-16, which includes recommendations for increase of salary.
The present staff, with salaries recommended for 1915-16, consists of:
White, James, assistant to chairman and deputy
1914-15.
Leavitt, Clyde, chief forester and chief fire inspector to Railway
Commission	 2,900	00
Master, Oliver, assistant
secretary and editor... 2,800	00
Denis, L. G., hydro-electric engineer	
2,475	00Dick, W. J., mining engineer	
2,475	00
Nunnick, F. C., e xp e r t
agriculturist	* 2,400 00

, fisheries expert... 2,200 00

, assistant agriculturist	
2,100	00Grindlay, Thos., draughtsman	
1,812	50
Baldwin, P. M., assistant
editor	
1,800	00Donnell, A., assistant editor	
1,700	00
Johnston, Miss N. F., secretary to assistant to
chairman	 900 00
Macdonald J. A., clerk in
charge of	Distribution.	900 00
Grange, Miss H., librarian	 900 00
Morris, Miss O., accountant	 900 00
Campbell, Miss	I.,	clerk.	700 00
Hawkins, Miss L., Stenographer	 700 00
Pepper, Miss N., stenographer	 65000
Burwash, Miss L., stenographer	 63750

[DOT], stenographer. 600 00
1915-16.

2.575	00
2.575	00
2,500 00 2,300 00
2,200 00
1,862 50
1,850 00
1,750 00
950 00
950 00
950 00
950 00 750 00
750 00
700 00
687 50 650 00

Miss A. Beaulieu, stenographer 		600 00	650 00
McElroy, Miss K., steno-		
grapher	600 00	650 00, stenographer..	500 00	550 00Carroll, James, messen-	ger and packer . . ..	600 00	650 00O'Connor, W. J., messen-	ger and packer	550 00	600 00Corp, P. J., messenger	and packer	500 00	550 00$37,900 00	$39,400 00



MILITIA COAL PURCHASES IN VICTORIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: I desire to make a statement in reference to a memorandum read by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) last night in respect to tenders which it had been represented to him had been called for in Victoria for supplying coal to the Militia Department, and which stated that the lowest tender had not been accepted. I asked the department for a statement in connection with the matter, and have received the following;
The last contract made was for the twelve months beginning April 1, 1914. In February, 1914, tenders were invited by newspaper advertisement, the last day for receiving tenders being March 10, 1914. The only tender received at that date was that of Kirk and Company, Limited of Victoria, whose tender was accepted at the following prices:	Washed nut,
$6 per ton; Smith's coal, $10 per ton; steam coal, slack, $3.55 per ton; steam coal, double screened, $7 per ton; run of mine, $6.75 per ton; screened house coal, $7.10 per ton.
Three other tenders were received late, on the 16th March. These were as follows :
J. E. Painter and Son:	Washed nut, $5 75
per ton; Smith's coal, $10 per ton; steam coal, slack, $3.50 per ton; steam coal, double screened, $6.75 per ton; run of mine $6 45 per ton.	'	-
Victoria Fuel Company:	Washed nut, $6 15
per ton; steam coal, slack, $3.65 per ton [DOT] steam coal, double screened, $6.93 per ton - run of mine, $6.45 per ton.
J. Kingham and Company:	Washed nut $6
per ton; steam coal slack, $3.50 per ton - steam coal, double screened, $6.75 per ton; run of mine, $6.50 per ton.
Tenders for the new contract for the year beginning1 April 1, 1915, were invited in the usual way, by newspaper advertisement, in March last, the last days for receiving tenders being the 25th and 28th March. Tenders were duly received, opened and scheduled ; but owing to extreme pressure of other work, no contracts have yet been made.
II. W. Brown, Director of Contracts.



ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Robert Laird Borden: I should like to give some information in respect to an inquiry made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) on Monday, the 22nd of March last, with regard to members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who, as he understood, had volunteered and gone to the front on active service. The Comptroller of the Royal NorthWest Mounted Police has given me the following memorandum on the subject, which is in accordance with the information I then had.
(1)	No members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police are serving with the forces at the front. The duties of the police in preserving law and order in the provinces and looking after the alien enemies rendered it impossible to allow them to volunteer for service in the war and all applications were refused.
(2)	At the outbreak of the war an Imperial proclamation was issued calling upon all Imperial reservists, both of the Navy and Army, to report themselves for service with the colours, and 54 army reservists then serving in the police were granted free discharge for that purpose and their expenses from the west were borne by the Imperial Government. Two noncommissioned officers who previously held commissions in the Imperial Army, were, on the assurance of the War Office that they would be re-commissioned, granted a free discharge.



SASKATOON POST OFFICE SITE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: On behalf of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MeCraney) I should like to remind the Minister of Public Works that he promised to give certain information in regard to a post office site at Saskatoon.


Robert Rogers: The site in Saskatoon was purchased on February 24, 1914, from Anthony Legum, for $122,500.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member also wanted to know what' payments had been made on the property to date.


Robert Rogers: I understand the whole amount has been paid.


Frank Oliver: He also wanted to know what progress had been made in dredging in Saskatoon.


Robert Rogers: I do not remember that he asked me for that information, but I will look it up.



APKIL 10, 1915 SUSPENSION OF LIQUOR MANUFACTURE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MACDONALD:: I have received a number of resolution^ from different bodies in the province of Nova Scotia asking for a suspension of the manufacture of liquors during the war. Has the right hon. the Prime Minister received a copy of any of these resolutions; and, if so, has he any statement to make?


Robert Laird Borden: I have received a number of such resolutions from Nova Scotia, and I think from other parts of the Dominion, but at present I have no statement to make on the subject.



REPRESENTATION IN SENATE AND HOUSE OF CMMONS.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider a message from the Senate relating to the joint Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying him that he may be graciously pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.-Sir Robert Borden.
Right Hon.   S@: This order relates to a matter
that was under consideration by-this House and by the Senate last session as well as this session. The resolution which was passed by this House on both occasions prayed that certain amendments should be made to the British North America Act, 1867, by which a new division or district for the purpose of representation in the Senate should be constituted by the four western provinces of Canada, and that each of these provinces should be represented in the Senate by six members instead of the number that is now assigned to each of them. The address also prayed that the British North America Act should be amended by providing that a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province. The address passed the House of Commons unanimously in 1914 and also passed the House of Commons without dissent when it was introduced a few weeks ago. In 1914 the Senate modified the resolution by a certain provision which declared that the Act should not take effect until the termination of the now existing
Parliament. For reasons which I then communicated to the House, and to which I still adhere, I asked the House not to concur in the amendment which the Senate proposed, and this House, without any dissent whatever, concurred in that view, and a message was accordingly sent to the Senate, who adhered to the opinion expressed in the message which they had sent to us. So the question dropped at the last session.
The matter now under consideration is a message from the Senate in which they propose an amendment almost but not quite in the terms of their amendment of last year. They propose to add to the resolution a section to be number 3 in the amended Bill, which is as follows:
The first section of this Act, paragraph 1 to G inclusive, shall not take effect until the termination of the now existing Canadian Parliament.
The difference, if there be any difference, between the amendment proposed by the Senate last year and the amendment which they now propose is that the postponement affects the number of senators in the western provinces but does not affect the proposal in regard to the representation in the House of Commons. As I have already said, I adhere to the views which I expressed in this House and elsewhere as to the action of the Senate last year being undesirable and without good reason; but it seems apparent that the majority of the Senate are determined to insist upon the postponement which they desire, for a very obvious reason. Under the circumstances, as it seems impossible to get desirable and necessary legislation passed without an amendment which we think entirely unnecessary and to a certain extent obstructive, I am disposed to accept the Senate amendment; and therefore I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House cloth concur in the amendments made by the Senate to the joint address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that he may be graciously pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.


Right Hon.   S@: My right hon. friend has just stated that it is with some reluctance that he has agreed to the amendment which was suggested last year and renewed this year by the Senate. It is with some reluctance also that I agree to the motion that we should accede to the amendment made by the Senate, not, however, for the reasons which have been

stated by my right hon. friend, but for another reason-because the Senate this year has incorporated in the resolution another amendment which was not in the resolution of last year, and which is to this effect:
Nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867.
By this amendment the powers which are conferred upon the Canadian Parliament by the Act of 1886 are continued. Without this amendment I apprehend that the Act of 1886 would not have been kept in force. The Act of 1886 is very wide in its terms, and in some respects, however useful it may be, in my opinion it goes further than it should go. The Act of 1886 provides for admitting new provinces into the Dominion and also for giving representation to the territories which have not yet been organized as provinces. To this I have no objection at all; but it has always seemed to me that the powers which were conferred upon the Parliament of Canada are altogether too great in that the Act puts no limit whatever upon the discretion of Parliament as to the representation of these territories in the Dominion Parliament. By the terms of that Act, no limit is put upon the number of senators and members who can be given to the territories. It would seem to me, then, that the representation which was given to the territories in 1887 was altogether out of proportion to their actual population. In this respect the Act has always seemed to me to be deficient, and as this deficiency is continued in this legislation, in my judgment the Senate has taken some responsibility upon itself, which for my part I would have been disposed to dispute. But still, as my right hon. friend has said, this is a matter upon which we cannot all have our own way, and I am disposed to agree to the resolution.
To the other part of the resolution to which my right hon. friend has just agreed I take some exception, and I certainly object to the insinuation-I emphasize the word-which he made when he said that the Senate added the paragraph to which we are now agreeing " for obvious reasons."
I do not admit that there is any occasion for such a slur-if my hon. friend will pardon me the expression-upon the Upper Chamber. It has been intimated in the press, and I think my right hon. friend rather conveyed the impression also, that the amendment of the Senate would post-

pone the appointment of senators until after the next election, implying that if there were a change in the verdict of the people the appointment of senators would be by the incoming Administration. Such is not the case. The appointment can be made immediately after dissolution, as my right hon. friend well knows, and there is therefore no necessity of postponing the appointment of the six senators until after the general election. The object of the Act that we passed last year was to increase the representation of the House of Commons in the new provinces, and it seemed to me reasonable that the representation should be increased in both chambers at the same time. This view was taken by the Senate, and I think everybody must on reflection agree that there is a good deal in favour of it. However, this is an academic debate, because, after all, both parties have agreed to the resolution and it will become law. The position of the Government is not in any way prejudiced; they can make the appointments as soon as Parliament is dissolved.


Robert Rogers: Seldom, if ever, in the
history of this Parliament, for the forty-eight years of its existence, have the elected representatives of the free people of Canada been faced with a more humiliating condition than that which faces us to-day, in the consideration of the message from the Senate now before us. The position is humiliating, Mr. Speaker, beyond description, by reason of the fact that although we are elected representatives of the free people of Canada we are not to be allowed to carry out our form of democratic government under our own constitution and our own law, by reason of the action of the Senate. That means, if it means anything, that our constitution and our law are to be set at defiance to suit the purposes and the will of the majority of the Upper Chamber, which, I presume, is in keeping with the principles which my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, represents. Our constitution has been approved, as hon. gentlemen well know, times without number by the Canadian people; our constitution carries the stamp of the approval of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain as well, and under that constitution we have laid down for our guidance the form under which senators are to be appointed. Let me say to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that his statement of the representation in both

Houses should go together is not in keeping with the law and the constitution of our country. Under our constitution, there is provided in section 51 of the British North America Act the conditions under which this Parliament is to have its representation re-adjusted at certain specified times. Under clauses 24 and 25 of the British North America Act the Governor General, with the approval of His Majesty, under the great seal of Canada, has the right to name who shall be appointed to the Senate and when they shall be appointed. But, Sir, the message from the Senate which we are obliged to accept to-day, places at defiance that law, and places at defiance the right of the Governor-General, with the approval of the King, under the great seal of Canada, to make appointments to the Senate, and for no other purpose save and except the purpose of advancing the principles which hon. gentlemen opposite represent in this country. In order to do this the Senate has set at defiance the free will of the Canadian people.
The right hon. gentleman has stated that the insinuation of the Prime Minister with respect to the upper chamber was uncalled for. But what are the facts? We had before us a year ago in this House of Commons the question of the redistribution of seats, and while we were considering that measure we were told in the most explicit and express terms: that if a satisfactory arrangement were arrived at in respect to redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, -the proposals for increased representation in the Senate would be agreed to, or otherwise it would be opposed. The manner in which we carried out the arrangement for the re-adjustment of seats in the House of Commons is within the knowledge of every member of this House. It is well known that we carried out that redistribution in an honourable and creditable manner. We on this side of the House took the ground that there never was a time in the history of this country when we were afraid to meet the free will of the people upon any fair redistribution of seats. That was our position then; that is our position to-day. We yielded liberally and generously to the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite in respect to the redistribution of seats, but they failed to carry out their part of the contract. The leader of the Opposition kncws that the Prime Minister trusted hon. gentlemen opposite; trusted them that good faith would be kept, but good faith was not kept, and good faith is not being kept to-day.
These are- the conditions of which we have to complain, because, when my Tight hon. friend states that the representation in the upper Chamber and the representation in this Chamber should go hand in hand, he takes an entirely different position from the one which he took last year when this matter was under consideration; for when the message came back from the Senate last yeaT, my right hon. friend said that appointments to the Upper Chamber bore no relation whatever to the election of members to this Chamber. He said also that the majority in the Upper Chamber were unable to give any good Teason why they were taking the course which they did in defeating the will of the Canadian people as represented in this chamber, and this is the stand which my right hon. friend and every hon. member sitting behind him took in this House last year when they sent that message back to the Senate unapproved. He said further:
Appointments to the Senate have no necessary or appropriate relation to the date of the election of members to serve In the House of Commons.
In respect of certain of the western provinces the proposed increase of representation in the Senate has relation solely to the result of the last decennial census, which result has been ascertained.
The said amendment is inappropriate and incongruous.
No sufficient reason can be adduced for the delay effected by the said amendment.
This was my right.hon. friend's position last year, and we would like to know why he has changed and why he to-day approves the action of the majority in the upper chamber in setting at defiance the law and the constitution of this great Dominion?
We have heard something in this House about German autocracy. If in this Parliament and out of it we have condemned what we call German autocracy, we have done so because of certain statements and certain actions of the Emperor of Germany; and as far as I have been able to learn, no statement ever made by the Kaiser of Germany has been more strongly condemned by the people of the United Kingdom than the one he made about a year ago when he attended the launching and christening of one of his great battleships, when he used the following words:
The ocean teaches us that on its waves and its most distant shores no great decision can be come to hereafter without the consent of Germany and the Kaiser.
In that strong statement the Kaiser was willing to acknowledge the support and the



rights of Germany herself; but what have we in our own Canadian Parliament? We have a condition that outclasses the autocratic rule of the German Emperor himself, because we have here the action of the upper chamber which, in dealing with this matter in defiance of our laws and constitution, which provide that representatives are to be appointed from time to time to the Upper Chamber upon the recommendation of the Governor General approved by the King and under the seal of this great Dominion, says that notwithstanding that we have observed this provision, the great seal of Canada, the Governor General and the King must not be allowed to carry out the provisions of our constitution because the upper chamber believe that in this matter there is a political advantage to a party in this Dominion. It is a sorry condition for the people of this Dominion. But we are told that there is a time when that autocracy may be abandoned. My right hon. friend has told us this morning that that day and that hour will come with the dissolution of this Parliament. His declaration means that until then we cannot under our constitution carry out our form of democratic government in Canada, and that we are unable to give effect to the free will of the Canadian people by reason of the action of the Upper Chamber. Is it, then, any wonder that the cry comes, from every individual that one meets and that understands the conditions, in tones louder than thunder, demanding that this Parliament be dissolved and that the rights and liberties of the people of this Dominion be granted to them under our form of democracy, and that that form of democracy be restored to them?


Mr. MARCIL:: Is there any public reason why the vacancies now existing in the Senate have not been filled?


Robert Rogers: None whatever.


Charles Marcil: I would like to have an answer to that question if it can be answered.


Robert Laird Borden: I will give an answer to my hon. friend presently.


Frank Oliver: It is not often that the Minister of Public Works favours us with such an outburst of oratory as he has done on this occasion, and I am sure we all appreciate very much what he has said.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I hope you will also profit by it.


Frank Oliver: We will profit by it in due course. It almost strikes one, in view of the appeals which my hon. friend has made to the spirit of democracy and the suggestions which he has given of the necessity of an appeal to that democracy at an early date, that something has occurred that, in his capacity as minister of elections has struck him near the solar plexus, and has caused the outburst we have heard. My hon. friend's complaint I understood to be addressed rather against this side of the House and the leader of the Opposition. May I suggest to him that his complaint was not properly directed; that it should have been directed against the fathers of Confederation, who were the parties guilty of establishing the conditions which he finds so objectionable at the present moment. If we have not now in this country that democracy for which he cries, it is because the Fathers of Confederation saw fit to constitute a Parlia-cries, it is because the fathers of Con-should have certain established authority.
My hon. friend's complaint is that one of these bodies has exercised the authority with which it is vested. I am not at the moment going to question whether the fathers of Confederation acted wisely or unwisely; whether their establishment of the Senate, with its authority, was in the interests of democracy or not, but I do say that the Senate was established for certain definite and special reasons relating to the government of this country, and that unless there had been a Senate with such authority as has been given to it and with such authority as it has exercised, there could not have been any Confederation. Because the Senate has exercised its authority within the limits which are constitutionally unquestionable, my hon. friend declares not that he proposes to move that the Senate be abolished; not that he proposes that this bar against the full exercise of the privilege of democracy shall be removed, but that the leader of the Opposition has, in some way, controlled the Senate and caused it to stand in the way of the realization of my hon. friend s proposals. That is a matter which he must settle with the Senate in due course, and with the people of Canada in due course. Every senator is appointed under certain specific rights and privileges, and no body of men exercising authority in this or any other country is so absolutely independent of any possible outside influence as is the Senate of Canada. When my hon. friend suggests that the majority in the Senate of Canada are under the direc-

tion of anybody else, it is because he. and they are like-minded in regard to what is right and what is wrong. When my hon. friend, in the exercise of his authority, because he has a parliamentary majority behind him, undertakes, in the slang of the day, to put something over the people of Canada, and finds that he cannot do it, he rages and blames the leader of the Opposition. Let him blame his proposals, which do not appeal to the minds of the honest men who at the moment constitute the majority of the Senate.
My hon. friend said something about Kaiserism; that the Senate is another Kaiser. My hon. friend objects to the exercise of constitutional authority sanctioned by the wisdom of the- men who framed this Confederation; he protests against the exercise of that right in the interests of the people of Canada. I ask, who is the Kaiser, the Senate, acting within the authority of the constitution, or the Minister of Public Works, making a demagogic speech in this Parliament declaring against the constitution? If my hon. friend believed what he has said, then let the Prime Minister amend the resolution that he proposes to this this House, and move for the abolition of the Senate and for the establishment of authority only by this House of Commons. That will show whether or not my hon. friend believed in what he said- It is not satisfactory that he should declare that the people of the West have been robbed of their rights because the Senate did not agree to the proposal of the appointment at an improper time of an increased number of representatives. My hon. friend cannot justify that argument so long as the vacancies in the Senate, which he has a right to fill, remain unfilled. The people of the West are entitled to their rights under the constitution; they claim that and nothing more. If we get our senatorial representation at the same time as we get our parliamentary representation, we certainly shall be very well satisfied.
My hon. friend has had something to say about the honesty and fairness of the Government in regard to redistribution. Admitting, if my hon. friend likes, that the Government have been honest and fair; admitting that they have provided a fair and reasonable Redistribution Bill, is that any more than the Government ought to do?
Is that any more than the
12 noon peopl i of Canada have a right to expect at the hands of the Government? Surely it is not necessary to
*~147J
claim that in order to get justice at the hands of the Government as to the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, it was necessary to have an understanding as to some action that would be taken in the Senate. Surely nothing of that kind was necessary.
I. am not so sure that there is good ground for the claim that my hon. friend has made as to this redistribution measure being very fair. I think I can produce members of Parliament who are thoroughly satisfied that there was a full intention on the part of the Government majority on that Redistribution Committee to butcher their chances of election.


Robert Rogers: I do not believe the hon. gentleman can.


Frank Oliver: I think I can; I think I can find one right here now who will stand up and give my hon. friend the information.


Robert Rogers: Bring him up.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am afraid that the hon. member is departing from the question before the House.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to trespass, bat my hon. friend did lay some stress on the question of redistribution, and I thought it was only fair to follow him. However, I do not wish to dwell on that point. I say it is a most unheard of proceeding that a minister of the Crown should stand in his place in Parliament, and, on the strength of the facts laid before us, give the reasons which he has given to-day for throwing this country into the turmoil of a general election while a world war is in progress. I assert that the reasons which he gave will not be accepted by the loyal people of Canada.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and the people of Prince Edward Island, I wish to thank the right hon. gentleman for this modicum of justice which is conceded to Prince Edward Island by the passing of the second part of this resolution. Of course it applies to other provinces, but the one to which it particularly applies at the present time is the province of Prince Edward Island. We have for 40 years attempted to have the terms of Confederation carried into effect, that is the terms of Confederation as we thought and believed them to be, and as we believe to-day should have been carried into effect in 1873 and then enacted into law in the Confederation terms. We have placed before this House on many oc-

casions the contention of the people of Prince Edward Island. We claimed that the terms of Confederation were that we should be represented in this Parliament by six members. Resolutions were introduced in this House on many occasions with reference to that matter. In 1907 the first resolution was introduced in terms with the one contained in the paper now in your hand. The right hon. leader of the Opposition was then leader of the Government and he coolly turned down the proposition. He would concede nothing to Prince Edward Island.
* Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is rather departing from the usual rule followed in this House. The question before the House is concurrence in the amendment made by the (Senate, and to that so far as I can see, the line of argument of the hon. gentleman has very little relation.
Mr. MdLEAN: The Senate passed a resolution or an address to His Majesty, in which it is stated that the number of members for this House shall not in any province be less than the number in the Senate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only question before the House is concurrence in the amendment, I imagine that the hon. member has it in his mind that the original resolution, with this amendment, is equally before the House and equally open to debate. But the rules of the House do not permit that; they require that members shall speak only to the amendment, the last motion put to the House.


Angus Alexander McLean: I was just following the course that was taken by other hon. gentlemen. Of course, if they were wrong I am wrong, and I must give way. As you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow discussion on anything except the question which is now before the House, I shall simply repeat that although the second part of this resolution or address is now being put into law we in Prince Edward Island will not give up the fight to have the representation which we consider we should have had since 1873.


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. (Speaker, there was an old established principle of Liberalism, one I often heard referred to in my boyhood days by those engaged in fighting the battles against the Family Compact and the battles for responsible Government in the different provinces of Canada, that the Government of a country should be according to the well-understood wishes of its people as expressed through their 
elected representatives in Parliament. I am afraid the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has no respect for that principle of Liberalism as enunciated in the past. Judging from his remarks to the House this morning, the hon. gentleman's idea is that government should be according to the well-understood wishes of the leader of the Liberal party in this House, as expressed by the partisan majority in the Senate of Canada. My hon. friend has said that the hon. the Minister of Public Works, if he has any complaint at all, has a complaint against the Fathers of Confederation who provided and recommended the constitution which this country now enjoys. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of this House, if they think it possible that the fathers of Confederation, in the wildest flights of their imagination, 'could ever have believed that the time would come when the Senate of the Dominion of Canada, instead of being an independent body, a body viewing legislation only from the public standpoint, would become more partisan than the House of Commons itself. Because I think the assertion can be made safely and without fear of successful contradiction that the Senate of Canada as it exists to-day is a more partisan body than the House of Commons. We have found during the last few years the Senate turning down measures that have been approved by this Chamber, and turning them down because they believed they saw some advantage to the Conservative party if those measures became law. We had an illustration of their course in their amending a Bill passed by this House authorizing the 'taking over of the branch lines of the Intercolonial, passed after amendments usggested by hon. gentlemen opposite had been inserted in it, thus, in effect, killing the Bill. They refused to endorse the unanimous feeling of this House, because they believed the passage of that Bill would be to the advantage of the Conservative party in this country. We have the fact that they defeated a Bill designed for the purpose of improving the highways of this country, and one reason for doing so and no doubt the underlying one was given from the public platform in the province of New Brunswick by a member of the Senate, who said they did not want to pass the Bill as it would prove of great advantage to the Conservative party. So I think my hon. friend, in stating that the Minister of Public Works should find fault with the fathers of Confederation and not with the

Senate as it is constituted to-day, must have lost sight o>f the fact that the fathers of Confederation believed that the Senate would be an independent body, composed of a superior class of men, men of a judicial cast of mind, giving fair consideration and judgment to questions brought before it, irrespective of political considerations, and would not degenerate into a body which paid more attention to party politics and was more partisan in its action than the House of Commons. Every one, I think, knows that the majority in the Senate to-day are influenced solely by partisan considerations; and there has been no more striking illustration of this fact than the example that we have before the House and the country to-day of their refusing to give to the western provinces of Canada that representation in the Senate to which they are clearly entitled under the Constitution, and which, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the statement made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I say they are entitled to at the present time. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to wait until after a general election has taken place. Under these circumstances, I contend that the Minister of Public Works is absolutely within his rights, and not only within his rights but within the facts, in calling attention to the partisan conduct of the Upper Chamber as it is now constituted.


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):: 
Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: What else could they do?


William Pugsley: What else would they
think of doing? No one can find fault with the Government for having acted in this way. The principle has worked out in a

very satisfactory manner. The Government did not ask for authority first; they made an arrangement which was binding on the railway companies, and then came to Parliament to have the contracts ratified. And that is all that the Senate asked the Government to do in 1913.
Take their action this year. On the suggestion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that portion of the Bill which gives general authority to acquire branch lines, was amended to provide that the purchase price should not be paid until there was a vote of Parliament. That was recognizing the authority of Parliament to deal with the disposition of the moneys of the country. That Bill passed this House unanimously, and when it went to the Senate was concurred in unanimously, so I think that so far as branch lines legislation is concerned there is no evidence of partisanship.
My hon. friend says that they also threw out the highways measure. They did nothing of the kind. They improved the Bill by providing that the money which was to be given by this Government in aid of highways should be divided among the different provinces in the same way that the British North America Act provides that subsidies shall be apportioned, namely, according to population as determined by the last census. I think that if we were to make an argument on the question, the most reasonable men in this country would say that that was a proper provision to make, because under the terms of the British North America Act all federal aids to the provinces in the way of subsidies, of which this highways measure was necessarily one, must be divided according to the population of the various provinces. I can see no evidence of partisanship in that, but my hon. friend says that a senator stated in New Brunswick that, if the Bill passed it would be a great aid to the Conservative party. I venture to say that my hon. friend has incorrectly summarized the statement which 'that senator made; I do not think he has given the meaning of what the senator said; and I am inclined to think that if he got a copy of that gentleman's speech he would find that the senator expressed the view that if the Bill had become law in the form in which it passed this House, it might be made a vast engine of corruption in the interests of the Conservative party. I have heard of senators making that statement, and I have no doubt that if the senator referred to

made any reference of the kind at all, it was along those lines. If the Minister of Railways could spend the money wherever he pleased, without any regard to population or the requirements of the different provinces, my hon. friend can see that the Act might be made a great engine of corruption in the interests of the Conservative party; and if my hon. friend would search in his own heart he might feel that that was perhaps one of the strong reasons which induced him as a member of the Government to agree with the measure in that form, for he must have realized what an engine for improper influence it might be.
My hon. friend has given no other evidence of partisanship; but he says the Senate is a partisan body. Was it a very partisan body when the question of the Farmers' Bank came up? That Bill passed this House, and when it went to the Senate Liberal senators and Conservative senators, if there are any 'such-perhaps I should say senators appointed by the Liberal Government, and senators appointed by the Conservative Government-joined in defeating the Bill which they thought involved a most dangerous principle.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question. I was ruled out of order a few moments ago, and I would like a ruling from the Chair whether the hon. gentleman has any right to digress from the subject before the House, as he is doing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid that the point is not well taken.


William Pugsley: It has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that the amendment made by the Senate is contrary to soma understanding which was arrived at during the session of 1913-14. I have heard that statement made before, and I have seen it in newspapers; but I think that some evidence ought to be given that any agreement was made, or else hon. gentlemen ought to cease to -refer to it, and newspapers to talk about it. I put this forward as a reason why this amendment should be concurred in. I think I can show that the Senate has done the only proper thing which could be done in the interests of democracy in this country. When this matter came before the House in the session of 1913-14, in the presence of my Tight hon. friend the leader of the Government, and after he had spoken in favour of the resolution, I rose in my place and urged that the Act should only come

into effect upon, the dissolution of this Parliament. I urged that in the presence of my right hon. friend the- Prime Minister and in the presence of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. If there had been any understanding that the resolution was to go through the Senate just as it was presented to this House, was it not the duty of my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister to rise and refer to that understanding? Neither by myself, nor, I venture to say by any member on this side of the House, was there any knowledge of any such understanding expressed or implied. There was the opportunity; why did not my right hon. friend get up and say to me that it was not quite fair, not quite in order, that I should urge such an amendment to the resolution because there was an understanding in connection with the Representation Bill that the resolution should go through Parliament in the way in which it had been presented to this House? I have never heard of any such understanding, and I believe that no other member on this side of the House has ever heard of it either.
The argument which I made then, the argument which I make to-day in favour of the amendment that is' made by the Senate, is that in this Parliament the people of this country, the democracy, is represented. This House is the mouthpiece of the people. Whom does the Senate represent? Does the Senate represent the people, the democracy? No, Sir, the Senate represents the Crown. The senators are .the appointees of the Crown. This is the popular branch of Parliament, the senators represent the Crown and they are appointed upon the advice of the Government. They are independent of the people. They hold their positions for life, and no one has the right to question their votes, because they are not responsible to any one or to any body, but are simply responsible to their own consciences for the manner in which they discharge their duties.
It occurred to me that as, by reason of the increase in the population, there ought to be an increase in the representation of the democracy in this House, and an increase in the appointees of the Crown in the other branch of Parliament, it was only reasonable and proper that the increase in the number of the appointees of the Crown should take place concurrently with the increase in the number of those who represent the democracy in this House. That seemed to me to be a reasonable proposition, and so far from the action of the
Senate being against the democracy, against the views of the people having expression in Parliament, it seems to me that their action is in favour of a fuller expression of that opinion, because they say that the appointees of the Crown, and therefore the authority of the Crown, shall not be extended until the authority of the people in this branch of Parliament is extended and that both shall take place concurrently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How does the hon. gentleman reconcile his observations with the remarks of his leader last year?


William Pugsley: I do not remember what the remarks of my leader were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That shows a very great oversight on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I made no remarks then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I remember the remarks of my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: I made none.


William Pugsley: At all events, it is the view which presents itself to me, and this is the reason which will actuate me in concurring in the amendment made by the Senate. The hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has rather intimated that he would like to have an election to take the view of the people on this question as to when an increase in the Senate should take place. With my hon. friend the war counts for nothing. With my hon. friend the tragedy which is affecting this whole Empire, and no part of the Empire to a greater extent than Canada, counts for nothing compared with having his nominees appointed to the Senate at as early a date as possible. My hon. friend thinks it would be right to throw the people of the country into the turmoil of an election contest simply because he will be delayed a few months in having his friends appointed to what he hopes to be the vacant positions in the Senate. As has been pointed out, there is apparently no immediate need for an increase in the Senate because the Government has allowed many months to pass since vacancies have occurred without taking steps to fill them, and there are now some nine vacancies in the other branch of Parliament. Yesterday the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was not able to say as to when there would be a dissolution. Has the Government changed its mind in the night so that it is possible to-day for the

hon. gentleman, who in some quarters, even by many of the friends of the Government, is called the master of the Administration, to announce a different decision? Is it possible that the hon. Minister of Public Works has induced the Government to .change its views in the night, and that the intimation which he gives to-day is made with the authority of his colleagues?
Whatever the Government may do they will not terrorize any of us who sit upon this side of the House. In this, as in all other matters, we shall endeavour to do our plain duty as we see it and in respect of this resolution, I, for one, believe that the Senate has taken the proper, constitutional and reasonable course, and that the amendment which it has made ought to commend itself to the members of this House, as I am sure it will commend itself to the good judgment of the people of this country.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Mr. Speaker, if 1 am not out of order, I would like to reply to a remark made by the hon. Minister of 'Public Works (Mr. Rogers) in regard to the late redistribution. He has intimated that it was fair and satisfactory to every one.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: More than fair.


Levi Thomson: I say it was not fair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that question can properly 'be discussed on this motion.


Levi Thomson: I am replying to some remarks made by the Minister of Public Works.


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement was made by the Minister of Public Works that it was fair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The statement may have been made, but I do not think that it involves the right to go into an analysis of another Bill while dealing with the question before the House.


Levi Thomson: If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in order, I will accept your ruling.


Mr. KYTE:: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am. also debarred from participating in this feature of the debate, but I do not wdsh the statement of the Minister of Public Works to pass unchallenged that there have been no complaints in respect to the Redistribution Bill passed at the last session of Parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I submit there is a principle involved in the discussion of the question of concurrence in the amendment of the Senate to which attention should be directed. This Commons House of Parliament came into existence in September, 1911, shortly after which this Government was formed. There is no doubt but that the hon. gentlemen opposite always contended that the election of this Commons House of Parliament was an election that did not properly represent the will of the people. They have never believed they were defeated. They have always assumed that they were still in power, and in the desperation and bitterness of their disappointment they have sought measures and means to give effect to those views and that opinion. It is common knowledge throughout Canada, and it has been indicated by statements and speeches not of a public character, by members of the other branch of this Parliament, that this Government would never be permitted to give effect to its large measures of policy affecting the well-being of Canada until there had been another election.
That is commonplace knowledge, and the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and his followers have Telied upon the will of the members of another branch of this Parliament to give expression to those views. They have endeavoured to destroy and to minimize the efforts of this Government to place in concrete form upon the Statute books of this country its policy as enunciated and 'declared before the elections of 1911. I am not going to travel the ground covered by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), but illustrations multiply. From the very first day this Government assumed office, from the time it began to give effect to its promises to the electors, from the moment it introduced into this Parliament a Bill providing for a Tariff Commission up to the time it carried through this House its most important legislation making for the strengthening of the naval defences of the Empire, hon. gentlemen opposite, with the aid of another branch of Parliament, made it their boast that they would not permit this Government to give effect to its policies until after there had been another election. I have stated it publicly and I repeat it in this House, that such action on the part of the Liberal party and of its majority in the Senate is a standing insult to democracy. These gentlemen opposite talk

about democracy, and they thwart its will whenever it pleases them; they rely upon an irresponsible body in another chamber to restrict and restrain democracy. We on this side of the House have not attacked publicly or privately the Senate of Canada because it is part of our constitutional fabric and our system of Government; we made no such promises as hon. gentlemen opposite made while in opposition as to what they would do to the Senate when they came to power. They talked about reforming the Senate and they were content to reform it by sending to it gentlemen whom the member for Edmonton has assumed to be more honest than the members of Parliament.


Frank Oliver: I said nothing of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman referred in the House this morning to honest members of the Senate as distinguished from the members who sit on this side of the House, to whom he referred to as being actuated by corrupt motives in introducing legislation.


Frank Oliver: I never used such language; I never used language that could be construed to convey any such idea.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound by the
denial of the hon. gentleman, but the words he used were " honest members in the Senate."


Frank Oliver: I beg to repeat that I believe the members of the Senate are honest men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the language that
he used just before that was that the members on this side of the House were influenced by corrupt motives and desires in endeavouring to pass certain legislation. If there is any one man in this House who should not make observations such as that it is the hon. gentleman from Edmonton, and that is all I have to say about that-so far as I am concerned.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman is
making an insinuation now, and I would like him to put it in plain words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am making a direct
statement, as shown by Hansard. The hon. gentleman will surely understand what that means.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman
repeat his direct statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The direct statement is, that if there is any member in this House who should not make statements such as those he has made, it is the hon. member for Edmonton. That is my statement exactly.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, is that a
fair comment on anything I have said?


Mr. HENDERSON:: I think you had
better take it.


Frank Oliver: I want to say that my
memory is that I did not use such language as the hon. member has stated I did use in regard to members on the other side of the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound by the observations of the hon. gentleman, and I hope he will now withdraw his statement.


Frank Oliver: I am willing to do so
under proper circumstances, but what I deny is that I used these words during the remarks which I made here to-day. If my hon. friend asks me what my opinion is in regard to himself or in regard to members on the other side of the House, I am quite ready to give it, but that has nothing to do with the discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have heard the opinion of the hon. gentleman on many occasions, but it is not a matter of very great importance. I hope I may be able to exchange opinions with him during the next few weeks, or the next year or two, in a manner that will not be disconcerting to me, however interesting it may be to him.
I say that the instances multiply as to what the disposition of the. Senate is towards the legislative enactments of this Government, and the records of the Senate show it. I rose as a representative of a western constituency to say that so far as I am concerned I agree with the statement made by the right hon. leader of the Government when he reluctantly asked this House to concur in this amendment. It is insulting to this House in the sense that the Senate asks us to subordinate the will of the Commons branch of this Parliament to the arbitrary will of a non-representative and irresponsible body. That I can say with safety and assurance, and about that there can be no doubt. But the feature that I desire to protest against is that this Government has not been permitted, by the deliberate, by the considered, and by the well-advised conduct of the Senate, to give effect to that legislative programme which

it had designed and which it should have been permitted to carry out. My country has suffered by the conduct of the Senate; western Canada has suffered by the action of this irresponsible body, and whenever farmers endeavour to carry grain from their farms to the railway stations in order that they may not pay ten or fifteen cents to haul a bushel of grain to the market, they will think, and they will properly think of the action of that irresponsible body which thwarted the will of democracy, as expressed by this House of Commons.
I protest against the destruction of the legislation for a Tariff Commission, a Highways Act, a Naval Aid Act, and all those Acts that represented the well-considered legislative programme of this Government. The people of western Canada protest against it, because they have been deprived of proper representation in the Senate. And, because we protest against it this Government must reluctantly be compelled to acquiesce in the amendments now proposed. The language used last year in a message from this House to the Senate fairly indicated that there was a unanimous opinion on the part of this House of Commons against the action of the Senate, and that unanimous opinion of the Commons should not lightly have been set aside by the Senate. But, of course, it is in furtherance of that scheme and plan that was formed and framed at the very moment that this Government came into existence


William Pugsley: Order. 1 venture to
say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is using language in reference to another branch of this Parliament which is contrary to the rules. He said that the action of the Senate in respect to legislation has been to pursue a scheme which was devised when this Government came into power. That is insulting to the other branch of Parliament and is contrary to the rules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has entirely misunderstood my observation. I did not say the scheme was planned or framed in any branch of this Parliament;
I said that in furtherance of a well-defined scheme or plan that the will of this Government, as expressed by the majority of members in this House of Commons, was thwarted and destroyed and rendered nugatory by the action of an irresponsible and partisan majority in the Senate. That is what I said and that is all I have to say.


William Pugsley: That is contrary to the well-understood rule of this House, and ihe 
hon. gentleman should withdraw the language he has used in regard to the other branch of Parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think, as the phrase was given to the House, that it is exactly within the rule which would compel me to ask the hon. member to refrain from making reflections upon the other branch of this Parliament, but I do think that it ought to be a well-understood principle that it is not in good taste to reflect on the other branch of this Legislature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I entirely concur in your decision, Mr. Speaker. I do not desire to reflect on the other branch of this Parliament; I merely desired to make certain observations as to its conduct and to let the public make the reflection.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One is at a loss, when we are considering in this Parliament a (question as to whether the constitution of this country should be amended, to understand why all this violence should be exhibited by hon. gentlemen opposite, because another branch of this Parliament undertook to express a view as to the wisdom and the methods by which that change in the constitution should be carried out. We must remember that the proposition contained in this resolution is a proposition to amend the constitution of Canada.
If there is any subject upon which both Houses of Parliament have the most perfect and absolute right to express their views and to exercise their judgment, it is upon a question of that character. My hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett) has made a general attack upon the Senate because he alleges that it has entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of setting aside all Government measures. He or any other lion, gentleman opposite who speaks of the lack of wisdom, as they call it, on the part of the Senate with regard to Government measures, is really saying that the Senate should be a body existing solely and wholly for the purpose of registering the decrees of the Government of the day. Hon. gentlemen opposite declare that there should be a second chamber because, although they have been in power for four years, we have had no suggestion from any one of them requesting that an address be presented to the Imperial Parliament asking that the constitution of the Senate should be amended, or asking that it should be abolished, or anything of that kind. Therefore, we are bound to assume that hon. gen-

tlemen opposite accept the constitution of the Senate as laid down by the British North America Act and the various amending Acts. If the second chamber constituted in 1867 is to exercise any part in the functions of Government, it is not open to hon. gentlemen who do not dispute its right to exist to say that it should be condemned because it chooses to differ from the Government of the day. The rights of the second chamber under the British constitution are well recognized; every book on parliamentary government has laid down its rights as to the measures with which it may or may not deal, and in regard to the various measures on which the Senate may choose to take certain views and to submit certain amendments, and no hon. gentleman opposite, whose knowledge of constitutional law is of any value whatever, will dare to say that the Senate does not exercise the functions which Parliament and the constitution intended it to have the right to exercise when it was constituted in 1867. If that is. so, why do hon. gentlemen speak of Kaiserism? Why does my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works fan himself into a fury because, as he says, the Second Chamber of this Parliament, which has as much right to exist and to express its views within the four corners of the charter which constitutes it as we have, has chosen to express its own opinion, in Tegard more particularly to this matter under review. This House did not try to pass any legislation; it initiated a resolution which had within it two purposes: First, that the constitution of the Senate should be amended by the creation of a new area in the West which is entitled to senatorial representation, and, secondly, that the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island in this House should be increased. This latter part of the resolution involved an amendment, of the British North America Act, because it changed the interpretation placed upon that Act by the Privy Council and interfered with the arrangement which the Privy Council declared was the original intention of the Act. That it should have been in any way associated with the other provision regarding senatorial representation was quite out of place; but the right hon. gentleman leading the House chose to make in the draft of the resolution which he submitted to Parliament this provision in regard to amending the representation in the Senate. When that resolution went to the Senate, was there any matter upon which the Senate would have more right to
express an opinion than on a matter in regard to itself? Supposing the right hon. gentleman had asked that the constitution of the Senate be changed by lessening its number to fifty instead of by increasing it as he proposed to do; would he expect that the Senate would refrain from expressing its views as to whether or not its usefulness would be interfered with by that reduction? But because hon. gentlemen opposite have got into power, much to their own surprise, and because they want to impose their will upon the people of Canada in regard to the constitutional rights which were given to this Second Chamber, they affect the attitude taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who does not like to have his will interfered with, who does not brook opposition with any good spirit, and who, if he finds that the constitution stands between him and the gratifying of his wishes, says: Let us smash this constitution to pieces, if necessary.


Robert Rogers: When did I say that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a metaphorical concentration of my hon. friend's speech. I was giving the intent which existed in the hon. gentleman's mind when he spoke.


David Henderson: He did not say that.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend had better apologize.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For what?


Robert Rogers: For making a statement that is not correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For making the statement that, when my hon-. friend does not find an opportunity of gratifying his will on account of constitutional impediments, he makes the statement that the Senate is a bad body and ought to be condemned by the people of this country?


Robert Rogers: There is no constitutional difficulty except in the mind of the Senate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are the senators so many automatons who jump at' the hon. gentleman's will, who act when he pulls the string? My hon. friend says there are no constitutional impediments except in the mind of the Senate, even though it is acting under its constitutional rights.


Robert Rogers: It is not doing so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say that, when the proposition before

Parliament is whether or not the constitution of Canada should be amended in any degree, I care not how slight, the other portion of this Parliament has no right to express its opinion?


Robert Rogers: No, but this matter was one of agreement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Robert Laird Borden: If no other hon. gentleman desires to address the House, I should like to say a few words. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition seems to have some doubt as to the propriety of the Senate's action in proposing an amendment to the resolution by which the powers conferred upon this Parliament by the British North America Act, 1886, will be preserved beyond question. It had not really come to my attention-at all events, it had escaped my attention at the moment-that that amendment had been made. I am, however, entirely prepared to accept it, and I do not think that there is any ground for apprehension. The powers conferred by the British North America Act, 1886, are conferred not upon the Government of the day, but upon Parliament, and no provision can be made for the representation of the Territories in Parliament except by the authority of Parliament. More than that it would seem to be undesirable that all provision for representation of the Territories in Parliament should be removed from the British North America Act. At present the only territory represented in Parliament is the Yukon, but later we may find in the northern and western part of Canada which is not yet placed within the limits of any province, a considerable population which, before the erection of such territory into a province, may very properly be represented in both branches of this Parliament. I think that such representation may safely be confided to this Parliament, for the reason that the Imperial Parliament would undoubtedly act upon a resolution of both branches of the legislature for the purpose of giving representation to such territories. The preservation of the powers contained in the British North America Act, 1886, merely means that instead of taking a roundabout way of giving representation to those territories in Parliament, we adopt a direct and more expeditious method.
I do not desire to dwell upon some matters which have been dealt with in connection with this resolution, but I do find it a little difficult to understand why hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, particuarly the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for St. John city, should take ground at the present time which is absolutely the reverse of that to which they committed themselves at the last session of Parliament. In order to make

myself perfectly clear, I "will lead the resolution to which they unanimously assented when proposed by myself. It is as follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that the amendment made by the Senate in the proposed joint address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King be not concurred in, for the following reasons:
1.	Beoause appointments to the Senate have no necessary or appropriate relation to the date of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons.
2.	Because in respect of certain of the western provinces the proposed increase of representation in the Senate has relation solely to the result of the last decennial census, which result has been ascertained.
3.	Because the said amendment is inappropriate and incongruous.
4.	Because no sufficient reason can be adduced for the delay effected by the said amendment.
The Senate's amendment of last year was rejected on these grounds by the unanimous voice of this House; yet we have the spectacle of my hon. friends on the other side of the House now declaring that the reasons put forward last year by the unanimous consent of this House for rejecting the amendment of the Senate were absolutely fallacious and unsound. It would be well, perhaps, if they had acquainted us with the time at which and the reasons for which they came to a conclusion so absolutely inconsistent with theiT record of last year. Up to the present time, we have had no information on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House hath agreed to their Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Royal Highness will be pleased to transmit the joint address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, most humbly praying that he may graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, by filling up the blank therein with the word " Commons."


Wilfrid Laurier: There can be no opposition to this motion; it is simply a necessary corollary of the motion which has just been adopted. It gives me, however, an opportunity of explaining the attitude, since it has been challenged, that I and other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have taken on this matter.
I may remind the House that last year, when the right hon. gentleman introduced a Bill to increase the representation of the Senate, I suggested to him that the only
way to do that was to adopt an Address to the Imperial Parliament asking for an amendment to the constitution. My right hon. friend, seeing that the opinion that I expressed was well founded, brought down a resolution accordingly. To this resolution I gave my entire assent. The resolution went through this House as an expression of the unanimous opinion of both sides of the House that the amendment sought to the constitution should be granted. The Senate, for reasons of their own-reasons in which I believe there was an element of soundness-saw fit to provide that this amendment of the constitution should not come into force until such time as the increased representation in the House of Commons was effected. In other words, they so amended the Bill as to provide that the voice of the people and the voice of the Crown in the matter of representation in the Canadian Parliament should be heard at the same time. I will not discuss at this time whether that was judicious or not judicious, sound or unsound; at all events, it will be agreed that even if we dissented from the view taken by the Senate, it was one of those differences of opinion which involved a matter not of principle, but simply of expediency. The opinion of the Senate w'as rejected by this House, and the same view has been taken to-day by the Government. My right hon. friend, who finds fault because this year I do not assent, has himself accepted the opinion of the Senate on this occasion. He says that we must make concessions, he recognizes that the voice of the Senate must be heard, and he thinks that for the sake of the good which is to be accomplished, he should sacrifice his opinion. For the common good I also sacrifice some of my own opinion. But, after all, if we are to have a double legislature, if we are to have two chambers, is it to be apprehended for a single moment tnat the upper chamber is simply to be the recording clerk for the House of Commons? Is it to be said that it is to have no opinion of its own? It is needless to put the question. The question answers itself. My only desire is to repel the slanderous imputation which has been made against the Senate that, because it so happens that at present the majority of the members of the Senate are in sympathy with me, they have acted from partisan motives. What partisan motive could there be when they amended not only the opinion of right hon. friend but my own opinion also? My hon. friend has stated that the resolutions of

this House had been passed unanimously. They were passed unanimously, I admit; but the Senate, who have been stated more than once to be the slaves of the leader of the Opposition, did not consent to pass the views of the leader of the Opposition, but modified the advice both of the leader of the Government and that of the leader of the Opposition. Could the Senate have given a greater, a nobler, a more manifest example of their independence, not of one party merely, but of both parties? In the face of this record I think the insinuations that have been made against the Senate are absolutely without foundation.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend says he will not vouchsafe any opinion as to the action of the Senate last year or this year. But I was a little surprised last year, within a few weeks after the Senate had taken this action, to find my right hon. friend giving reasons which in his judgment made that action of the Senate perfectly sound, although in the House of Commons about ten days before he had committed himself in the most distinct terms to the proposition that the action of the Senate was absolutely unsound and improper.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what way?


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it to my right hon. friend again. He said on the I2th day of June by his vote in this House-


William Pugsley: There was no vote.


Robert Laird Borden: There was no
vote?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a new constitutional doctrine. I had understood that members of this House -who sit silent and assent to the passing of a motion unanimously are as much committed to it as if they had voted for it; and I had also understood that they had, in effect and in every substantial way, voted for it. That has been my understanding up to the present moment of enlightenment by hon. gentlemen opposite. The right hon. gentleman by his vote said tha't:
Appointments to the Senate have no necessary or appropriate relation to the date of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons.
' He said that:
The said amendment is inappropriate and incongruous.

He said that:
No sufficient reason can be adduced for the delay effected by the said amendment.
That was on the 12th day of June. A few days afterwards on the 19th day of June, my right hon. friend said, in a published statement which I presume emanated from him:
The law makes it compulsory to have redistribution after every census but it does not say it should go into effect at once. In 1892 a Redistribution Bill was passed but the increase " did not go into effect until the general election of 1S96. It is the same in this case, the increase in the representation of the Commons does not go into effect until the next general election, and the increase in the Senate should not go-into effect until then either. "I leave it to any one to say whether my position is a correct one or not," said Sir Wilfrid smiling.
1 suppose the smile was induced by the fact that only a week before he had said precisely the opposite to what he said in this interview. So in the circumstances I do not think my right hon friend has yet made it very plain to this House or to the country why it was that he committed himself distinctly to one line of action on the 12th day of June and a week afterwards, on the 19th day of June, stated that the reasons which he had so endorsed by his-action in this House were absolutely fallacious and unfounded.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand my right hon. friend to mean that, rvhenever a proposition is mooted in this House, whether in the form of a Bill or otherwise, voting for it implies assent to every line of it?


Robert Laird Borden: I have always understood that when any hon. gentleman dissented from a motion of this House he either called for a vote or asked that it should be recorded as "carried on division ".


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and on
this very day my right hon. friend has moved a motion in which he himself does not believe.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg the light hon. gentleman's pardon, I have done nothing of the kind. I said that owing to the tyrannical and unjust action of the Senate it was necessary for us to adopt this course. And I would like to say this one thing more: the right hon. gentleman has said that the Senate ought not to degenerate into being a recording clerk of the House of Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just
one thing worse than that-to have the Senate degenerate into being a recording clerk of the minority in the House of Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Senate
did not, because in this matter there is no minority.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee, Mr. Blain in the Chair, on Bill No. Ill, to enable Canadians on active military service during the present war to exercise their electoral franchise.-Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice).
On section 1-soldiers entitled to vote:
Mr. DOHERTY:: I think that the principal suggestion made looking to the amendment of this section was that we should omit from the requirements of qualification the requirement that the soldier shall be 21 years of age. Quite a number of gentlemen said that this appeared to them to be an unnecessary requirement, and that once a man was of the age where he was competent to take an active part in military operations, more particularly in	fighting operations,	hemight very well be considered to have attained a sufficiently mature age to be allowed to vote. -No doubt a very great deal is to be said in support of that view. On the other hand, assuming us to abandon the requirement of a man's being of age, unless it were possible to fix some other specific age, the result might be that	very	young	boys would	bequalified	to vote.	That creates	asituation	which	makes	it necessary	for
us to fix some age limit, and once a limit has to be fixed it seems to us best to adhere to that limit of age which in the view of the law with regard to matters generally, constitutes the age at which one may look for maturity. In consequence,
I have reached the conclusion, in which I think my colleagues agree, that the section should in that respect stand as it was originally introduced. There are, however, some verbal modifications that require to be made in order to make the section more clear, and to avoid the use of at least one unnecessary expression. In order to make more clear the description of the period required in order to qualify the soldier to be entitled to vote, I propose to provide that the designation shall be " a period of thirty days anterior to the date 61 appointment or to enlistment in the forces." I propose ito strike out the word "enrolled " in the expression " appointed to or enlisted or enrolled in such forces," and also 'where it occurs further down in the section. I further propose to modify the wording of the section in view of a consideration that I am not quite sure was pointed out, but which occurred to myself at all events, and that is that under the section as originally introduced, the fact of residence in any electoral district in Canada prior to enlistment being made a qualification might result in a man being qualified to vote who had resided thirty days in Canada twenty years ago. The affidavit which was made part of the section would, however, have corrected the section in so far as the objection I have suggested is concerned, because it required that the person claiming qualification should swear he had resided in Canada for thirty days immediately preceding hi,s enrolment. But when I came to look into that, I found that if the affidavit removed the one objection it might create this situation, which I think one hon. gentleman has already pointed out, namely, the possible existence of the situation where a man who had lived thirty days or more in some particular district might have gone to some other district for the purpose of er listing and been delayed there for a few days, so that he could not say that he had resided in either the one or the other district for the thirty days immediately preceding. I thefore propose to offer an amendment the effect whereof will be that a man who has resided in any electoral district for a period of thirty days within the six months preceding his enlistment shall be entitled to vote in that electoral district, and, inasmuch as it is possible that a man might reside in two separate electoral districts for a period of thirty days within that six months, that it shall be the electoral district in which he last resided for a period of thirty days. Perhaps the best way of making these amendments, which do not alter the substance but are made only to make the provision more clear, would be to substitute for the clauses introduced the corrected clause, and I therefore beg to move that section 1 of the Bill be struck out and replaced by the following:
1. Every male British subject of twenty-one years of age or upwards serving in the military forces of Canada in the present war (hereinafter called "volunteer"), who, within six months immediately preceding the date

when he was appointed to or enlisted in such forces, had been resident in any electoral district in Canada for a period of not less than thirty days, shall be entitled to vote in the electoral district in which he was last so resident in the manner hereinafter set out, notwithstanding his absence from such electoral district or from Canada. - Provided that if any person was, at the time he was so appointed or enlisted, qualified to vote in any other electoral district in Canada he shall vote in such other district only.
That leaves the clause precisely as it was except for the modifications which I have pointed out.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the age
limit, there is no doubt that theoretically the view taken by the minister and shared in by his colleagues is correct, namely, that under ordinary circumstances it is not advisable to vary from the rule as to the age limit being one qualification. But I submit that we are dealing with an extraordinary situation, and that it is only right that we should consider the difficulties that surround it. If the fact of enlistment is the qualification, then there is no question that every man who has enlisted is a qualified voter and may exercise his right as a voter. But if we have an age limit of 21 years, under the peculiar circumstances under which it is proposed the vote shall be taken, there is room for difficulty, which I do not wish to emphasize or enlarge upon, in establishing the right of any voter to vote if he is about the age of 21 years. The ballots are in the hands of the officer. The officer is in control of the men. He has his political predilections, and possibly is aware of the political predilections of his men, or of some of them. If there is an age limit, there is a question for argument as to whether he is over 21 or under 21, and in an argument between the officer and the man, I need not point out to my hon. friend, who has himself seen service, to my personal knowledge, and with all credit to himself, that the man is not in a position to argue the point with his officer. For that reason I would be favourable to basing absolutely the right to vote on the fact of enlistment or appointment, although I am not in theory favourable to a lowering of the standard. In the peculiar circumstances I would take the liberty of placing that view before the committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we come to a subsequent section the hon. gentleman will see that the argument he anticipates is to be settled by the affidavit of the man. The

man is to get a ballot when he makes the affidavit, so that he will settle the argument himself.


Frank Oliver: So long as it is absolutely settled I am satisfied.


Charles Marcil: Is the minister in a position to tell me what is the youngest age at which these volunteers are accepted? Is there an age limit fixed by the department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot say absolutely that there is an age limit fixed by the department, although I think that ordinary soldiers enlisting are accepted at 18 or 19 years of age, but there are buglers, drummers and boys acting in different capacities.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Are there any scouts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are no boy scouts that I am aware of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think there are.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be; I only say that there are none that I am aware of. But there are quite young boys in the position of doing military service, in regard to whom I think the general consensus of opinion would be that they would hardly be of an age at which they could be expected to exercise a mature judgment. Unless for very strong reasons to the contrary, it seemed to those who were responsible for the introduction of the Bill that we must have some degree of maturity, and although it may perhaps be a little beyond what is absolutely required, we thought it the safer course to adhere to the age fixed in the law generally as being the age limit.


Charles Marcil: Eighteen is the age fixed in the Militia Act for enlistment; I am speaking of the volunteer and not of buglers, drummers or boy scouts. In this case you may have a large number who have enlisted, hut who, not having taken the oath as to age, would not -become voters. An injustice is being done to the boy of 18, 19 or 20 years, who has enlisted, and who undergoes all the hardships and risks of war, if he is cast aside. I think he will feel that injustice very much, because he knows that he can get the Victoria Cross, the highest distinction for valour, no matter what age he is. I am in favour of the principle of giving the soldier a vote if he is a voter. I am also in favour of giving him a vote if he is not a voter, because the service he is rendering to his country entitles him to that consideration, but I am opposed to this Bill, because I do not think it guarantees that the ballot

which the soldier casts will be the ballot which we will receive here. A very great injustice is being done to the boys of over 18 years of age by depriving them of their votes. The minister knows the old verse:
Mais aux 9,mes bien nfies,
La valeur n'attend pas le nombre ties annfies.
Boys of 18, 19 and 20, who have the spirit to enlist for the defence of their country, ought to be trusted to cast an intelligent vote. Napoleon Bonaparte was a general in chief of the army at 25. A young man of 18 should be given this right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The boy under 21 years who, being a soldier, is not given the right that is given to a soldier who is over 21, suffers exactly the same injustice as the boy in civilian life of 19 or 20 suffers as compared with the man over 21 who may be in precisely similar circumstances of merit or demerit and who has his vote while the boy under the age of 21 has no vote. It is not only in military careers that I think we have had cases of early maturity in civil life, one very prominent case being that of a gentleman who became Prime Minister of Great Britain at the age of 21. If the reason of the hon. member is right as regards military circles it ought to be equally right when applied to civilian circles. If it be a good argument that, because we find exceptional cases of maturity developed beyond what one's years would apparently lead one to look for, we should make a general rule departing from the age of 21 years, it would be as applicable to civil life as to military life. I am sorry to hear the expression used that any injustice is intended because after all from the voting point of view all that is to be said is that the boy of 18 does not gain something as compared with the soldier of 21 which he would not have gained had he not been a soldier as compared with any other man in the ordinary walks of life and 21 years of age. Perhaps we have not given, but we have not taken away.


Charles Marcil: My sole reason for saying that we should give these boys the right to vote is because they have enlisted. That is the main reason for the wrong, if wrong there be. I do not see why a boy who is capable of bearing arms and serving his country at the age of 18 or 19 years should be debarred from exercising the franchise. The issues of the election may be more fully comprehended by the young man than the man of maturity. I am sorry that the
minister has not extended common justice to those in the ranks above 18 years of age.
Mr. uERMAN: Would the minister state whether or not, in his opinion, this measure would apply to medical doctors who are not serving in the active militia force, but who are in hospitals? I know of two doctors from the town of Welland and one from Niagara Falls who have gone over. One is an active militiaman and he probably will be at the front though serving in a medical capacity. The other two are serving in their medical capacity, but are not, I believe, members of the militia force. Would this Bill, in the minister's opinion, allow these gentlemen to vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my judgment the wording is sufficiently broad to cover such persons. This Bill does not deal with the militia at all; it deals with the military force of Canada and gives a vote to everybody who is serving in it without distinction as between the classes of service that are being given. I understand the Bill to cover the gentlemen that the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


William Pugsley: The Bill as introduced
apparently provides that it shall apply to any by-election which may take place after the Act comes into force. - Does the minister understand it in that way?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the Bill was introduced there is no restriction, but it will be made clear that the whole Bill is intended to apply only to a general election.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The Bill provides for two classes of voters, the first class being those who have now no vote in Canada but who are enfranchised because they are in the military forces and are twenty-one years of age and British subjects; the second class comprising those who already have votes in some province of Canada. When the soldier is confronted with the affidavit, he is asked to swear that he is qualified, and to my mind that appears to be a legal question which it would be difficult for the soldier to answer. In Nova Scotia, a man cannot vote unless his name is on the list. The lists are made once a year and completed on the 5th of April, so that the list completed the other day will prevail in Nova Scotia in any election which takes place until the 5th of April next year. Therefore, a man might be qualified to vote and still not be on the list. Unless there is a list in the possession of the officer, and the soldier can see if he is on



that list, he would not be able to say on oath whether he is qualified ox not. I would suggest that instead of the word "qualified " the word " entitled " should he used, as the soldier might be in a better position to say that he was entitled to a vote. The word " qualified " implies a legal question, which the soldier should not be asked to swear to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the affidavits provided under the Dominion Elections Act, there is a similar requirement, and I think it has been generally understood as calling upon the man to swear merely from the point of view of the fact. It has to he supposed that a man would not swear he is	qualified unless he
had knowledge	which fully justified
him in saying he was. If he has any dou'bt about his qualification in the other respect, he will have a qualification in virtue of the thirty days' residence. The purpose of requiring a distinction in the affidavit is really as far as possible to secure that men who are qualified in a particular district shall vote there, and to avoid a possible consequence of depleting some one or more electoral districts, and perhaps overloading the electoral districts in which the men have been just before they enlisted. I see no particular objection to substituting the word " entitled," as suggested by my hon. friend, for the word " qualified," but it seems to me it will amount to practically the same thing. A man who swears that he is entitled to something has to determine a question of legal right on his part, just as much as if he has to swear he is qualified. Both expressions are open to the objection that analysing them strictly they imply not only a statement of fact but of judgment by the person making the statement of fact, that that fact, by law, qualifies him or entitles him to a certain thing. I think there is no great risk involved in using in these affidavits with regard to our soldiers the words which are used in other affidavits with regard to people generally. I think experience goes to show that those who are called upon to take oaths of this kind realize that what they are swearing to is as to the existence of a particular fact upon which, as they understand it, their qualification rests.


Frank Oliver: While I am quite willing to accept the explanation of the minister with regard to the age limit, I am not willing to accept the reasons he gave. The Minister of Justice has said that because a

young man in civilian life is not entitled to a vote until he becomes twenty-one years of age, therefore he should not be entitled to a vote in soldier life until he reaches that age. That is entirely contrary to the spirit on which the Bill is founded, which is, that the young man who is serving his country is entitled to special consideration in regard to the exercise of his franchise. That being so, the young man who by reason of his being of an age sufficient to give -the full service to his country that he would if he were twenty-one years or over, is surely entitled to the same advantage of franchise as if he were twenty-one years or older. The civilian qualification is based upon certain well set out conditions, the young civilian on attaining the age of twenty-one being liable to certain legal conditions. There is a change in his status between 20 and 22, which makes the difference between the civilian voter and the civilian non-voter by reason of age; but there is no such difference in status between the boy of eighteen and the young man of twenty-two in regard to his military service. I merely wish to draw attention to this fact; I am not wishing to make legislation for the Government or for the minister; but while I am willing to let the matter go as he has explained it, I do not wish to be understood as agreeing to the reasons he gave.
In regard to the residence qualification, I took exception to this proviso when the Bill came to the House first; and, after all has been said, I still maintain that this proviso is unnecessarily confusing in the proper exercise of the right of the voter. It is quite true that if the voter has a right to vote in a certain district, he can cast his vote in that district; but when you come to make a distinction between the man who has a right to vote in a district and the man who has not a right to vote in a district, you practically give an opportunity of switching ballots, which is something that is not desirable, I am sure, from the point of view of the minister. We must do the best we can under the circumstances we have to meet; and my contention is that we shall have a law that will give to the soldier the right to cast his ballot if we strike out this proviso, and by striking it out we shall be much more certain that the ballot will be cast in one case as it is in the other; that is, that there will be a similarity of treatment and action of the soldiers in the direction of where their ballots will go. I do not wish to introduce

personal matters into this discussion, but let me do it merely in order to illustrate my point. There are in training now in Edmonton and its immediate vicinity two regiments of infantry and a squadron of cavalry, the men having been recruited from the country surrounding Edmonton. Owing to the delay in enlistments for the second and third contingents many of these men were residents of either East Edmonton or West Edmonton for thirty days before they enlisted.
I am speaking now of tne constituency of West Edmonton, for which I have received the Liberal nomination. The soldiers may have had the right to vote in other districts, or they may not have had that right; but when their votes come to be cast, there is a very great possibility in one constituency of the votes being massed to he cast in that constituency, and in the other constituency of the votes being distributed over the localities from which the men came. This is not a sound principle; it is neither necessary nor right. As I have said, I do not wish to make this matter personal; but the candidate nominated by the Conservative party in the constituency of West Edmonton is the senior colonel of the two regiments to which I have referred, so that the matter is entirely under his control. I do not wish to make any suggestion against this gentleman, that he is likely to take particular advantage of his situation but I am saying that that is the situation, and not only do I think I am doing what is right when I bring the concrete facts before the House, but I think the minister will be 4 p.m. wise to consider the situation in the light of the facts I have stated to him. The political conditions in this Bill go pretty close home to the city of Edmonton, and that is why I am venturing to take up the time of the House and the minister in discussing this Bill.


Mr. MEIGHEJNT:: I am not sure whether I have understood the hon. member sufficiently clearly to reply to him, but I do not see how the ambiguity arises that he fears. A man on the list who has a right to vote in any constituency has no option thereafter. He is bound to exercise that right.


Charles Marcil: There are no listis in
Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: There are no lists now. Lists, of course, are to be made up. Do I understand the hon. gentleman's remarks to apply to certain districts in which there is the right to swear in on election day?
148i


Frank Oliver: In those provinces where there are no standard lists, there is no way of checking beforehand the status of the voter; it is all a matter of enumeration immediately before the election, and therefore there is not the same possibility of verifying any condition in regard to any voter, on the part of himself or on the part of any one else, that there is in other parts of the country. Apart from that, the condition is the same in all parts of the country.


Arthur Meighen: If I understand the hon. gentleman aright, he says that the right in Alberta and Saskatchewan of a man to swear in if his name is absent from the list, taken in conjunction with this Bill, leaves that voter, if he is a volunteer, in a position practically to elect where his vote shall go.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is more able to deal with such details than I am; but it appears that in so far as this Bill may not provide certainty it is incidental to the system of list-making in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
What I arose chiefly to do was to put before the bommittee my own view as to the question raised by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and repeated by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), as to the extension of the franchise to all soldiers although they may not have reached their majority. I take the view that the Bill in that respect is right. I do not look on the extension of the franchise to the soldiers as in any way a quid pro quo, as in any way a benignant action on the part of the state to him in virtue of his soldiership. It appears to me that in regard to the British franchise the law presumes, that if the individual man has a real patriotic interest in his country's affairs, and secondly, if he is competent to express that interest, that man is entitled to vote. We take certain precautions to ascertain whether he lives up to these two requirements-whether he has a real patriotic interest in his country's affairs and whether he is competent to express that interest. We say that he must be a resident, that he must live so long in a certain locality. If he is a rolling stone, we cannot presume that he has that fixed and determined interest that he otherwise will have. On the other hand, in order to ascertain whether he is competent to express his vote or not, we fix the age of twenty-one as the age of maturity at

which he arrives at competency. Then we say that a judge by virtue of the restraints of his office is incompetent to express his interest. Then we come here and make an extension of the franchise in one respect; that is, we do not insist upon the condition of fixed residence. To that extent and no more, there is in this Bill an extension of the franchise.
Why do we make that extension? Have we a right ito presume that real interest in the affairs of this country which ordinarily is considered proved by fixity of residence? I think we have. The very fact of his enlistment, even though being a British subject he comes from the United States, and has not fulfilled the requirement of three months' residence in the locality or a year's residence in the province, gives us the right to presume that he has a patriotic interest in the affairs of Canada. Consequently, we do away with ' the old requirement.
But the hon. member for Bonaventure says we ought to do more; that we ought to presume that he is competent to express his interest even though under age because he has enlisted.


Charles Marcil: Provided he is at least
18 years of age.


Arthur Meighen: Provided he is 18. I
do not see that the fact that he enlists should in any way convince Parliament that he has reached a higher degree of mental maturity than other men. His enlistment undoubtedly is an expression of a loyal interest in the affairs of the country, but it is an expression of loyal interest only; it is not proof that he has a'greater mental development than his fellows. 1 think - the right hon. leader of the Opposition is wrong when he says that we should bann this measure because it extends the franchise. It extends the franchise only in a direction where we have a right to presume the requirement fulfilled which otherwise we demand of the voter, namely, an interest in his country's affairs. T think the hon. member for Bonaventure is wrong when he complains not that we are extending the franchise, but that we are not extending it far enough, because The direction in which he wishes it extended is a direction as to which no pre-*sumption by virtue of enlistment arises at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Never since
1897 have we undertaken to define the franchise. That has been left entirely to "the provinces, and in view of the fact that
[Mr. Meighen.J
you are extending the franchise to those who go to fight, you are not in a position to answer the contention of the hon. member for Bonaventure. The Government are determined that they will not alter the qualification of voters with respect to age. But what I rose particularly to deal with is a statement which I have just heard on the the part of my hon. friend, namely, that lists will be made. This is the first intimation we have received that lists are to be made in connection with the voting of the soldiers.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.; I do not know what sentence my hon. friend refers to.


Charles Marcil: I had said that there were no lists in Alberta.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that the hon. gentleman said that lists are to be made.


Arthur Meighen: Lists must be made in Alberta and Saskatchewan under the present Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are no lists in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Arthur Meighen: But they are made by enumerators prior to the election.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. If no lists are to be sent to the front, matters will be further complicated, and that is why I want to inquire as to whether or not lists are to be made. If the lists made in Alberta and Saskatchewan are not to be sent to the front, how will the soldier be able to establish that he is qualified to vote? This only goes to show how many difficulties there are in this proposed legislation. Parliament has decided in favour of the Bill; therefore I shall not press any objection as to the principle of it; but my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has invited suggestions, and I may tell him that I am prepared to offer an amendment. The great objection to this Bill is that it puts aside altogether the safeguards which we have considered to be necessary in connection with elections in this country. If we have an election-and the hon. Minister of Public Works this morning, during the course of his speech, gave us due warning that we are going to have an election- every vote that is cast in Canada will be surrounded with all the safeguards that it is possible to provide. Yesterday I was struck with the speech of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), who told us that

notwithstanding all the precautions with which the law has endeavoured to surround the sacred rights of the franchise, fraud after fraud has been committed. At election -time, party spirit runs very high. I stated the other day-and I do not believe that any hon. gentleman will question my statement-that during the course of an election offences are committed against the law, actuated by party spirit, which would not be committed by a man in connection with his private affairs. Am I wrong in this? Is any one prepared to say that I am not right? It is the experience of every man in this committee that during elections the law has been violated by most respectable citizens, who did for their party what they would not have done for themselves. It is said by hon. gentlemen opposite that the men who go to the front and who are ready to shed their blood for their country will not do anything wrong in this respect. I have the greatest possible confidence in the men who have gone' to the front; but, after all, they are but flesh and blood, and are subject to the same temptations to which other men are subjected. Every day, in the prayer which is said in this House, we say, " Lead us not into temptation;" yet it is proposed to put temptation in the way of these men, and to trust that everything will be done correctly. I ask fairly and with all sincerity, is that business? Is that proper legislation? Should not at least more precautions be taken in order to ensure that this method of voting shall be carried out with some degree of honesty and faithfulness? I have a good many friends at the front; hon. gentlemen opposite also have many friends at the front. I have great confidence in them, but I am not prepared to say that there shall not be some delinquency; I have yet to learn of any human activity in connection with which, at some time or upon some occasion, there has not been delinquency. All I ask is that more precautions be provided in connection with this proposed legislation. If it is not possible to take some of the precautions adopted in connection with elections at home, give us some precautions which will ensure that the franchise shall be exercised with the same degree of fidelity and faithfulness as we expect it to be exercised in connection with the voting in this country. As the Bill is now drafted my hon. friend cannot tell me who will be the officers who will take the oath and do the recording.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I concede that under the Bill as drafted I could not tell that. I have
made more precise the disposition to deal with that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good; he has made the language more precise. Has the amendment been printed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it has not been possible to have the amendment printed.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has probably made an amendment to his draft to say that either the colonel, or the major, or the captain, or the lieutenant is to take the vote. But whoever takes the votes takes them without any check upon him. Would my hon. friend the Minister of Justice think of having the votes which are going do be recorded in Canada by the-returning officers cast without any check, upon the returning officers, without administering any oath to them and without having any scrutineers over them, with no protection to assure that the vote of the electors would he properly recorded? He would not think of doing so. If it were attempted every one would say it was an outrage. No Government has ever done it. Now, the limit of my hon. friend's amendment to the present draft is that he will delegate somebody in the army to take the vote. Since the vote has to be taken as a vote for the Government or for the Opposition, a disposition which I do not like but to which we have to submit, will my hon. friend agree to a commission of two, appointed by the Government to represent both the Government and the Opposition, to go to the front and take the vote? Then these commissioners will check one another and will ensure that the vote is honestly taken. That is not an extraordinary precaution. The vote in Canada we can deal with later; we are most concerned with the vote to he taken in Europe, because there are more o-f our soldiers there. I suggest to my hon. friend that he would singularly improve this Bill if he were to provide that the vote shall be taken by two commissioners appointed under it to represent both the Government and the Opposition, and to ensure, after all, some degree of absolute faithfulness in the discharge of these duties.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before I answer the suggestion I would like to say one word with reference to some observations of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I do not propose to repeat anything I have said with regard to the age qualification But the hon. gentleman expressed what I might call his apprehension that in the par-

ticular case in which he is especially interested the colonel might be an undesirable element, from his point of view, if he had any control of these votes. The proposal I intend to make with regard to the method of the ballot reaching the soldiers and the vote being taken would pass quite by the colonel, leave him quite on the outside, so that in that especial respect my hon. friend has nothing to fear. What we propose to suggest is to utilize the machinery whereby these men are paid and have these ballots given to them through the paymasters. The paymasters are not combatant officers. I have ascertained from the Paymaster General here that there exists a system by which these ballots could pass to the paymaster in England, and from there the assistant paymasters and the regimental paymasters would bring them to each smaller unit, that is the squadron or the company or the battery. They bring the men their money, and suTely they could bring the ballots to them.' These ballots would in that way reach the officers commanding the companies or squadrons or batteries, according to the nature of the force. With regard to the suggestion the right hon. gentleman has made, of course I would not do otherwise than consider any suggestion the right hon. gentleman would make. The first objection to the suggestion that occurs to me at the moment is that I doubt its practicability. We have to remember that we have to reach a large number of men, 30,000 ot 40,000 or 50,000, scattered over a considerable territory; and for any two men to gather all the votes of these men, I am afraid would take a very long period of time, longer I may say than the interval that would elapse-


Charles Marcil: Ordinarily there is 30 days between the issue of -the writ and the voting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us take 30 days. We have to bear in mind that these ballots have to get from London to the men, and -that after the vote has been taken they have to get back -here to Canada -again, and I would be afraid it would not be practicable to have that looked after by two men. If the idea could be put into practice it would be necessary that we should have a number of couples of -men who could divide the work -between them. That might work out in a more practical way. If they aTe to go two, whose report is to prevail? Supposing they go two, and as they started out in disagreement I sup-

pose that we -have some reason to expect that they would return in disagreement, whose report would be final? I do not know whether it is intended simply that they should bring back the ballots or that they should make -a -report. I would have great fear that we -would not get any agreement between the members of -such a commission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would they differ about?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not just grasp what it is they are to report.


William Pugsley: They would put the certificate on the envelope -and send it to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
Mr. DOHERTY; Might I suggest that we should consider this when we come to the section dealing with the method in which the votes a-re to be taken?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. I threw it out in advance so that we might take it up when we reached that section.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Reverting to section 1, this is a matter on which each has his own personal view. A good deal of our difib culty would have been obvi-a-ted as to the qualification, if the Government o-r the committee had adopted the principle that the going to the front of the soldier should not deprive him of -any right which he -had before he went. That would leave the qualification the same, and would get rid of a great deal of difference of opinion as to what that qualification ought to be; and it would not open up the question of an enlargement of the franchise. I am strongly of the opinion that 21 is the proper age. I admit that if you change the age to something else, you can keep on changing it by the same argument. I h ve not heard any good reason advanced why we should change from the age limit that we have always had. After mature deliberation it has been decided in this country that a man has not reached the proper years of maturity at which he is able to vote until he is 21. I do not think the fact of his going to the front changes the principle at all, for a man of 21 years of age is the same at the front as he is at home, loyal and brave and patriotic though he may be. I think we should get rid of a lot of the difficulty if we took the ground, which several speakers on the Government side of the House as well as speakers on this side have taken, that the men who have gone to fight for their country should

not be deprived of the rights of citizenship which they had before they went. .


Charles Joseph Doherty: I recognize that there
is force in that. But this consideration was impressed upon the minds of the committee:	that a large number of men
who, when they left home, were not qualified voters would, if they had stayed at home, have been in a position to complete what was required to enable them to get a vote. For instance, I understand that in the large cities of Ontario at all events, there is, after the election has been called, a registration which brings in a large number of people, and they get their votes. Now every soldier who would have been in a position to avail himself of that opportunity is deprived of it because he is away; and this applies not only to Ontario, but to the western provinces, where enumerators are appointed to make out lists after an election has been called. Now there will be many soldiers who if they had stayed at home would have been enumerated and got their votes-that is those who had the proper qualifications-and even if they were not enumerated they could get their votes simply by walking in to the poll and swearing to their qualifications. I think it is generally recognized as being true that we have a large proportion of recruits from those western provinces, and that the cities in the East have contributed at all events a highly creditable proportion; and if we are correct in our assumption that many of these would have got their votes but for their absence on military affairs, we reduce to a comparatively small number those who would not have got the vote if they had been at home, and are now getting it because of being -soldiers. For myself, I am glad to see them get votes, but if there be objection with regard to that, there is this to be said in support of it. The hon. gentleman says that it would simplify things to let only those vote who were qualified to vote; but it seems to me that if you are willing to take in the mam whose absence of qualifications results solely from his absence from the country, it is not worth while, in view of the presumably small number left, to create the necessity of distinguishing betweeen your soldiers. In this Bill we get a distinction as between tho-se who aTe over and those who are under 21, but we are adhering to the view that a. m-an is a man when he is 21. We certainly should not be able to find out who were the men who, not having qualified at the time they enlisted, could have got themselves registered if they had been at home; and if we said that only those should vote who are now qualified we should be excluding not only those who if they had been at home would not have got a vote, but also a large number of those who if they had been at home could have got a vote. The simplification of the thing was one consideration that weighed with us, and we came to the conclusion that not only the proper way but the simplest way was to give every soldier a vote.


George Perry Graham: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I wish to make clear that I am in favour of giving every man a vote who would have had the right to a vote had he remained at home. I meant to cover that class of men.
M-r. DOHERTY:	We could not -ascertain th-at.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: This Bill is to give soldiers who are away from home an opportunity to vote if an election takes place during the w.ar. That election may or may not take place during the war, and I should like to ask the minister whether he has ever considered the advisability of looking after the suffrage of the soldier after he -returns from the war. A great many of these soldiers will not be on the voters lists when they return. They will not be entitled to vote as soldiers, and I think a great many of them will be disfranchised.
I think that we should be just as solicitous in looking after the suffrage of the soldier after he returns from the war as when he is at the war.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may say that the question that was referred to the committee was: What could we do in the way of giving votes to soldiers who were out of the country or away from home? and I have to admit that we did not get beyond the question that was referred to us: and perhaps some things that have been seen and heard would indicate that we did not need to look for further difficulties, but that quite a few presented themselves within the bounds of the question referred to us. I quite recognize that the situation that my hon. friend has spoken of is one that will call for action, if that is possible, before we are confronted with it, but I am afraid I can hardly undertake to deal with it just now.


George Perry Graham: I think that there need be no apprehension so far as Ontario is concerned. Looking over the statutes I

find that I was wrong. The statute has been amended since my time, so that those absent on militia service can be retained on the list. If I could show that my son or brother was absent on militia service, his name would be retained on the list.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: What if he was not on the list?


George Perry Graham: That would not make any difference; he could be put on the list.


William Foster Cockshutt: He has to appear in court and prove that he is 21 years of age and a British subject.


George Perry Graham: Not under the law of Ontario. If he is abser<+ on militia duty, or through his duties as a fisherman or lumberman, his father can put him on the list. That covers the unmarried man. As to the married man, his residence does not change so long as his family continues to live at the same place; so he would be kept on the list, or if he was not on the list he could be put on. I think the point raised by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark) is covered by the Ontario statutes at the present time. I did not think that was the case the other night when I spoke.


Mr. NESBITT:: I understand there have been some amendments to clause 1. Will you, Mr. Chairman, please read them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is proposed to substitute a redraft for section 1. We strike out the words "or enrolled" in fixing the period of time for residence anterior to date of enlistment or enrolment. It was pointed out that the word "enrolled" added nothing to the word "enlisted." The second change is intended to make clear that the thirty days' residence in a place required to give qualification under this section must be within the last six months preceding the enlistment. In view of the possibility that a man might have resided in more than one place for a period of thirty days within the last six months preceding his enlistment, it is provided that the place in which he shall be qualified shall be the place at which he last resided for thirty days during that last day six months.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose he only resided two or three days where he was enlisted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he only resided two or three days where he was enlisted he will not get a vote from there but, if there is any other place within an electoral district in Canada in which he has, within six months previous to his enlistment, had a 
residence for thirty days, he can qualifiy in that electoral district. Some one pointed out the other day that it might happen that a man, having lived thirty days, or perhaps a year, in a particular constituency, might, for the purpose of enlistment, go down to some other place and be there three or four days before enlisting. He could not say that for thirty days immediately preceding his enlistment he had been in the original place and as he had not been thirty days in the place where he was enlisted he could not qualify there.


Mr. CARVELL:: We are not talking about residence; we are talking about a legal term. There has been many a case threshed out in the courts of Canada as to what constitutes residence. The condition in my own province is very much the same as it is in the province of Quebec. We have a list prepared once a year and when that list is closed there is no possibility of getting another name added to it. Any man who has resided in the province of New Brunswick for six months prior to the 24th day of August is entitled to have his name placed on the list in the district in which he then resides. Take a young man who has no home or take, for instance, an immigrant. He has lived, we will say, in the county of Carleton for a few weeks or months-no home, no wife, no friends; he has worked somewhere for a few weeks; he has moved from there to the county of York; perhaps he has worked in the shanty for a few weeks; he has moved from there to St. John; he has happened to be there, for five weeks and he has enlisted at St. John-as I understand this provision, it would give him the right to elect that Sit. John would be his residence.
-Mr. DOHERTY: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The difficulty is that that man, under the law of New Brunswick, would not have a right at all to be on the voters' list on the score of residence, not having had a fixed residence for six months prior to the 24th of August.


Arthur Meighen: Although he would not otherwise have the right, the very fact of his enlistment would justify us in giving him that right, would it not?
Mr . CARVELL: That is the whole question that we have been discussing here. I am now discussing this first clause, and I am pointing out the difficulty of knowing where this man's vote would be cast. In my opinion this only makes it easier to have

these votes distributed where they are most needed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite true that we are giving the vote to a man for a thirty days' residence. We have never pretended to give the vote only to a man who would be qualified under the provincial franchise. What we have endeavoured to do is prevent him from making a choice of the place he shall give as the place of his thirty days' residence. We get at the proof of the thirty days' qualification in the same way as it would be got at under the provincial franchise, and if a man is truthful in his affidavit, we tie him down to the last place in which he has resided for thirty days.


William Pugsley: This Government ought
to do one thing or the other. They should either simply give the right to soldiers to vote at the election provided they would have the right to vote if they had been at home. That would be in accordance with the argument which has been made by gentlemen who support the Bill and who say that it would be a great hardship to deprive a man of his right to vote simply because he happens to be abroad in the service of his country. But you confer the right to vote upon soldiers who, if at home, could not have a vote and you are including a class of people to whom you give a greater right than would have been given to them if they had remained at home. I think you should either limit this right to those who, if at home, would have the right to vote or extend it to all soldiers who are engaged in the Canadian forces, no matter whether they are under 21 years or not. That is the logical position to take. The Minister of Justice admits that he is giving a new franchise to the soldiers. He is giving those the right to vote who, under the present electoral law, would not have the right to vote in many cases if they were at home. He is allowing soldiers who have not been residents of Canada at all, who may simply be temporarily in the country, who may have come from the West Indies, or the United States, or other countries, to serve under the British flag and who have found it convenient to enlist in the Canadian army, the right to vote simply on the ground that they have been in Canada for a period of thirty days. He justifies that on the ground that men who are willing to go to the front and risk their lives in defence of the country should be recognized by giving them right of citizenship. After all, the privilege of casting the ballot is the highest expression
in the law of the right of citizenship. This Bill proposes to give the right of citizenship to many soldiers because they have gone to the front and risked their lives for the defence of the country. If that is the principle upon which the minister is proceeding, why not give that same right of citizenship to all who are deemed by the Government to be capable of bearing arms, worthy to be sent to the front and worthy to take their share in the defence of the Empire? The Solicitor General says that the age of 21 is looked upon as the age of maturity. How absurd it is to say that it shall be deemed the age of maturity as to the casting of a ballot, and that it shall not be deemed the age of maturity in respect to the soldier who goes into training, goes to the front and is thought to have sufficient judgment to make a good soldier. It requires good mentality for a man to become a good soldier, and the law deems a man over 18 years of age fit to be a good soldier and to fight for his country. Why not give to the young man who has lived all his life in Canada this highest right of citizenship, if you are going to give it to a soldier who has been only within our gates for a few days, and who may know nothing about the issues which divide the people, and to whom in many cases it would be a matter of supreme indifference whether he cast his vote for the Government or for the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
characterized my statement as absurd when I said that the age of maturity for the purposes of exercising all the functions of citizenship might well remain at Itwenty-one years, and that that was not inconsistent with permitting a citizen at eighteen years of age to enlist to take his part in the war. In thus disagreeing with me, I do not think that the hon. gentleman meets with concurrence on the part of his own associates.


William Pugsley: I deny that in considering this Bill I have any associates except all the members of this House. I understand that this Bill is not introduced as a party measure, and I am expressing my own views irrespective of what others may think.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I am pointing out, namely, that it was the hon. gentleman's own view to disagree with me, and that in it he is not supported by those usually associated with him. I have often thought it strange that the hon. mem-

her for St. John cannot disagree with anything without denouncing it as absurd.


William Pugsley: I do not think I used the word " absurd."


Arthur Meighen: A reference to Hansard will be a wonderful revelation to my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: I do not think I used the word.


Arthur Meighen: If it is absurd to say that twenty-one years is a proper age for exercising the function of citizenship, and at the same time that eighteen is a proper age to enable a man to enlist as a soldier, then this absurdity has stood on the statute books of Canada all the time my hon. friend was minister, and all the time that his Government was in power. The Militia Act is there to say that a man may enlist at the age of eighteen.


William Pugsley: A measure like this was never proposed before.


Arthur Meighen: What has that to do with what I am discussing?


William Pugsley: It has a great deal.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gbntleman said it was absurd to recognize twenty-one years as the age of full citizenship and eighteen years as the age of a soldier, and I say that principle had been recognized, and properly recognized, by his Government for fifteen years, and further, that it has been recognized by every Government in the civilized world.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: During these fifteen
years, has the Solicitor General ever known that membership in the Canadian militia was considered sufficient to give a man the right to vote?


Arthur Meighen: What has that to do with what I am discussing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to have an answer to my question.


Arthur Meighen: Because the question never arose in these fifteen years; but can you describe as absurd the law of the United States, or the law of Great Britain, or the law of every civilized country, because it determines that a man may' be a soldier at eighteen years but may not reach the full maturity of citizenship until he is twenty-one years? What I argue is that the fact of a man's enlistment does not raise any presumption, that he is any more in a fit position to express more in-

telligently his views on public questions, ait the age of eighteen, than is his cousin of the same age at home. It is true that at the age of eighteen there are many soldiers as there are many civilians much more fit than those who have reached the age of forty to be entrusted with the franchise. But, you cannot base on the mere fact of his enlistment the presumption that he is fit to exercise the franchise at the age of eighteen. That is all I argued, and it does seem to me sound sense. At all events, that argument had the support of the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in very explicit language. I do not find any fault if one disagrees with me, but I do not think that the enunciation of so moderate a theory can be characterized as absurd. If a man enlists at the age of eighteen, the presumption is that he takes a more vital and patriotic interest in his country's affairs than if he had stayed at home, but the presumption does not arise that he is more developed mentally and Ithus more fitted to exercise the franchise than a person who has attained the age of twenty-one years. It does not seem fitting that the view which I have taken, and which is expressed in the legislation of many countries, should be lightly characterized as absurd.


William Pugsley: I regret if I used the word "absurd," and if so I apologize. What I pointed out was that it was inconsistent for the Government to say that in respect to the votes of the soldiers, they will ignore all existing law, simply because the man is a soldier, except the law as to the age limit, and, when it comes to the age limit, that they will adhere rigidly to the existing law. The Solicitor General says that after all the question of importance is as to whether a man has arrived at the age when he may be reasonably expected to take an interest in his country's affairs, and what I argued was that a man of eighteen, who was patriotic enough and intelligent enough to volunteer for overseas service, having lived in Canada from the day of his birth may reasonably be presumed to have a better knowledge of the best interests of this country, and to be better able intelligently to cast his ballot, than the man who has had no home in Canada, who has not spent any part of his life in Canada, who may have come from any part of the world, and who, being a British subject, although an entire stranger to Canada, is given a vote simply because he has resided somewhere in Canada for the short period of thirty days before he enlisted. That is my

argument, and it seems to me it is impossible for any satisfactory answer to be given to it. If the Government insists upon conferring a new citizenship upon a great many men who are soldiers, they should extend it further, and they could, with the utmost safety, extend it to all those who do go to the front, whether they happen to be twenty-one or eighteen years of age.


Arthur Meighen: Would my ho-n. friend extend the franchise to the bugler of fourteen?


William Pugsley: Buglers do noi bear arms.


Arthur Meighen: They are at the front.


Charles Marcil: I brought up the question; and, so far as I am concerned, the Solicitor General will understand that I want the vote given to all soldiers. If T have urged that the boy of eighteen should be given the right to vote, it is because he is just as well qualified as the boy of nineteen or twenty or twenty-one. Before the boy of eighteen can enlist, he is thoroughly inspected, mentally and physically; he is physically inspected from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet, and he must be found in every respect a fit subject for bearing arms and intelligent enough to comprehend and understand military movements of all kinds. If he is found physically or mentally unfit, he must stand aside, so that the young lad of eighteen who is competent to enlist is in every respect a perfect man who- is doing the same duty as the man who accidentally happens +o be a few months older than he is, and yet you are depriving him of the franchise simply because of an accident of birth.


Arthur Meighen: It is recognized that the volunteer is so inspected and that he is passed on as physically within the requirements of the law and as mentally sound; but similarly a lad of five is just as mentally sound as a lad of eighteen, and in so far as military requirements are concerned, would on	that	score pass	the examination	justas	well	as would	the lad of eighteen.Therefore there would be just as much reason for admitting the youth of five to	the	franchise,	provided there	wassome capacity in which he could serve at	the	front, as	there would be	for
admitting the youth of eighteen. I do not like to be arguing against the extension of the franchise to any man who volunteers for such a great war as the one in which we are now engaged; but I do not
see any reason for presuming that because a man goes to the front, he is necessarily further advanced mentally and that he has a -more thorough knowledge and -a more competent power of expressing his interest in his country's affairs than the man who stays at home. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) says; What right have we to presume that because some one comes from the United States and lives in some part of Canada for thirty days, he has any interest in the affairs of Canada and should be given a vote? We have a right to presume it because he has come here to fight the battle of Canada.


William Pugsley: The battle of the
Empire.


Arthur Meighen: Any Britisher who has sufficient interest in the Empire-and -Canada is a part of the Empire-to come here to enlist as a soldier to fight the battle of the Empire in Europe is sufficiently interested in Canada to know how to vote.
Mr. OLIVER; The hon. gentleman does not give him the right to vote unless he is a British subject.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not. Does the hon. gentleman argue that we should give it to those who are not British subjects?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has
argued that himself.


Arthur Meighen: I am not arguing that. Naturally a subject of His Majesty who comes here from the United States or anywhere else who wishes to serve the country to which he belongs and who is willing to expose his life in that service, demonstrates that he has sufficient interest in the affairs of this country to entitle him to vote.


William Pugsley: But you will not give
the vote to a youth of nineteen who has lived in Canada all his life?


Arthur Meighen: Not because he has not sufficient interest-I made that very clear when I spoke first; he has sufficient interest and he has demonstrated that in the most convincing way that any man could demonstrate it-but because he has not reached the age when by the laws of our country he is competent to express that interest. If we could presume that merely because he enlisted he was further advanced than he would otherwise be in his mental competence, then we would give him the right to vote.


William Pugsley: In the case of a civilian, the law requires a residence, we shall say, of a year. Do you not presume that a man, because he goes to the front, has
5 p.m. a more active and deeper interest in the welfare of his country than the civilian has? You allow him to vote simply on a short term residence of thirty days.


Arthur Meighen: That man by goi.ng to
the front demonstrates that he has that interest which is at the bottom of our franchise.


Mr. GERMAN:: What more interest has he in the welfare of Canada than the man who stays at home and does his duty at home by the soldiers at the front?


Arthur Meighen: Now we are on another point. There may be many at home who are not doing their duty at all; but if we extended the franchise and made it universal applicable to wanderers with no local habitaltion, they all would also have the right to vote. We have no right to presume that merely because a man stays in Canada he has that interest in his country's affairs which is at the bottom of the franchise; but we have a right to presume that because a man goes to the war, he has that interest. I do not think I could express my own mind better if I spoke longer.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Nor what is in the mind of the right hon. leader of the Opposition.


Frank Oliver: If a citizen of the United States of America comes across the boundary line and enlists in the army of the Empire through Canada and takes the risks of war, inasmuch as he has rendered all the service to this country that he can render; that he is making the supreme sacrifice that any man can make, and that he is making it for Canada and for the Empire, why should that man not be recognized as having a reasonable and sufficient interest in Canada to allow him to vote? If any man is to be recognized as having done any special service to the country entitling him to special recognition because of his enlistment, I say: Why is not every man entitled to that same recognition?


Arthur Meighen: I will answer my hon. friend in this way. The fact that an American citizen comes to Canada and enlists for the war goes to show that he has some

interest in Canada and the Empire. The question is: does it go far enough? The hon. member for Edmonton will agree with me that a British subject should have higher rights to citizenship in Canada than an alien, and that the fact that a man is an alien creates the presumption against him and makes the usual adverse presumption founded on non-residence here much more difficult to be overcome. The fact, that a British subject resides in the United States raises the presumption against him that he has not an interest in Canada's-affairs unless he overcomes that presumption by some act. If he comes here and volunteers for the front, then we say it is overcome; but if he is an alien, if he is not only a resident of the United States, but a citizen of that country, then the fact that he volunteers is not to my mind sufficient to overcome the presumption.


William Pugsley: Take a Sikh from India or the other immigrants from India who have been coming into British Columbia. My hon. friend would propose to give them the right to cast their ballot simply because they happened to arrive thirty days before enlisting, although the young man of eighteen or nineteen or twenty, who as I said has lived all his life in Canada, knows a thousand times more about the real interests of Canada and the issues dividing the parties than a stranger could possibly know, be cause no man coming into this country and residing simply for thirty days can become seized of the issues which affect the two parties unless he has" an intellect far and away beyond that of the ordinary citizen. Surely my hon. friend must see that, either we ought not to extend the franchise at all, or if we recognize that the fact that, a soldier goes to the war is a reason for extending his right of citizenship, we ought to give the same right to the young man between eighteen and twenty-one who goes to the front and risks his life just the same as any other soldier does.
If we extend the franchise to those who enlist for service abroad, we should also extend it to the young men of Canada who have lived in this country all their lives, whose hearts are with Canada and who are in a position to vote more intelligently than strangers who have been in this country only for a short period of thirty days.


Frank Oliver: I have repeatedly given
the reasons why I object to this provision, and I desire now to move to strike out
the proviso of section 1.


Charles Marcil: Aside from the Niobe, the Rainbow and the submarines, there are other steamers and vessels belonging to the Government upon which are serving a large number of persons who are qualified to vote in the maritime constituencies of Can

ada. They have always found it difficult to register their votes at the time of a general election. I do not see why it should not be possible for these boats to be in the harbour of Esquimalt, Vancouver, or some other port, so that the men serving on them would not be completely debarred from casting their votes. There must be 50 boats in the naval service, the crews of which lose their votes at every election. Is no provision being made for them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision which
the hon. member desires is not peculiar to the present situation. No doubt we may sometime devise provisions whereby absentees may vote; the experience of other countries which have adopted such legislation indicates that it is not an impossibility. So far as the naval force is concerned, the number of men serving on the different vessels who would otherwise be voters is not very large, while the soldiers are people who would have been entitled to vote if they had been at home.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It is provided here that when a soldier comes to register his vote, the official who receives it must decide whether the soldier has a right to vote anywhere else. I cannot see that any machinery is provided by which that difficulty is to be settled.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Precisely the machin-
' ery that is provided when that situation arises before a deputy returning officer and where the man is sworn.


Frank Oliver: There is this difference:
when the voter comes before the deputy returning officer and is sworn, witnesses and other persons are present, the act is a public act which renders the man liable within the knowledge of those who represent either one candidate or the other. There is a restriction there, in the public interest; under this legislation there is no such restriction, and there is no possibility of there being any. My hon. friend may say: you are unjustly imputing impropriety of some kind. I say we are not imputing any more impropriety than we are when we enforce the provisions of the Elections Act. The vote counts just the same, whether it is cast
under the very loose conditions provided by this Bill, or under the conditions provided by the Elections Act. We are dealing with something in which is involved the control of the affairs of Canada, and I think that when the Government comes forward with a measure that undertakes to introduce an entirely new principle and an entirely new method of procedure, we are entitled to say that we require adequate safeguards, of the same purport and effect as those cast around similar proceedings under the Elections Act. This proposed legislation absolutely fails in that regard, and in order to relieve the situation as much as possible, I want to reduce the possibility of varying the conditions unfairly or unjustly. That is why I move that this proviso be struck out. The amendment which the hon. minister has made with regard to the qualification of thirty days' residence provides that every man who is entitled to vote shall vote; it gives him the right to express his view. When you have done that, you have done what you can for the soldiers; now I ask you to do what you can for the body politic by ensuring that there shall not be any switching of ballots. This is an unpleasant subject to deal with, and I do not intend to go into the details. I have already pointed out to the hon. minister the conditions which prevail at Edmonton, Calgary and many other places, and if this provision remains in the Bill, there is an opportunity to switch the ballots where they will do the most good. My hon. friend knows that that is not desirable and proper; I assume that it is not his intention that it shall happen, but the provisions of the Bill make it entirely possible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The remedy the hon. gentleman offers seems to me to be intended to prevent the possibility of switching any ballots by providing by law to switch all the ballots. I think, looking at it from the standpoint of the interest of the body politic, that interest is that we should do everything we can do to keep these votes in the district to which they would naturally belong. The remedy the hon. gentleman suggests is to take them all, holus bolus, out of that district.


Frank Oliver: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot agree with him that that would be the best way to remedy the difficulty. As to the discussion about precautions, we can best deal with that when we come to the section which deals with the method of voting.


Frank Oliver: I wish to take exception to the comparison made by the minister that -instead of part of the ballots being switched all should be switched. There is no such proposal as to switch all the ballots by striking out this proviso. A large proportion of voters were resident in the districts in which they were entitled to vote for 30 days before their enlistment. While, theoretically or on the face of it, the hon. minister might be warranted in using the expression he did, as a matter of actual practice there is no sufficient warrant for his sweeping statement. I maintain that while there might be some restriction of the right of the voter to vote in the district in which he was entitled to vote originally, that would be very limited under the very desirable provision that he has made in regard to 30 days' residence. I think that the amendment which he proposes has relieved the situation so that this proviso, even from his own point of view, is not really necessary or advantageous.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister states that the difficulty I pointed out as arising from that proviso is met easily and effectively by some affidavit that can be prepared of the voter. I can find only one affidavit here dealing with that. With regard to putting safeguards around the vote, we might as well try to put safeguards around the rays of the moon and keep it from shining on the earth as to put safeguards around this poll. We have to be very careful that we do not use any strong language. The word "absurd," for instance, is prohibited and some other adjectives; but I venture to say there are no adjectives known to Worcester, Webster or Walker that would do anything like justice-
Mr. DuHERTY: I suggest that the hon. member try the Century dictionary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is not much new in Webster, Worcester or Walker, and if it will please my hon. friend I will add the Century to Webster, Worcester and Walker.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You ought to try it first.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And I may say to my hon. friend and to the hon. member for Calgary who have fathered this thing, that it is a thing of beauty in itself which both of them could fall down and worship without any fear of being guilty of any idolatry, for it is not like anything in the heavens

above nor on the earth beneath nor in the waters under the earth. The minister said yesterday that the affidavit was copied. Well, perhaps it was. I believe the minister when he said the Bill was not copied. I can readily understand that, because they certainly could not find anything like this to copy. It is a most serious thing for us to conceive that some 25,000 or 30,000, perhaps 50,000 men, of the most heterogeneous character of people that could be conceived of, and under the most adverse circumstances to obtain order or regularity, shall be let loose on polling day. They will be all scrambling for some position where they can poll their votes. There will be nobody there who will know them, nobody who can keep the slightest check as to who they are. As a rule, in towns and particularly rural districts, the presiding officer at the poll is well known and knows everybody in the district; and the presence of a respectable man sitting at the poll box is to some extent security for those who are interested in the election to see that the right thing is done. But here we are in the forests of northern France or somewhere with these men casting their votes before a stranger who knows nothing about them or where they should vote. One man could come in 30 times and vote if he was bad enough to do so. These men will be no better there than at home, and they would do it at home. The minister knows that there is personation by the hundred thousand in elections. If he does not, I tell him it is done. I tell him it was done in my county a year ago last February by his party, done over and over again; and now we are told upon the faith of the goodness of the people, because they crossed the Atlantic they lose all their sin and iniquities, they are washed away in the Atlantic, and these men are now so pure, honest and good that we offend the minister by suggesting that some safeguard should be thrown around this poll. He tells me there is an affidavit here that will prevent them from representing themselves as voting in one place whereas in truth they belong to another. I cannot find it. I think I should ask if there is such a proviso, and in doing so I to some extent relieve my own responsibility by giving another slight conception to the minister of my aversion to this Bill from stem to stern, and to everything about it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The observations of the hon. gentleman will come in better when we come to deal with the methods and precautions provided. I want to assure him,

for the moment, that if I had had any conception that I was. providing for votes for " hydrogeneous " people, I certainly would never have introduced this legislation. When we come to deal with this matter I shall certainly see that anything that gives votes to hydrogeneous people is eliminated.
Amendment of Mr. Oliver negatived; amendment of Mr. Doherty agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-distribution of ballot papers:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill originally provided for the sending of ballots not only to the commanding officer in Bermuda and to the secretary of the High Commissioner in England, but likewise to the officers commanding the forces at military posts in Canada. It is proposed by the amendments that will come in their proper order to provide that all soldiers in Canada shall vote on the ordinary election day in the ordinary and usual way, with this exception simply, that the ballot shall be provided for them at the places where they are and that they shall be allowed to so vote outside of the electoral districts in which they are to vote. I therefore propose to amend this section by striking out all reference to commanding officers at the bases and camps in Canada, and it will then read as follows:
2. A sufficient supply of ballot papers in form A of this Act and of envelopes for holding the same with affidavits in form B printed thereon shall be sent by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the officer in command of the Canadian troops at Bermuda and to the secretary of the High Commissioner for Canada in London, England, and such papers and envelopes shall be kept by such officer in command and the secretary of the High Commissioner.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I read the section, no date is set when it becomes the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to send out these ballots. Is it the intention that he shall send them out as soon as the Bill becomes law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It might be so. I had not in mind the necessity of fixing any particular time for doing that. The idea of this Bill is to create a situation where, if an election did come on, things would be in such shape that it would be possible for the soldiers to exercise their votes. Under the Bill it is proposed that these ballots shall be in the possession of the secretary to the High Commissioner, and of the officer at Bermuda, for use should occasion require. I would understand the Bill to mean that the ballots will be sent whether or not any one concerned contemplates an election in the near future.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a period of five or six weeks between the issuing of the writ and polling day. It seems to me that is quite sufficient.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the thing is to be -effective at all it is very important to do what can be done to make sure that the ballots get back in time. As regards Bermuda, it might be possible to send out the ballots and get them back within the five or six weeks; but it is difficult for us to calculate just how long it would take to send them across the ocean to the secretary of the High Commissioner, and then across the Channel, and into France, and so on. What we can do to reduce to a minimum the risk oif those ballots not being back in time, I think we ought to do. I cannot see that any evil is likely to result from putting a certain number of blank ballots in the hands of persons designated in this section. It simply puts us that much more forward at the time of the election writ. The ballots would remain in London. Another section provides that upon communication with the secretary of the High Commissioner, the machinery for getting these ballots to the proper officers can at once be set going. It is of course uncertain how long it may take to get the ballots to the soldiers and back here again. This provision was made simply because it was thought that there were advantages in avoiding delays so far as we could, and that no harm could come from having a certain number of blank ballots entrusted to the secretary of the High Commissioner.


William Pugsley: Should not this section be considered in connection with the suggestion which the right hon. leader of the Opposition has made, and which the minister said he would take into consideration. I doubt very much whether it will inspire public confidence to have a large number of printed ballots sent to the office of the High Commissioner, who is a member of the Government. We know how carefully ballots have always to be preserved, because one of the things which might be done by persons who took an interest in political matters, would be to have the ballots switched. There is no safeguard for keeping the marked ballot attached to the affidavit. That could be changed by a person desiring to do it. And, therefore, if there are to be commissioners, it seems to me the ballots ought to be placed in the custody of the two commissioners and kept in a place of safety.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, these ballots have no value in themselves until they are marked. While the office of the High Commissioner is mentioned in the Bill, a modification has been made to provide that they shall go to the secretary of the High Commissioner, and shall be kept by him. We were endeavouring to select a permanent official. After all we are trusting the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to have these ballots in his possession. Is there any more danger in entrusting them to the secretary of the High Commissioner?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Except that he is a
servant of the Parliament of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think the secretary of the High Commissioner is the servant of the people of Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The servant of the High Commissioner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, the High
Commissioner is the chief officer, but I do not understand that he appoints or dismisses the secretary at his will. So far, the secretary has certainly been treated as a permanent official. I suppose I am lacking in the capacity that enables one to see so far into a milestone as some people can, and to be quite as suspicious as it may be quite justifiable to be. But frankly, I am at a loss to know why it is more dangerous to have these blank ballots in the hands of the secretary to the High Commissioner than it is to have them in the hands of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery described as the secretary of Parliament as distinguished from the secretary to the High Commissioner, who is the servant of the people of Canada. But if anybody is afraid, and if I can work it out so that I shall not be depriving the soldier of his vote because of the delay in sending over these ballots until the last minute, I shall be glad to join in the distrust of the secretary. But, to be perfectly frank, I do not grasp why it is objectionable.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And I suppose you would have to take the ordinary precautions. I do not see there is any provision in this Bill for a special count to be made of the ballots. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has to answer for what he does and whenever he sends ballots out of his office he keeps a record of how ' many have been taken and the party to whom the ballots are issued has also to give an account of the number that he has received, the number that he has used and the number that he has returned. These precautions are enjoined upon those who have to do with the voting in an ordinary election and it seems to me that similar precautions ought to be required in this Bill.


William Pugsley: I have noticed that in the New Zealand Bill they seem to have thought it necessary to take some precaution in regard to the ballots because they provide that the electoral officer shall issue ballots only to those who make application for them. This Bill provides that whether the soldier is given a vote or not the ballot is to be distributed and it may be that these ballots may get into the hands of those for whom they were not intended.


Charles Joseph Doherty: While I cannot claim to have foreseen everything in the drafting of this Bill, I can olaim to have learned something from some of the observations which have been made. There would be some advantage if hon. members would let us get to the sections that deal with the matters in regard to which they have apprehensions so that I could explain them and we could make some progress. Hon. gentlemen are perfectly justified in criti-

cising the Bill as it is before them and in the form in which it was presented, but if that criticism were made when we came to the sections dealing with these particular subjects, I would be able to p-int out that we have improved upon the rsill as originally presented by providing that the ballot shall only be handed by the officer to such volunteers as take the affidavit. I must say that in thinking the matter over myself it did strike me tnat a very dangerous situation might result from distributing ballots around and I therefore propose to provide an amendment that shall require tnat a soldier, in order to receive the ballot, must first take the affidavit.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister
think I ought to be forgiven when I take the Bill as we have it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 not only think you
ought to be forgiven out I assure you you are forgiven.


William Pugsley: The Bill has been all
torn to pieces by the minister. He comes to-day with a new Bill which has not even been typewritten, which is not printed; none of us knows what it is, we are groping in the dark, and the minister is unfolding to us this wonderful production which none of us has had an opportunity of seeing.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is -some force in what the hon. gentleman says about the printing of the proposed amendments, which, as I understand, are very important.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, they are.


Robert Laird Borden: So, I think that at six o'clock we will rise and proceed with some other business.
Mr.*DOHERTY: I think I perhaps owe some apology to-hon. gentlemen for the fact that the Bill is not printed. I can understand that some inconvenience may be occasioned by it, but we would have avoided some of that inconvenience if there had been a greater readiness to deal with the Bill section by section. I admit that the Bill has called for a great deal of amendment. I am quite willing to admit even that some of the tearing to pieces of the Bill, which the hon. gentleman attributes to me, was contributed to by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and perhaps I ought to thank them for it. I announced at the beginning that I was willing to learn, and I am not ashamed to say that I have learned very many things.
I suppose my hon. friend will not bo offended if I say that I have learned some things from them, and I am trying'to put these things into operation. I would have been glad if time had made it possible for the Bill to be reprinted. I did ask to have a certain number of typewritten copies.


William Pugsley: If there were some typewritten copies it would be an assistance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I trust my hon. friends will forgive me for this.


William Pugsley: I will forgive you.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of such kindly forgiveness, might I suggest that this second section be allowed to pass?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: I am sure I am satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If you can find a method by which these ballots can be improved later on, we certainly will be glad to consider it.


William Pugsley: I hope ihe right hon. the Prime Minister will not in future say that this House unanimously agreed to the section because we allow it to be carried.


Robert Laird Borden: If you allow it to carry unanimously, I shall certainly not.


Charles Marcil: Some other inscription should be put on the ballot-something designating that it is for a Dominion general election or that it is for a soldier's vote.


William Manley German: I understand from the right hon. Prime Minister that we may rise and finish the Bill later, because clauses 3 and 4 are what I might call the iniquitous clauses of this Bill. The Minister of Justice has 'had two days on this Bill now, and he is only beginning to see light through it. I am afraid that before ihe gets through at all many days will have elapsed. I would suggest to the minister that he had better abandon it.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is going to take so long in the future there is all the more reason for utilizing the twenty minutes before six o'clock.


George Perry Graham: There are two things I mentioned yesterday I hat I want again to draw to the attention of the minister. I refer, first, to a member of the paymaster's staff or an officer who is himself a candidate having to do with the taking of tbi* vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have a clause providing for that.


George Perry Graham: The next matter to which I want to draw the minister's attention has reference to taking the votes of the soldiers in Canada. I want to urge upon him the necessity of providing all the .safeguards that we have in an ordinary election when taking this vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the clause I have in my mind will carry out the two suggestions which the hon. gentleman made yesterday. I propose to provide that no officer who is a candidate shall act in any capacity in carrying out this Act. Another provision in regard to the soldiers at home is that they shall vote under the same conditions as the ordinary voter votes with this exception that we will provide returning officers and polling places at the camps where the men can vote and register their votes although these votes will be applicable in other districts. In substance, the entire procedure provided for by the Dominion Elections Act is followed except in two things. For instance, the returning officer will not have to hold a nomination and he will have to take some means of ascertaining who the volunteers in the camp are who claim the right to vote, where they claim the right to vote and so "forth. But in so far as the method is concerned, when it comes to the actual voting, we provide that the deputy returning officer shall proceed as in an ordinary election and on the ordinary election day. When it comes to actual voting we propose to provide a deputy returning officer who would take that vote as nearly as possible as it is taken in ordinary elections, and to take it on the ordinary election day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will be taken on
election day ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Taken on election day.


George Perry Graham: It has been represented
to me that the censorship which is over all communications from the trenches might interfere with the secrecy of the ballot. The ballot is supposed to be absolutely secret and a man might write anything he likes upon it and some persons have represented to me that it will be liable to interfere with the strict censorship that is on everything that comes from the trenches.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is possible that if
the censors thought there were any occasion to censor correspondence addressed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery they

might open the ballots, and censor them, but that is rather a remote possibility, if it be a possibility at all. Of course, if necessary, the censorship authorities might be communicated with, and I fancy they would not be adverse to letting the ballots come to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


George Perry Graham: It would not do to let the censors open the packages, because the secrecy of the ballot would be destroyed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If these ballots, when
they arrive, indicate that they have been opened they will not be counted.


Mr. PROULX:: As I understand it, there will be only one day set for taking the vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do you mean in Canada?


Edmond Proulx: No, in the trenches.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We do not propose to take these votes on election day. The ballots will be sent to the officers who will issue them and take the affidavits and receive the votes and mail them back, but there is no provision that that should be done on one day, or as to when it should be done. If these ballots get back to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in time to be forwarded to the returning officer of the different electoral districts by polling day they will be counted; otherwise they will not.


Charles Marcil: The return of the candi-
*date will not be delayed by waiting for the ballots?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not proposed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose certain ballots should come to the returning officer in a riding, and the returning officer and the candidates and everybody knows that the votes sent there do not lawfully belong to that electoral district, and the proofs are positive as to that, what would happen?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The remedies in that case would be just the same for the soldier vote as they are with regard to the votes polled at any election which are polled as a consequence of a false oath. I have no doubt that, under such circumstances, upon a protest, the votes would be struck out.


Wilfrid Laurier: But if that offence were committed in this country, the man could be prosecuted for perjury?


Charles Joseph Doherty: To be perfectly frank, I do not contend that we could convict a man in this country for having committed! perjury in France or Belgium.


Wilfrid Laurier: And therefore you provide a penalty that you cannot enforce.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The penalties may not reach everybody, but they are provided for offences,, which I think the right hon. gentleman will find are quite susceptible of being committed in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: And out of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And out of Canada. The law will reach anybody within the limits of Canada, so that the penalties provided are not wholly nugatory. I do not think we would be justified in leaving out these penalties because they do not extend so far as we would like them to.


Frank Oliver: If an offence in connection with this Act should be committed by a soldier in Canada, could the legal punishment be applied to him?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know of no reason why the punishment is not susceptible of being applied to a soldier. There may be conditions prevailing in this country which might justify the military authorities resisting any attempt of the civil power to proceed against a soldier, but as an abstract proposition, when a man becomes a soldier he becomes bound by the military law, but he does not cease to be bound by the civil law.


Frank Oliver: As far as an abstract
proposition is concerned, of course the minister is right, but as a concrete proposition I am afraid he is not right; that is to say, as my hon. friend is aware, it would be a matter of very serious difficulty to undertake to enforce the law against a soldier on active service in Canada who by the terms of this special legislation is given the right to vote, and who contravenes the ordinary law of the land.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may be ignorant on
the subject, but I am not aware of that. I do not think that in any conditions that we can foresee at the present time in Canada, if a soldier violates the criminal law of the country, he will not be amenable to the civil tribunal. I have had occasion comparatively recently to look into the question with regard to certain things that have occurred; and so far as' my opinion may be valuable, I would say that taking conditions as they stand to-day in Canada, the soldier who would be guilty of a criminal offence would be liable to be tried before our ordinary crimirlal courts and 149*
dealt with accordingly. I may point to the instance of the militiamen who, for an act performed ostensibly in the course of their military duties-I refer to the recent unfortunate shooting accident alt Fort Erie- were brought before the criminal courts, and although it is true the jury found no bill, all that means is that the civil tribunal decided that there was no cause of action; but the fact that they were brought before those courts-and there has been no suggestion made that they were not amenable to those courts-shows that in the judgment of those courts there was no question as to their responsibility before a civil tribunal. In connection with another unfortunate instance of the same kind which occurred in Montreal, I had occasion to look as carefully as I am capable of looking into the question, and I certainly reached the conclusion that in that instance,, if it had been possible to reach the man concerned, he would have been liable to be prosecuted before the criminal courts of the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The principle of the law which the minister has laid down is well recognized, that is, that a soldier can be tried before our civil courts; but the the case which the hon. minister mentioned is a case where the crime was committed within Canadian territory. I do not suppose the minister says that if a soldier committed a crime beyond Canada, the ciiminal courts would take hold of him after he oanie back to Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said to the right hon. leader of the Opposition that we do not pretend to say we could prosecute a soldier or any other man in Canada for a crime committed outside of Canada.


Frank Oliver: There is a jurisdiction of the military authorities in civil matters to some degree. I am not altogether wrong in making that suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not say that there is no military jurisdiction, but a man may find himself subject to both military and civil jurisdiction. We might also have conditions in this country which would justify the military authorities in refusing to allow interference on behalf of the civil court. I hope we shall not have those conditions, and I see no reason to indicate that we shall have them in this country. I do not wish to be too dogmatic in any sense upon this subject; all that I would like to say is that the fact that a man becoming a soldier may become subject

to military law and therefore perhaps liable for an act which he has done under the military law and punishable for if, does not relieve him of the liability to be tried under the civil law, if that same act is an offence under the civil law.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate that; but I am trying to draw attention to the particular condition of men in military service who have transgressed the civil law more or less unintentionally, where the parties aggrieved assume to take action against them. My hon. friend has said that that action can be taken. I desire to say that there are serious difficulties in taking such action, and there are certain reasons of public policy which may be very well appreciated why that action should not be taken, and to that extent, the condition is not the same as in the case of an ordinary elector.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to suggest that a soldier is not in any respect under any circumstances in any different position from a man who is not a soldier. It would be pretty difficult to get down exactly what the different circumstances are. I move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Wilfrid Laurier: When will this discussion be resumed?


Robert Laird Borden: On Monday, if possible. I understand that there was to be some discussion with regard' to the report of the committee appointed to investigate the question of boots.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the first order,but the next order will be this?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: I moved the House into Committee of Supply for a purpose which I mentioned to the, right hon. leader of the Opposition at six o'clock. It seemed to me desirable that some informa-

tion should he afforded to the House as to the present condition of mobilization and organization of the Canadian expeditionary forces. I do not propose to introduce any unnecessary matter; and I will premise by giving a brief statement of what was announced last autumn 'as the intention of the Government, immediately after the departure of the first contingent.
On October 19, an announcement, which was carefully considered, was made to the effect that from that time until the end of the war, or so long as the War Office should deem it advisable, Canada would keep continuously in training and under -arms 30,000 men. It was also announced that further contingents should go forward from time to time as might be required, and as the War Office should be in a position to receive them; and that upon each contingent going forward a number of men equal to the number which had been so despatched should be further enlisted, so that from time to time, during the continuance of the war, contingents would go forward as required, and 30,000 men would be kept continuously under training in Canada.
About a month later, on November 23, a further announcement was made that the number of men so to be kept continuously in training in Canada should be increased from 30,000 to 50,000. It was then pointed out that the number of men that could be usefully trained in Canada was limited by the following considerations:
1.	Provision of necessary accommodation for them during the winter.
2.	Provision of arms and equipment. Training for a lengthy period without arms and equipment is not considered very effective.
3.	The necessity of organization by different arms and branches: infantry, cavalry, artillery, engineers, supply, transport, and medical services. A large surplus of some particular arm may be available, but is practically ineffective in itself.
4.	The ability of the British Government to receive and finally train expeditionary forces from Canada, in view of their enormous task in training an immense army in the British Isles,
In the same announcement, it was laid down as above mentioned, that after taking into account all these considerations, it had been determined that the number of men under training could be increased in the immediate future to 50,000 in addition to about 8,000 troops engaged ir

garrison and outpost duty; and that instructions would immediately be given that the additional number thus proposed should be enlisted forthwith. It was further announced that as soon as the second contingent should go forward, a further enlistment of 17,000 men would be made, bringing the total up to 108,000 men. It was also explained in the same memorandum, which was made public, that the forwarding of further expeditionary forces from time to time would be followed by the enlistment of men to take their places for training in Canada, as arranged in the proposals which had been made public on October 19.
I have very great pleasure in informing the committee that this programme has been carried out up to date. The result as given to the Minister of Militia by the Adjutant General shows that there are under arms and in training, including all ranks in Canada and abroad, the following numbers:
Overseas: the first contingent of the Canadian expeditionary force and the reinforcements which have since been sent forward, 35,420. In Bermuda, the Royal Canadian Regiment, 982. In St. Lucia, detachment for garrison, 100. In Canada, the second contingent of the Canadian expeditionary force, 22,272. Reserve Infantry battalions and Canadian Mounted Rifles, 27,079. Recruited and organized for overseas service, but not mobilized, 3,500. Total overseas forces, either abroad or organized at home, 89,353 men. In addition to this there are in Canada units of the active militia on active service, garrison and outpost duty, 9,777 officers and men, and the permanent force, 2,430 men, making a grand total of 101,560 men now under arms, either in Canada or abroad.
In order to enable the committee to estimate the numerical strength of that force, I may point out that it constitutes a force more than four times greater than the British force under Wellington's command at Waterloo; and it is nearly double the total force of either Wellington or Napoleon at Waterloo., I think that the House and the country may congratulate themselves that, in a period of not more than eight months, so great a force as this has been organized, and to a very considerable extent armed and equipped. The number of guns which went abroad with the first contingent is nearly as great as the total number of guns that Wellington had at his disposal in the battle of Waterloo. Of course, it is not a great army, compared with the enormous armies that have been marshalled on the plains of
Europe; hut considering the fact that this country has never intended or desired to possess a great military organization, I venture to say that the results achieved during that comparatively brief period may be regarded as thoroughly satisfactory, in view of the conditions of urgency under which the undertaking was carried out. We must not forget that a modern army is, to a very considerable extent, a great business organization. It is useless to have men without drill and training. It is equally useless to send them into battle without thorough organization in all the arms of the service to which I have alluded. It is also useless to organize an army without a thorough equipment of rifles, ammunition, guns, stores, supplies, commissariat, medical services and everything that goes to make up the wonderfully complex organization of a great modern army.
To summarize, there have been sent abroad over 36,000 men. and in fulfilment of the programme laid down last autumn there are in training in Canada for further expeditionary forces about 53,000 men; or if account is taken of the units of the active militia on active service and of the permanent force, there are in Canada now in training or under arms over 65,000 men.
I would like to observe also that the physique, character and intelligence of these men, both those already sent overseas and those now in training in Canada, are all that could be desired and such as reflect the greatest credit upon this country. Those of us who have had the opportunity, which has been afforded to me, to see the various regiments in different parts of Canada, and those who have had merely the opportunity to see those regiments which have passed through Ottawa or to observe the men who are carrying on their training upon the grounds of Parliament, must certainly feel that Canada has every reason to be proud of her sons who are about proceeding to the front to represent her cause and defend her interests upon the battlefields of Europe.
For further information I may refer to a memorandum which has been prepared for the Minister of Militia by the chief of the general staff. The first division under General Alderson and the Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry and a number of administrative units are in France. The Royal Canadian Regiment is in Bermuda, and a detachment of Canadian artillery has been sent to the West Indies. The Royal Canadian Dragoons, Lord Strathcona's Horse and the Royal Canadian Horse Artil

lory have been included in a mounted brigade which, under the command of General Seely, remains for the present in England. The second Canadian contingent, that is the second Canadian division, with certain units required for administrative purposes, is still in Canada; but as soon as it can be suitably accommodated in England its embarkation will proceed.
It is proper that I should make here a statement which may set at rest more or less comment in the press and more or less surprise which has been manifested from time to time at the delay which has taken place in sending forward the second contingent. That contingent could have been despatched so far as we are concerned, at least three months ago; and the War Office was fully informed of that fact and has been kept advised from time to time that it could be sent forward whenever desired. The date at which it shall go forward was arranged some two months ago. Hon. members will of course understand that it would be absolutely contrary to the public interest that I should give to them any information as to that date. I desire to make this statement for the purpose of setting at rest any suggestion that this contingent is not ready to proceed or that it has not been ready to proceed for the last three months. We know perfectly well the reasons on account of which the War Office have thought it not desirable that the second contingent should proceed to Britain at an earlier date. Those reasons commend themselves to the judgment of the authorities of the War Office and we have seen no reason whatever to differ from the view they have taken. Hon. gentlemen will remember that there are a great many essentials to be taken into account before an army can be sent to the front and all the different arms of the service organized. They will remember also that the enormous numbers of men now under training in Great Britain render it not the easiest task in the world for the authorities of the War Office to make provision for the proper accommodation and training of contingents coming from the overseas dominions; and they will perhaps readily believe that owing to the unfortunate conditions which confronted our men during the past winter upon Saldabulry plain the iaulthot-ities of the War Office and specially Lord Kitchener himself are thoroughly anxious that when the second contingent of the Canadian expeditionary force does go forward there will be no room for any possible criticism in that regard.

In the meantime it has been thought by the War Office that the training of the men could proceed as effectively in Canada as in Great Britain; and thus the date at which they are to go forward has been delayed. In all this we have followed precisely and absolutely the desire and the expressed wishes of the authorities of the War Office.
Up to the present no call has been made on the Canadian Mounted Kifles; but their turn is likely to come whenever the tactical situation changes in the western theatre of operations. I am informed by the Minister of Militia that we are within reasonable distance of the time when a Canadian expeditionary force of some 50,000 men will be serving overseas; and the chief of the general staff further advises him that in order to maintain that force in strength and efficiency a continuous supply of reinforcements, properly brained and fully equipped, will need to be provided; to say nothing of remounts and constant replenishments of material of every kind. The total necessities cannot be absolutely determined, because it is impossible to say with .anything like certainty how long the war will last; and it is obvious that the conditions which at present govern the conduct of the campaign in Europe are likely to change in the course of time. But we know there are certain data upon which the necessities of war can be calculated, and reinforcements must be prepared on a corresponding scale.
Now, with a view to this the Minister of Militia and Defence, in consultation with his officers, has made provision for. the establishment of overseas training depots, one or more for each arm of the service. Already some of the surplus units which embarked with the first contingent are being utilized for the purpose. These depots will be kept supplied by units maintained in Canada, and will furnish drafts for the units serving at the front. So far as can at present be foreseen, we are informed by the general staff that a total of 150,000 men will be required if the war should last another year: That is to say, an original force of 50,000; in addition to that 50,000 men sent overseas for reinforcements; and in addition to that 50,000 men kept under training in Canada, according to the announcement which was made in November last. It must be obvious that this is a very considerable undertaking, and that anything in the way of an absolutely cut and dried plan cannot be laid down at the present moment beyond that which I have already indicated to the

committee. In war the unexpected often happens, and out own arrangements must be subordinated to the needs of the Empire as a whole.
I should like also to read for the information of the committee a memorandum which goes into the whole subject in somewhat more detail, and which has been prepared for the Minister of Militia by tne Chief of the General Staff. There are certain tables annexed to this report in the form of an Appendix which I would like the committee to excuse me from reading, and as to which I would also ask the consent of the committee that they may appear in Hansard, as I think they will be useful for the information of the House. I mentioned this suggestion to the right hon. leader of the Opposition at six o'clock, and he told me there would be no possible objection to it. However, I will read the main part of the memorandum, and all that I think will be of interest at the moment.
Canadian Expeditionary Force-April 8, 1915.
Memorandum setting forth the present Organization and Status of Canadian Exper ditionary Force.
The Canadian expeditionary force as at present organized is made up as follows:
I.	The First Contingent-
1.	The 1st Division, C.E.F.
2.	Army troops and surplus units.
3.	Dine of communication units.
II.	The Second Contingent-
4.	The 2nd Division, C.E.F.
5.	Dine of communication units.
III.	A force of Canadian Mounted Rifles.
IV.	An Infantry Reserve.
V.	Depots.
1.	The First Division, C.E.F.
The first division (about 18,000 strong) is in the field. It includes :
Infantry: Twelve battalions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th) grouped into three brigades.
Mounted Troops: A squadron of cavalry and a cyclist company.
Artillery: Forty-eight 18 pr. and four 60 pr. guns, with ammunition columns.
Engineers: Three field companies.
Signal Service: A divisional signal company.
Supply and Transport: A divisional train (four companies A.S.C.)
Medical Service: Three field ambulances.
2.	Army Troops and Surplus Units.
The following units accompanied the 1st Division but are not included in it:
The Royal Canadian Dragoons and Dord Strathcona's Horse, " A " and " B " Batteries, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, an automobile machine-gun brigade, and six battalions, including the Princess Patricia's Canadian Eight Infantry.	,	,
The cavalry and horse artillery have been posted to a mounted brigade commanded by
Brigadier-General the Right Honourable J. E. B. Seely, D.S.O. The brigade Is still in England.
So also, it is believed, are the automobile machine-gun batteries.
Of the infantry, the 6th, Dth, 11th, 12th and 17th Battalions are in England. The 6th, composed exclusively of detachments from mounted corps, serves as a depot for the purpose of providing cavalry reinforcements; the 9th, 11th and 12th furnish reinforcements for the infantry; and the 17 th, to which no special rSle has been assigned, forms a general reserve.
The Princess Patricia's C. D. I., allotted to the 27th Division, is in France, where it has already distinguished itself.
3.	Dine of Communication Units.
Dine of communication units are the administrative units which are required for duty on the railways, roads and navigable waterways between an army and its base or bases of operation.
The units shown in the following list embarked with the 1st Division, C.E.F., or were organized after it arrived in England:
Headquarters infantry base depot.
Headquarters general base depot.
Divisional ammunition park (mechanical transport). .
Casualty clearing station.
Stationary hospitals (2).
General ho:p'tals (2).
Advanced depots of medical stores (2).
Base depot of medical stores.
Base hospital (Clivedon).
Sanitary section.
Divisional supply column (mechanical transport).
Reserve park.
Railway supply detachment.
Field butcher}-.
Depot units of supply (4).
Advanced remount depot.
Mobile veterinary sections (2).
Veterinary sections (2).
Base depot of veterinary stores.
Advanced base ordnance depot.
Base ordnance depot.
Base army pay and record office (Dondon)
Pay and sub-record office (Shorncliffe).
Overseas base pay depot (France).
Base post office.
II.	The Second Contingent.
4.	The 2nd Division, C.E.F.
Stations (subject to alteration
Divisional Headquarters.. .. Not yet selected.
4th Canadian Infantry Brigade.
Brigade Headquarters ..	.. Toronto.
18th Battalion	Dondon.
19th and 20th Battalions.. ..Toronto. 21st Battalion	Kingston.
5th Canadian Infantry Brigade.
Brigade Headquarters	
22nd (French-Canadian) Battalion	
24th Battalion	
25 th Battalion	 [DOT][DOT]
26th Battalion	
Montreal.
Amherst, N.S.
Montreal.
Halifax.
St. John, N.B.
6th Canadian Infantry Brigade.
Brigade Headquarters	Winnipeg.
27th and 28th Battalions.. ..Winnipeg.
29th Battalion	Vancouver.
31st Battalion	Cults .try.
23C8

.	Headquarters.
Divisional Mounted Troops. Subject to alteration.)
Squadron of Mounted Rifles.. London,
Cyclists	Toronto (with om
platoon at Halifax. )
Divisional Artillery.
Headquarters	Halifax.
4th Field Artillery Brigade .. Toronto, Guelph. 5th Field Artillery Brigade .. Winnipeg, Lethbridge.
7th Field Artillery Brigade .. Ottawa, Kingston
St. Jean, P.Q.,
Fredericton.
Heavy Artillery Battery and
Ammunition Column ..	.. Halifax.
Divisional Ammunition Colu'n. Halifax, Toronto,
Winnipeg, Mont-treal.
Divisional Engineers,
Headquarters	Ottawa.
4th, 5th and 6th Field Companies	Ottawa.
Signal Service.
Divisional Signal Company.. Ottawa.
Supply and Transport.
Divisional Train (Headquarters and 4 companies A.S.C.) St. John, N.B.
Medical Service.
No. IV Field Ambulance.. .. Winnipeg.
No. V. Field Ambulance.. ..Toronto.
No. VI Field Ambulance.. ..Montreal.
Note.-There are being mobilized two armoured motor machine-gun units, one at Toronto and the other at Montreal. But whether or not they are to be associated with the 2nd Division, C.E.F., has yet to be determined.
5.	Line of Communication Units.
The following line of communication units (possibly with others) will form part of the 2nd Contingent:
Divisional Ammunition Park (mechanical transport).
Casualty Clearing Station.
Stationary Hospitals:
No. 3 (London, Ont.).
No. 4 (French-Canadian).
No. 5 (Queen's University).
General Hospitals:
No. 3 (McGill University).
No. 4 (Toronto University).
Divisional Supply Column (mechanical transport).
Reserve Park.
Railway Supply Detachment.
Field Bakery.
Field Butchery.
Depots units of supply (2).
III.	Canadian Mounted Rifles.
When the Army Council decided on the form which assistance from Canada should take, disappointment was felt, especially in the West, at the exclusion of cavalry and mounted rifles.
So long as trench fighting continued, mounted troops were not required on the European continent, in the western threatre of operations. But they were required in Egypt, which was threatened with invasion; and it was not unreasonable to suppose that before long the

tactical situation in Belgium and France would undergo a change. Therefore it was decided to proceed with the organization of a body of mounted rifles; and thirteen regiments, as detailed below, are being mobilized:
Station.
1st C.M.R. Brigade. (Subject to altera.	tion.)
Brigade Headquarters.... Winnipeg.
1st Regiment	Brandon.
2nd Regiment	Victoria.
3rd Regiment	Medicine Hat and
Edmonton
2nd C. M. R. Brigade.
Brigade Headquarters. .. Sherbrooke.
4th Regiment	Toronto.
5th Regiment	Sherbrooke.
6th Regiment	Amherst.
Unbrigaded Regiments.
7th Regiment*	London.
Sth Regiment	Ottawa.
9th Regiment	Lloydminster.
10th Regiment	Regina.
11th Regiment	Vancouver.
12th Regiment	Calgary.
13th Regiment	Pincher Creek.
* Less one squadron sent to England as a reinforcement.
IV.	Infantry Reserve.
In Canada, in addition to the twelve " first line" battalions included in the 2nd Division, C.E.F., there are twenty-four " reserve " battalions in various stages of development.
They are (or will be) distributed as follows, and up to the present they have not been brigaded:	-
Headquarters.
Battalions.	(Subject to alteration. )
33	rd	London.34	th	Guelph.35	th	Toronto.36th	Hamilton.
37th (Sudbury district)... Not yet selected.
38th	Ottawa.
39th	Belleville.
40th	Amherst.
41st (French Canadian).. Quebec.
42nd	Montreal.
43rd	Winnipeg.
44th	Winnipeg.
4Eth	Brandon.
46 th	Regina.
47th	-. .. New Westminster.
48th	Victoria.
49 th	Edmonton.
50 th	Calgary.
51st	 Edmonton.
52nd (Thunder Bay and
Rainy River districts) .. Port Arthur.
53rd	Prince Albert.
54th (British Columbia,
Mainland)	Not yet selected.
55th (New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) .. Not yet selected.
56th (Alberta)	Not yet selected.
The foregoing battalions will be utilized as circumstances require; in Canada for draftgiving purposes, or in England as training depots, or as complete units at the seat of war.
V.	Depots.
In England, as previously stated, three infantry depots and a cavalry depot have already

been provided for the 1st contingent; the 23rd, 30th and 32nd Battalions have lately been sent over to serve as depots for the infantry of the 2nd Division; depots have also been formed for artillery, engineers, army service corps, etc.; and in Canada there are recruiting and training establishments for each of the units which the permanent force contributed to the 1st contingent and to the garrison of Bermuda.
An analysis of the numbers of the various forces, supplied by the Adjutant General, is hereto appended as Appendix "A".
Appendix " A."
Recapitulation.
Canadian overseas	Officers.	Other Ranks.	Total.forces 	
Units recruited and organized for overseas service but not mo-	3,698	82,055	85,753bilized	
Units of the active militia on active ser-	90	3,410	3,500vice in Canada.. . . Permanent force in	551	9,226	9,777Canada	147	2,283	2,430Total	4,486	96,974	101,460
Grand total, 101,460 all ranks.
Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Forces. Recapitulation.
Other
Officers, ranks. Total.
Divisional Headquarters.	10	67	77
Cavalry and Mounted Rifles-			
1st Contingent	69	1,255	1,324Reinforcements	6	151	1572nd Contingent	6	167	1733rd Contingent	360	7,051	7,411Total	441	8,624	9,065Artillery- 1st Contingent	133	3,279	3,412Reinforcements	25	792	8172nd Contingent	98	2,873	2,971Total	256	6,944	7,200Machine Guns-	1st Contingent	9	128	1372nd Contingent	29	308	337Total	38	436	474Engineers- 1st Contingent	39	708	' 747Reinforcements	50	502nd Contingent	21	706	727Training Depot	4	120	124Total	64	1.5S4	1,648Signal Service-	1st Contingent	8	192	2002nd Contingent	6	220	226Telegraph Operators . .	80	80Total	14	492	506
Other
Officers. Ranks. Total.
Infantry-
1st Contingent	825	20,000	20,825Reinforcements	108	3,291	3,3992nd Contingent	447	13,094	13,5413rd Contingent	588	18,775	19,363Royal Canadian Regi-	ment, Bermuda.. ..	27	955	982Total	1,995	56,115	58,110Cyclists-	1st Contingent	5	88	932nd Contingent	10	211	221Total	15	299	314Supply and Transport-	1st Contingent	62	1,552	1,6142nd Contingent	51	1,707	1,758A.S.C. Training Depot. .	18	160	178Total	131	3,419	3,550Medical Services- -	1st Contingent	122	1,317	1,439Reinforcements	42	392	4342nd Contingent	in	1,441	1,5521st Con. Base Depot of	Medical Stores . . . .	1	8	9Advance Depot	1	5	62nd Con. Base Depot of	Medical Stores . . ..	1	8	9Total	278	3,171	3,449Nursing Sisters-	1st Contingent	184	-	1842nd Contingent	238	-	238Total	422	-	422Remount-	1st Contingent	10	89	99Reinforcements	2	75	77Total	12	164	176Veterinary-	Mobile Veterinary Sec-	tions	2	26	28Veterinary Sections. . ..	5	221	226Base Depot Veterinary	Stores	1	5	6Total	8	252	260Ordnance- -	Canadian O r d na n c e	Corps	1	14	15Postal Service-	1st Contingent	2	14	16Postal Corps Depot, En-	gland	1	5	5Base Post Office, Bou-	logne	10	102nd Contingent	15	15Total. 	3	44	47Railway Construction	Corps-	2nd Contingent	12	492	504
Pay and Records

			
Base Army Pay and			
Record Office, Lon-			
don. England		4	2	5
Pay and Sub Record			
Office Shorncliffe, En-			
gland	2	2	4Overseas Base Pay Depot.	2	1 1	3Total	8	5	13
Grand total, 85,753 all ranks.

Troops on Active Service in Canada.
Recapitulation.
Other
Officers. Ranks. Total.
1st Divisional Area	4	182	1862nd " .	S3	1,749	1,8323rd " .	37	632	6694th " .	28	616	6445th " .	25	499	5246th " .	208	2,709	2,917Military District No.	10. .	31	458	489" " No.	11. .	134	2,342	2,476" " No.	13. .	1	39	40Total .. ..	551	9,226	9,777
Grand total, 9,777 all ranks.
Strength of the Permanent Force in Canada for the half month ending 31st March, 1915.
Unit and Headquarters.	m t-		
Q	sj	ci oo	O K	HRoyal Canadian Dragoons-	Regimental Dept., Toronto .	9	113	122Lord Strathcona's Horse (R.C.) - Regimental Dept., Winnipeg.. Royal Canadian Horse Artillery-	4	121	125R.S.A. Reg. Headquarters and	Dist. Est't, Kingston	3	41	44Supernumeraries, Kingston . .	1	3	4"C" Battery	2	163	165Total	6	207	213Royal Canadian Garrison Artillery-	Staff, Halifax	4	54	58Supernumeraries, Halifax.. ..	1	1Nos. 1 and 2 Companies, Hali-	fax	10	256	266Staff, Quebec	5	40	45Supernumeraries, Quebec .. ..	3	3Nos. 3 and 4 Co.'s, Quebec ..	4	94	98Staff, Esquimau	i	19	20No. 5 Coy, Esquimau	2	59	61Total	26	526	552Royal Canadian Engineers-	Regimental Staff, Ottawa. ..	19	2	21Supernumerary Staff. Ottawa.	55	551st Fortress Co'y, Ottawa . .	129	1292nd Field Co'y, Ottawa.. ..	59	593rd Fortress Co'y, Ottawa . .	18	18Supernumeraries, Ottawa.. ..	20	'20Total	19	283	302Royal Canadian Regiment-	Regimental Depot, Halifax . .	6	191	197No. 6 Station, Halifax	1	95	96Instr'l Cadre, Halifax	3	55	58Supernumeraries, Halifax .. ..	15	15Total	10	356	366C.P.A.S.C., Ottawa	16	156	172P.A.M.C. Ottawa	15	67	82CP.A.V.C., Ottawa	4	4	8C.O.C., Ottawa	26	296	322C.A.P.C., Ottawa	8	41	49

	0Q t-	[DOT] 2	
Unit and Headquarters.	o 6 o	o * a 5 oS	TotalC.M.S.C., Ottawa	75	79S.O.C., Ottawa	17	17School of Musketry, Ottawa. .	13	13School of Signalling, Ottawa .	8	8Total	677	750Grand total	. 147	2283 2340	
I venture to hope that the hon. members of the committee will not think that I have trespassed unduly upon their time or upon the time of the House in placing this information before them. vVe have been some months engaged in this war for the cause of liberty and democracy, in which the people of this Dominion in common with ail the citizens of the Empire take so deep and absorbing an interest, 'ine vast work which has to be carried on for the training organization and equipment of even one division so that it can effectively take the front can be better appreciated by those who have had something to uo with it than by those who have had no such experience. But when one C' mes to the organization of a force which at the present time comprises more than 100,000 men operating at the front or in training or upon duty in Canada, I venture to think that the House and the country will realize that a work of very considerable magnitude and importance has been performed in Canada during the past eight months.
Let me conclude by expressing, as I have on many occasions in the past expressed, the very deep appreciation which I am sure is shared by all my fellow citizens, of the magnificent response which has been given in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the call to arms. No one of us doubted that when the need came the people of Canada would be ready to respond to the call but we rejoice that in every province and, indeed, in every community in Canada the response has been so warm, so loyal, so splendidly patriotic that every one of us feels to-day more proud than ever he did before of this great Dominion.


Frank Oliver: I
do not know that it would be out of place if one whose business in Parliament it is to criticise should endeavour to express appreciation of the tremendous task that has lain upon the shoulders of the Government of this country since the beginning of the war, and in measured terms and with all due reservation express appreciation of

the manner in which those great responsibilities have been carried out. We do not at all forego our right, or, I should say, our duty of criticism.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: We desire to be considered as at one with the Government in every endeavour they have made to see that Canada takes her proper part in the tremendous struggle which is now in progress. We realize, as we believe our colleagues on the other side of the House realize, that this is not a fight in which Canada is taking part as an outsider, but that it is a fight in which Canada is taking part for her existence and for her liberty, as a part of that Empire which stands for liberty, and has stood for liberty for a thousand years. The failure of the arms of the Allies in the present struggle would undoubtedly mean the destruction of the autonomy of Canada and the liberties that we enjoy. This is not a fight to preserve the neutrality of Belgium; this is a fight to preserve the existence of the British Empire, and every man who feels that the power and the prestige of the British Empire is the best guarantee of the liberty of Canada and of the principle of liberty throughout the world, has only one duty in this war, and that is to do everything that he can to support those who are taking part in it.
At the moment the responsibility of dealing with Canada's share in the war rests upon -our friends on the other side. We may criticise what they are doing, or the way they are doing it, but when we do make that criticism it is not with a desire of hampering their efforts, but rather with the hope that whatever has been done may still be done, and, if possible, done better. May I say that the details of the work of creating an army as large as my hon. friend has said, and much larger, in fact, than that which decided the fate of the world at Waterloo, is in itself a great task. In a country with a widely scattered population, in a country whose people for a full hundred years have had virtually no practical knowledge of war, where we have had our attention entirely occupied with advancing material interests, when the occasion arose, and when the business of war had to be taken up, it necessarily took some time for the change of ideas to penetrate the public mind. It was hard for those who had been born in times of peace, whose fathers had lived in times of peace, whose grandfathers only could remember
a condition of war, to realize that we were face to face with circumstances which called for the sacrifices of warfare. I doubt if our people have fully realized yet how terrible this war is or how terrible the urgency of it is, but from day to day there has grown upon our people that realization, and I feel and believe with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that Canada has responded nobly to the call as far as it has gone.
However hopeful we may be of the early and victorious closing of this tremendous struggle, we can have no assurance as to the date at which it will take place. It is more than possible that, in so far as Britain is concerned, the war is only beginning, and it is only in the months that are to . come that we throughout the Empire, and particularly here in Canada, will be able to realize to the full what the horrors and sacrifices of war are. I have every confidence though, that, whatever occasion arises, our people will meet it with a good heart, and that we will face whatever fate brings us with a courage and a devotion that will ultimately bring victory.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. ROBERT' ROGERS (Minister of Public Works), the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Blain in the 'Chair.
Robert Rogers: -
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ended March 31, 1915, the sum of $14,766,499.3.9 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Rogers: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st of March, 1916, the sum of $156,496,333.73 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROGERS thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 123, for granting to
[Stage Direction]
His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1915, and the 31st March, 1916.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and the second time, considered in committee and reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 9.53 p.m.
Monday, April 12, 1915.