1916-02-28

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for year ended March 31, 1915 (English and French versions).-Mr. Blondin.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: At the last
sitting of the House I inquired when we might expect the papers ordered by the House concerning the commandeering of wheat, and I was told that I would have an answer to-day.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I think the
Minister of Trade and Commerce is prepared to make a statement on the subject to-day.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I am prepared
to make a statement on the subject when the House reaches the Orders of the Day, but it would not be debatable then, and perhaps my right hon. friend would rather have it deferred until an occasion when it might be discussed.


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is
any correspondence on the subject, is my right hon. friend prepared to place it on the table of the House?


George Eulas Foster: There is correspondence on the subject, the Order for which was passed by the House. But at the time of the passing of the Order I stated there would have to be some discre-

tion used as to what would be brought down. The papers are now being made up; but they are not yet ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: We had better wait until they are ready.



STRIKE IN MAXIM-VICKERS WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. VERVILLE:: Has the Minister of Labour any information respecting the strike in the Maxim-Vickers works, Montreal?	_	,


Mr. CROTHERS:: I have no further information, except that efforts are being made to adjust the matter. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he would speak to me in private about these matters, as it is not considered in the public interest that they should be made public. I shall be glad to give him in private any information I have touching the matter.



POSITION OF J. K. SCAMMELL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Air. CARVELL:: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and also of the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) to a letter which appeared in the St. John Telegraph on Friday last, and which is signed by J. K. Scammell. I do not think it necessary to read the whole letter, but the substance of it is this: Mr. Scammell offered his services for overseas in August, 1914. He had been employed as an engineer in the Public Works Department, and he asked for leave of absence, which was granted, to go to Halifax to qualify as a lieutenant. He now finds that he has been practically retired from the position which he held. I would like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to their positions in the Civil Service of men like Mr. Scammel, who volunteered for overseas service.


Air. ROGERS:: I have not all the facts in my mind concerning Mr. Scammell's case, but, as I recall, Mr. Scammell had been making certain reports on public works, which were recently discovered by the department to be not at all correct. Some action has been taken but I do not remember at the moment just what, I will let my hon. friend know to-morrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Might we not have a declaration of the policy of the Government in regard to .such cases?


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In reference to the position of officials of the different departments who have joined the overseas forces. The gentleman referred to is, I understand, a lieutenant in the 104th battalion.


Robert Laird Borden: The policy of the Government was set out in Orders in Council which were laid on the Table at the commencement of the session, and which formed the subject of debate when, I think my hon. friend was absent. If he will read that debate, and look at the Orders in Council, he will see what the policy is, so far as it has been formulated.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Air. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of James W. Owen-Air. Aliddlebro-in Committee.
Air. NESBITT:: This is the Bill that was up the other night, when there was nobody present to explain it. Is there any one here now to explain it?


Air. HAZEN:: The hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill is not present. I understand he went home on Friday night and has been detained in consequence of the train service being disorganized. I have looked at the papers in the Department of Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over patents, and am prepared to explain the Bill ito the committee.
In this case an inventor named Owen obtained a patent in the United States for a device in connection with a sound reproducing machine, on the 9th December, 1915. He also, about the same time, obtained patents in several other foreign countries for this invention. The Canada Patent Act, section 8, requires that an inventor who has obtained a patent in a foreign country should make his application in Canada for a patent within one year of the time at which he has obtained this foreign patent. This was not done, and he asks an extension of time. He presented reasons for this request which were satisfactory to the committee and they reported in favour of the Bill. The facts are that, well within the prescribed time, Air. Owen gave the necessary instructions to a prominent firm of patent attorneys in the United States to make application in Canada for a patent, but that owing to the long illness, resulting in the death, of the patent attorney in whose hands this business had been placed, the matter was overlooked


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not at the meeting of the Private Bills Committee when this Bill went through and therefore I suppose I ought not to come here and find fault. But, it seems to me that we might as well repeal our whole Patent Act as to allow Bills of this kind to be continually put through Parliament. It does not seem to make any difference how negligent a man may have been with reference to carrying

out the provisions of the Patent Act; if he has money enough to pay his fee, and retain some solicitor to make a reasonable excuse, he can get his patent through. This has been going on ever since I have been in Parliament, and I must say that the nuisance is getting worse every year; in fact, I think there have been more of these Bills going through Parliament in the last three years than during all the time since I first came to Parliament. You have heard the explanation which the hon. the acting Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hazen) gives this afternoon, and he gives it, of course, in perfectly good faith. A man hands over such an important thing as the obtaining of a patent for something which he looks upon as being valuable and he says that he places it in the hands of a solicitor who becomes ill.	Is there any man in this
House innocent enough to believe that that man did not know that this solicitor was ill, that a man who takes the trouble to obtain a patent in a foreign country is not looking after his interests sufficiently to know that his solicitor is ill? I do not believe it at all. That may be a very strong statement to make, but I have seen too many of these excuses put before this House during the last ten or eleven years and I am beginning to look with suspicion on every one of them. I will vote against the passage of this Bill. I do not know who the parties are and I do not know what the value of the patent may be. It may be worth $10,000,000, or $100,000 or it may not be worth $1. I think the time has come when we should stop that sort of business. We have enough provisions in the Patent Act by which any reasonable omission can be corrected by the patent office itself. I had a case not long ago where an American manufacturer honestly came to Canada in order to try to obtain a factory in which to manufacture his invention, but on account of the factories being so taken up with the manufacture of munitions of war he was unable to -carry out his purpose. He made an affidavit setting forth the facts and he put it before the patent office. They held that this affidavit was sufficient and they gave him an extension of time for one year within which to commence the manufacture of the patented article in Canada. But this man has entirely slept upon his rights; he has not applied to the patent office in Canada within one year of the time at which he obtained his patent in a foreign country. To show the fallacy of granting this extension: there are a

number of other reasons for which a patent may become void, and one of the principal ones is that if the article has been on sale in any foreign country for a longer term than one year prior to making the application in Canada, the applicant cannot get his patent here. We have no evidence that this article may not have been on sale two or three years in the United States before the application was made in Canada, and if that is so the patent never should be granted. Yet, by this Bill, the man is reinstated with all his rights, no matter how much he may have violated the provisions of the Canadian law before that, the only palliation being that there is something like a year taken off the life of his patent at the other end eighteen years hence. I do not think any patentee will feel that he is called upon to make any very great sacrifice by tire fact that his patent shall be for seventeen years instead of eighteen years. I make these observations without any feeling in the matter I am registering this protest on principle, and I hope the time will come when this Parliament will 'Stop reinstating men in patent rights when (they have either violated, or neglected to observe, practically every provision of the patent law of Canada.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Will the minister
tell the committee whether the person asking for this exceptional treatment is a Canadian or belongs to some other country?


John Douglas Hazen: He belongs to the town ol Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. That is set out in the preamble of the Bill. I may say, in regard to what has been said by my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Car veil) that I do not know who this gentleman is, nor do I know anything about him, but it would appear that he has acted in good faith in regard to the matter. That, of course, was a matter for the Private Bills Committee to ascertain and he satisfied the committee by affidavits that are produced here and which show his bona fides. It seems to me that under circumstances of this sort, when a man swears that he, still within twelve months of the time when he obtained his patent in the United -States, placed his business in the hands of a reputable patent attorney with instructions to make his application in Canada, that the attorney became ill, that the matter was neglected and that, in consequence of that fact, he did not make his application, there is reason which would justify this Parliament in granting this extension. The case presented is one that seems to have justified the Private Bills Committe in coming to a conclusion to recommend it. Apparently there could be no reason why he should delay his application for twelve months after he obtained his patent in the United States. If he actually did not, and if he gave instructions to a reputable attorney to have this patent taken out in Canada and if, through the illness of that attorney, and through no fault of the applicant, that was not done, there seems to me to be a fair case made out why this Parliament should exercise its right and grant him the right to take out a patent under the patent law of the land for the length of time which the patent would have run if taken out in the first instance within the time provided by law.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Notwithstanding the explanation made by the minister, I would like to see this Bill go back to the Private Bills Committee. I would like to see the ' Private Bills Committee bring this man before them. It is a simple matter to draw an affidavit which means nothing and yet is not perjury. He says that he put this matter into the hands of a solicitor who has since died. That may be all true and yet there may be no excuse in it. I would like to know if the attorney had a partner, a well-organized office, a number of clerks in his office, or somebody else, to carry on his business, and I would like to know whether all the business in that solicitor's hands was allowed to lapse for months because the solicitor was ill and subsequently died. I venture to say there Is not a word of that kind of explanation in the affidavit and yet I dare say that every word in the affidavit may be true, but even if the condition that I have suggested is true it is no excuse why this Parliament should step in and rectify these blunders and omissions. A patent is an important thing. A mSn who invents a new or useful article is entitled by law to protection in the manufacture and sale of that article so long as he complies with the laws of that country. If he does not comply with the laws of the country he is not entitled to protection -and the people of this country generally are entitled to the use of that article. Every day we are deliberately thrusting away from, our own people the right to the use of something which some foreigner has invented and has failed by his negligence to protect himself in the use of in Canada; and yet, we are stepping in and

giving him these valuable rights. I would like to see this Bill go back to the Private Bills Committee and I would like to see the Private Bills Committee establish the precedent of bringing these gentlemen before the committee and having them sworn so that we would have a chance of examining and cross-examining them in order to see if the real reason has been given for the negligence in this and other cases.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation in regard to this Bill would vary somewhat depending on whether the applicant for exceptional treatment was a citizen of Canada or whether he came from some other country. After all, what is done under the Patent Act is to give certain persons, by way of a premium upon invention, the exclusive right to manufacture and sell the particular articles which they have produced. The inventor is given that privilege at the expense of the public in Canada who must pay tribute to him either by royalty or in some other way is they desire to use the article. In regard to the question of amendments to the patent law, I have deemed it my duty on various occasions to note with some care the measures which have been submitted to this Parliament giving special rights to parties who made lapses and departures from the statute. In most cases, although various reasons were put forward by the parties, it would seem that, as a matter of fact, the party had discovered that the article which he had produced had proved to be of some greater value than he had at first suggested and that the neglect to comply with the statute was due to a cause of that kind more than to any reason such as could be forward in this particular case. What is the proposition before the committee? That this man living in Lansdowne, Pa., who has an article which he has patented in the United States, and which could not be patented in Canada under the procedure more than a year after the date of having obtained the patent there, has forfeited his right of imposing on the Canadian people the exclusive right of manufacture and sale which would otherwise be his under the Patent Act. It is all very well for a solicitor to present a Bill to this House and give as a reason that his attorney was ill and that therefore the matter was neglected. I see no reason whatever why Parliament should go outside of the Patent Act and give any special rights to this gentleman who happens to belong to another country. This is very exceptional treatment and if the law as it has been laid down, and has not been amended, is to be disregarded,
I Mr. Carvell.'J
do not let us disregard it for people outside of Canada who are to be given special privileges. By what reason are we to say that manufacturers in Canada could not go on and produce the article which this gentleman could have patented freely and without any restriction? Why should we impose a tax, by way of royalty, on anybody in Canada who wanted to produce it for the benefit of this gentleman in the United States who did not choose to have his business looked after? The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) says that this gentleman engaged an attorney in the United States, and that the attorney fell ill and, did not attend to the business. I submit, as a professional man, that it would be very curious indeed if that occurred. Was there only one lawyer in that firm; was there no other lawyer looking after the business of this attorney? What was happening to all his other interests while he was prevented from attending to such an ordinary matter as looking after this patent? Even supposing that the claim submitted is true, and I suppose we must presume, prima facie, that it is true, that is not sufficient for this Parliament to go out of its road to give to an alien such advantage over the Canadian people.


John Douglas Hazen: In view of the opposition which has developed to the Bill, as its promoter is not here, and as there seems to be present very few members of the Private Bills Committee, who have heard, the evidence, perhaps it would be better to report progress. I therefore move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	When was Joseph O'Brien, of Dingwall, Nova Scotia, appointed postmaster and telegraph operator at that place?
2.	When was he removed, and what were the reasons for his removal?
3.	Who was appointed to the office which he held?
4.	Was there an investigation held in his case? If so, who was the investigator, and what was the cost of the investigation?
5.	Was there a written report filed by the investigator? If so, when?
6.	Who was appointed or sent to instruct the new operator at Dingwall, and at what cost to the department?

7.	Who is the operator at Dingwall at present?
8.	Was there more than one appointment made to office of telegraph operator at Dingwall since Joseph O'Brien was reported as dismissed?
9.	If the second appointment was made, who instructed that appointee, and at what cost to the department?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Was appointed postmaster of Dingwall,
N.S., on the 1st December, 1907, and agent of Government telegraphs on 1st November, 1907.	[DOT]
2.	On 11th September, 1915, owing to his inability to perform the duties of the office satisfactorily.
3.	Mr. David Macdonald who resigned in favour of Mr. Gordon W. McPherson.
4.	No investigation was held; charges of closing the office for days at a time and sending no meteorological reports were made by Mr. R. F. Stupert, Director at Toronto, and were admitted by Mr. O'Brien.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Miss Bingham was sent to instruct McDonald but instructed McPherson; cost ninety dollars.
7.	Gordon W. McPherson.
8.	Yes, answered by No. 3.
9.	Answered by No. 6.


NORTH ONTARIO MINES.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What Quantity of metal, extracted from the North Ontario mines, has been exported to the United States for refining and finishing, during the years 1512, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	What is the total value of the mining products thus exported?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Department of Customs:	Export
entries in Department of Customs do not indicate in what part of Ontario metal shipped from Canada to United States originates.
Department of Mines: The compilation of statistics of exports is not within the scope of the Department of Mines.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PAYMENTS TO H. B. DUCHEMIN.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is the gross amount paid to H. B. Duchemin, barrister, of Sydney, N.S., by the present Administration for his services since October, 1911?


Mr. BLONDIN:: Agriculture Department, $75; Customs Department, $813.70; Interior Department, $15; Marine Department, $1,181.25; Militia and Defence Department, $36.80; Post Office
Department, $817.50; Public Works Department, $371.25; Railways and Canals Department, $1,365; total, $4,675.50.


WAR EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENTS.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What were the sums paid on war account during* the present fiscal year to January 31, 1916, by the several departments of Government outside of the Militia Department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Agriculture, $3,758.04; Auditor General, $3,271.27; Governor-General's Secretary, $516.64; External Affairs, $8,046.76; Finance, $73,428.12; Indian Affairs, $4,909.39; Inland Revenue, $20,420.33; Interior, $35,033.74; Justice, $1,218,643.75; Labour, $529.97; Marine, $10,383.37; Mines, $927; Naval Service, $5,280,568.48; Post Office, $272,372.54; Privy Council, $12,510.56; Public Works, $76,000.05; Railways and Canals, $125,027.61; Secretary of State, $15,029.80; Trade and Commerce, $9,458.10.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation at this session of Parliament to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The matter is under
consideration.


ASSISTANT CLERK OF ROUTINE AND RECORDS.
*Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint, by statute, as Assistant Clerk of Routine and Records, Mr. M. Crossley Sherwood, son of the secretary of the Conservative Association, Ottawa?
2.	Has the Speaker given instructions to include in the Supplementary Estimates an item to appoiht by statute Mr. H. Crossley Sherwood as Assistant Clerk of Routine and Records, as a salary of $1,600 per annum?
3.	If so, why is the Civil Service Commission being ignored in filling this position?
4.	Has Mr. H. Crossley Sherwood passed the-Civil Service examinations?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not the
practice to give information as to Supplementary Estimates before they have been submitted to His Royal Highness the Governor General and approved by him.


SUSSEX BATTALION MEDICAL OFFICER.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Who is the Medical Officer of the battalion now being formed at Sussex, N.B. ?
2.	Has Dr. Burnet, of Sussex, N.B., been doing any portion of this medical inspection work?
3.	If so, what amounts have been paid Dr. Burnet since August 1, 1914?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Captain David D. Freeze.
2 and 3. Yes; $637.50 for examination of recruits for 104th Battalion.


ACCOMMODATION FOR SOLDIERS AT CAMPBELLTON.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Wer* the engine houses of the Intercolonial railway at Campbell ton, N.B., fitted up for the soldiers?
2.	If so, were tenders called for to do the work? If not, who was appointed to look after the work?
3.	Were tenders called for material supplied In connection, with the fitting up of the said engine houses? If not, who has supplied said material, and to what extent and value?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	The shops of the International Railway at Campbellton, N.B., (not engine houses of the Intercolonial Railway) were fitted up for soldiers.
2.	No. Work done by day labour under
supervision of Lieut. Cavanagh and Staff Sergt. Collins.	[DOT]
3.	No. Materials were purchased direct
as follows: Lumber, from D. A. Stewart, $1,435.02; plumbing, from II. Marquis, $386.76 ; 20 heating stoves, 1 jacket heater, from A. H. English, $539.17;	3 cooking
ranges, from Enterprise Foundry Co., $124.50; 1 12-seat w.e., from Amherst Foundry Co., $204.43; sewerage, from town of Campbellton, $327.77; electric light fixtures, from H. Marquis, $177.12. These accounts are being examined by the Engineering Department, and, where not found fair and reasonable, will be reduced.


CAMPBELLTON PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Were repairs alterations and Improvements made to the post office and customs building at Campbellton, N.B. ?
2.	If so, were tenders called for the work, and how much did it cost in each case?
3.	Was the sidewalk repaired in front of said post office? If so, by whom, and how much did it cost?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1 and 2. Yes, in April, 1915, fire escapes were erected; two tenders were received, and contract was awarded to the lowest for $243. In November, 1915, the customs offices were transferred from ground floor to basement; new partitions, doors, etc., were built under agreement with D. A. Stewart for $310. Cleaning, tinting, etc., done under agreement with W. Metzler for $75. In 1913, grading, wire for, and erecting fence cost $103 under agreement.

3.	Yes, in 1913, sidewalks were removed and repaired by D. A. Stewart at a cost of $213.


MAJOR G. OGILVIE, R.C.A.
Mr. LAMARCHE:: 1.	Is Major G. Ogilvie, R.C.A., in the employ of the Government at Quebec?
2.	If, so, since when, and what are his duties?
3.	By whom was he appointed, and on whose recommendation ?
4.	Was Major Ogilvie born in Canada or in
Great Britain?	.
5.	What rank and grade did Major Ogilvie
hold in the Canadian Militia before his appointment?	>
6.	What rank and grade does he hold in the British army?
7.	What special qualifications has he in regard to explosives, and what experience has he had before entering the employ of the Government?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	No, not now.
2-7. Answered by No. 1.


WAR SUPFIABS-REMOUNTS.
John Howard Sinclair: What is the average price paid by the Department of Militia and Defence for remounts for the use of the Canadian forces, from the opening of the war until March 31, 1915?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Average, $162.53.


PAY OP CANADIAN SOLDIERS.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	(a) What proportion of the pay of Canadian soldiers is withheld by the department while in Canada, (b) while in England, and (c) while at the front, respectively?
2.	Is any portion so withheld from those soldiers who have assigned any portion of their pay to dependents?
3.	When will the amounts so withheld be paid?
4.	In case of the death of such soldier, to whom will the drawback be paid?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	(a) While in Canada, $10 is withheld from the pay of all soldiers enlisted for service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for a period of six months, as a set-off for issues of clothing, etc. If the man deserts or is discharged for misconduct during this period, the amount is forfeited, (b) While in England, 50 per cent of the soldier's pay is withheld, and, in the case of men guilty of misconduct, the General Officer Commanding is authorized by Order in Council to direct that men shall only receive the same rate of money as paid to British soldiers. (c) While at the front, to comply with the requirements of the British Army, pay is only issued in limited amounts of

six dollars a month, but men employed at various stationary bases receive larger
[DOT]exception of the superintendent himself, is said to he entitled by law to go any further than $1,800?
amounts.
2.	Where there is an assignment of pay, a sufficient amount is withheld, spread over several months, to build up a credit equivalent to the amount assigned, and this is kept in hand- as a credit balance so long as the assignment is in force. When once this credit balance is in hand, if the assignment amounts to 50 per cent or more of the men's pay, no further amount is withheld.
3.	Amounts withheld are paid to the men on return to Canada or on .discharge from the Force, except that in the case of men serving at the front who only receive limited amounts while in the field, when they proceed on leave to England they receive any balance up to 50 per cent of their pay
4.	In the case of death, all sums standing to the credit of the soldiers are dealt with in accordance with the law, and are paid to the heirs or other beneficiaries who may be entitled to the same.


TONNAGE OF CANADIAN VESSELS.
John Howard Sinclair: (a) What is the aggregate net tonnage of all steam vessels standing on the Canadian Register in 1910, and (b) the increase each year since to date?


John Douglas Hazen: (a)	337,721.	(b) 1911,17,864;	1912,	34,149;	1913,	39,562;	1914,
25,772; 1915, 7,387. (Approximately).


W. LLOYD CARKNER.
[Stage Direction]
'.Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not Mr. W. Lloyd Carkner, formerly employed as a member of the railway mail service at Montreal, has been transferred to the Post Office Inspector's Office in the same city, dating from the 6th of July last?
2.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Mr. Carkner was appointed deputy inspector in place of Mr. Elie Maurault, deceased?
3.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Mr. Carkner performs any of the duties of his office, and if he is still acting as a member of the office of the superintendent of the railway mail service at Montreal?
4.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not Mr. Carkner is being paid by and belonging to the Post Office Inspector's Office, in charge of the railway mail service branch at Montreal ?
5.	Is the Government aware as to whether or
not Mr. Carkner was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of deputy inspector Elie Maurault, and is being paid as such, and at the same time performs the duties in an office independent from the Post Office Inspector's Office?	.
6.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not Mr. Carkner's salary is continued as far as $2,500, while no one in the superintendent of the railway mail service office, with the only
Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	By Order in Council, dated 7th August, 1915, Mr. William Lloyd Carkner, first-class clerk, grade " A," in the office of the superintendent of the railway mail service, Montreal, was promoted to the position of assistant post oflice inspector at Montreal, as from the 6th July, 1915.
2.	Mr. Carkner was promoted to replace Mr. Elie Maurault, deceased.
3.	Since the date of his promotion, Mr. Carkner has been employed partly in connection with work attached to the -post office inspector's office and partly in connection with work attached to the office of the superintendent of the railway mail service. Owing to the efficient services and close knowledge of the work connected with the office of the superintendent of the railway mail service, it has been necessary for the department to make use of his services in the way mentioned until arrangements had been made for his work in that office to be taken over by another official. This has now been arranged. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the work now
' done in the office of the superintendent of the railway mail, service was originally transacted in the office of the post office inspector and is, therefore, of a similar nature.
4.	Mr. Carkner's name has been on the pay-list of the post office inspector since the 1st September, 1915.
5.	Answered by 1, 2 and 3.
6.	As assistant post office inspector, Mr. Carkner was appointed at the minimum salary of $1,800 a year, which can be increased by annual increments of $100 up to a maximum of $2,500. The promotion did not give Mr. Carkner any immediate increase in salary.


MAJOR DE LOPASSEY.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is there an officer named Major De Lo-passey employed in the fifth military division at Quebec?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	Is the said Major De Lopassey authorized to require that the contractors for military works in the said division supply him with their reports and accounts in English and to refuse such as are written in French?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In charge of engineer works in 5th
Division.	_
3.	No.	.


RIVIERE OUELLE WHARF.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Did Dr. Michaud, of St. Pac6me,i comity of Kamouraska, sell wood and materials for the wharf at Riviere Ouelle during the years 1914 and 1915?
2.	If so, what materials were sold by him, and what were the quantities and prices of such wood and meterials?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No wood nor materials were purchased in the fiscal years 1914 or 1915, but during the calendar year 1915 the following materials were purchased: 29,923 feet spruce at ,$33, $688.28; 2,572 feet 2-inch timber at $28, $72.01; 5,529 feet 3-inch timber at $23, $127.16; 3,073 feet plank at $23, $70.67; cartage, 9 loads at $2, $18; 503 feet finished plank at $28, $14.64; 506 feet heavy iplank at $28, $16.68; 6,064 feet 3-inch spruce at $23, $144.07 ; 2 windows at $4.50, $9; cartage, 8 loads at $2, $16; total, $1,176.51.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ADVERTISEMENTS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What amount was paid to Mr. Auguste Bourbeau, or his newspaper L'Echo des Bois-France, at Vietoriaville, Quebec, by the Post Office Department for advertisements or announcements of tenders for mail contracts, either for regular mails or for rural deliveries, during the financial year 1915-16?
2.	Is it the practice of the Post Office Department to give such advertising and publication to newspapers that are neither published nor printed, nor received in the localities, districts or counties through which- such rural delivery and such mail-carrying is done?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	$595.60.
2.	The practice of the department is to advertise in newspapers which are published or have considerable circulation in the districts concerned.


IMMIGRATION.
[Stage Direction]
* Sir WILFRID LAURIER:
Did the Government take up with the British Government the question of greater co-operation in immigration, in accordance with an offer contained in a letter from the Right Honourable John Burns, President of the Local Government Board to Mr. Arthur Hawkes, published by authority of the Hon. Robert Rogers in a special report on immigration, in May, 1912? If so, what progress has been made?
Mr. ROCHE:: The immigration efforts of ihe Dominion Government are confined to securing for Canada agriculturists, and, at times, female domestic servants. As the British Government does not desire to encourage the emigration of agriculturists, no greater degree of co-operation than now exists'can be hoped for while our immigra-

tion policy remains as at present, and for this reason no representations regarding co-operation have been made .to the British Government.


FARNHAM CAMP.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Militia and Defence to mobilize any troops at Farnham, Quebec, during the coming summer?
2.	What has been the total expenditure on the Farnham camp grounds from the first of January, 1913, to the first of January, 1916?
3.	What has been the total revenue received from these grounds between the first of January, 1913, to 1916?
4.	If it is not intended to use the grounds for military purposes, is it the intention of the Government to dispose of this property?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	$3,310 on engineer services.
3.	$134.
4.	The question has not been considered.


BEAR RIVER, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDING SITE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Was a site for a public building in Bear River, Digby county, N.S., purchased since the last sitting of the House?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased?
3.	What was the price of the land?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government tp proceed with the construction of the building pending the war?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes, a recommendation to Council for this lot was prepared and sent to Council in April, 1914, but delay in the negotiations prevented the matter from going through until 1st November, 1915, when title deeds were passed.
2.	Mary A. Rice et al.
3.	$2,200.
4.	No.


STELLARTON PUBLIC BUILDING SITE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has land for a public building in the town of Stellarton been purchased by the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, was the deed passed for the same?
3.	Has the price been paid?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of a building thereon this year?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Two parcels of land were expropriated in June, 1912, and papers amended on 28th July, 1915; the vendor, Mrs. McKay, is unable to show a complete title to the land.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.

PICTOU COUNTY RECRUITING OFFICERS. Mr. MACDONALD:
1. Who are the recruiting officers in the county of Pictou?
2.	What amounts are paid to them as salary? Sir SAM HUGHES:
1.	Captain the Rev. J. F. Tupper, Major Robert H. Graham.
2.	They receive the pay of their rank.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Kyte.-For a return showing in detail the payment or payments, amounting lo $647.50, paid to P. A. Stoddart, fishery guardian, Shelburne county, N.S., during the year ending March 31, 1915.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents of all kinds relating to the chartering of the vessel Starling, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Pugsley.-For a copy of the contract with the Amalgamated Dry Dock and Engineering Company for the construction of a dry dock at North Vancouver, B.C., together with the application for subsidy therefor, and also a copy of all reports of engineers' correspondence, and all other documents relating thereto.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of all accounts, telegrams, letters, bills of costs and other documents relating to the case of J. P. Dionne against the King, before the Exchequer Court, in which case Mr. Leo B6rub§ was attorney and Mr. E. H. Cimon was counsel, both being lawyers of Fraserville.
Mr. Proulx.-For a return showing the names, rank and military qualifications of the officers on the headquarters staff of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd divisional areas, including those on staffs of camps and schools of instruction, on October 1, 1915 ; the names of those of the above who on that date had volunteered, taken the oath and been attested for overseas service.
Mr. Ethier.-For a return showing the number of employees in the Militia Department at Ottawa on the 4th August, 1914; the present number of employees in the Militia Department; how many of them are of Canadian origin, and how many of foreign origin; the dates of their respective appointments, the nature of their duties, and their salaries.
Mr. Ethier.-For a return showing how many persons have enlisted in the Dominion since the 4th August, 1914 ; the number in each province; the number of French-Canadians in each province ; the number of those who have recently come to Canada and enlisted, and the date of the arrival of each.
Mr. Delisle.-For a return showing the number in 1911, of the buildings leased in part or in entirety by the Government; what total amount such annual leasing represented; the number at present of buildings leased in part or in entirety by the Government; what total amount such annual leasing represents.

Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the organization of a Department of Public Health is desirable in order to conserve in the largest measure possible the physical welfare of the people of this Dominion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this question has been considered in a more or less casual manner by the different Governments of Canada for the past thirty years; hut at no time in the past has the subject been so urgent as it is to-day.
It is amazing at this period of the world's history to read in even a few of our Canadian papers editorials which display a lamentable ignorance of the present day [DOT]significance of the (term public health. Whenever the subject is referred to, these journals, with gross ignorance of the subject and possibly with some prejudice, interpret it as having reference only to one phase of the medical profession. This view of public health might have been excusable half a century ago, but any person who looks at it in that light to-day merely illustrates the fact, all too apparent, that the subject has not received that intelligent consideration by those assuming to educate our people that its vast importance demands.
At the outset let me say a word to disabuse the minds of a few suspicious and' misinformed people and newspapers who are labouring under a misapprehension regarding the object aimed at by this resolution. Permit me to say, it has no reference whatever to the subject of medical education nor to the teachings or' beliefs of any school of medicine.
I said that this subject has been discussed in Parliament before; but, in view of the great development which Canada will experience in the near future, and in view of the wonderful advance that has been anede in the science of public health even in the last ten years, no apology is required on my part for its re-introduction at this time. The fact that the Dominion of Canada almost alone among the-larger nations of the world has no department of public health, so defined, rests upon the basis upon which the Confederation of Canada was formed as set forth in the British North America Act. In 1867 little thought was given ,to public health problems, and the British North. America Act makes . no reference whatever to public health as a function of government. The Act merely states that census and statistics are under the Federal Government, while the management of hospitals, asylums and charities is left under the charge of provincial Government. There has always

been some confusion in the minds of our Canadian people regarding the authority of the Federal Government to deal with health matters.
The British North America Act, section 91, declares that the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects enumerated, and among other subjects mentions (1) census and statistics and (2) quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals. Under section 92, enumerating exclusive powers of provincial legislatives, are named among others:
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums and charities and [DOT] eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other1 than marine hospitals.
Practically all health work done dn 1867 fell under " Quarantine and Marine Hospitals." Section 91 further states that:
It shall be lawful for the Federal Government of Canada to legislate on all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the- Legislatures of the Provinces.
This appears with absolute clearness to give power to this Parliament to deal with public health matters, for the only phases of public health assigned to the provinces by the British North America Act are the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums and charities. In so far then as the Federal Government in the interest , of the State desires to perform public health work, it has competent power under the constitution to do so.
At the time of Confederation little thought was given to public health problems. No state in the American Union nor any province of Canada had a health department. It is not surprising therefore that a subject of so little interest at that time" should receive such scant mention when the powers of the various legislatures were being defined by the Fathers of Confederation. It was not until fifteen years after Confederation, in the year 1882, that the first provincial board of health of Ontario was established, this being the first in Canada. Most of the provinces found it in their own interest to collect vital statistics, as the Federal Government failed to undertake this duty, and there gradually developed regular departments of health in the various provinces. This fact, however, does not in law relieve the Federal Government of the duty of administering a public health department. As a matter

of fact, many health services are to-day -conducted by the Federal 'Government Let me enumerate some of them:
Under the Inland Revenue Department: the chief analyst deals with composition of foods and drinks.
The Department of Agriculture: (1) the health conditions of construction camps or public works, controlled by Federal Government; (2) public health of Yukon Territory; (3) disease of animals; (4) various lines of work at Experimental Farm relating to plant and animal life; (5) vital statistics.
Department of Interior: (I) inspection of immigrants; (8) town planning and housing; (3) port hospitals; (4) health of Indians.
Department of Militia and Defence: (1) army medical corps and hospital service;
(2)	sanitation and food for the army.
Department of Public Works r sanitary
inspection of public buildings.
Department of Marine and Fisheries: (1) studies of fish; (8) examination of pilots;
(3)	hospital care of sailors; (4) sanitation of ships; (5) health of sailors; (6) food for the navy.
Post Office Department: (1) sanitation of post offices; (2) infectious diseases as transmitted through mails.
Department of Finance: infectious diseases through handling money.
Department of Justice: (1) sanitation of prisons; (2) diseases of criminals.
These are sufficient to show the various lines of work now being done and the various directions in which expert scientific research will be required in the near future. When, therefore, it is contended that the Federal Government has no power under the British North America Act, we can reply that the Government has for years been taking control of much health work, and when it is asserted that public health is not the duty of the Federal Government under the British North America Act, it can with equal force and logic be insisted that public health is not a function laid upon the provinces since it is nowhere referred to in the Act of Confederation. -i
The present condition in the administration of health matters in Canada is in itself sufficient to warrant the organization of a special department inasmuch as the distribution of this work among eight or ten departments is not conducive to intelligent nor efficient administration. Let me illustrate this by a reference to the methods of dealing with immigrants. Immigrants are inspected by officers of the Department of the Interior. When placed in quaran-

tine they come under control of officers of the Department of Agriculture; and if necessary that ifhigrants be sent to a hospital, they come under officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The results of such a system cannot but be lacking in efficiency.
Canada is almost the only country among the larger nations of the world that has no department of public health, defined as such. Every European country, with the exception of two or three of the smaller states, has a public health service. Japan has a most efficient department, and the United States, although for many years content to leave the administration of health matters chiefly to the individual states, have since 1871 gradually been developing a service under the Federal Government. At the close of the Spanish-Amer-ican war the necessity of an up-to-date service was pressed strongly upon the Federal Government, and in 1902 the public health and marine hospital service was established and provision made for a hygienic laboratory and an advisory board. This board was composed of three competent experts from the army, ,the navy and from the Bureau of Animal Industry, to be associated with the director of the laboratory, and five additional members, to he nominated by the Surgeon General. The Act further provided for establishing research divisions of bacteriology, chemistry, zoology and pharmacology. This organization has made it possible to- provide a large body of trained ofiicials competent in every branch of public health work, not only to carry out the duties laid directly upon them by Congress, but also to be in a position to assist in the study of general problems which might affect the health, prosperity and commerce of the whole American people. In 1912 the duties of the service were further extended, and the whole organized into the Public Health service of the United States, with a surgeon general in charge.
The situations in so far as the Governments are concerned are very similar in both Canada and United States, and the conditions to be met are also so much alike that Canada may well, with the experience of the United -States before her, consider in the light of that experience what her procedure may wisely be.
No duplication of work should be permitted. While the greater part of the health work now done in Canada is undertaken by the municipalities and provinces, the urgent problems of the future are wider than the
mere provincial question; some of them are international. This being the case, it is proper to consider, having in view the changed conditions brought about by the discoveries of science, what is the duty of this Government in the highest interest of health of the whole people of Canada.
I referred a moment ago to the progress in recent years of medical science. Permit me to give some illustrations of this. I need only refer to the discoveries of Pasteur, Koch, Lister, each of whom by his researches, the result of which are known to the whole world, has saved the lives of untold numbers of the human race. Previous to Koch's discoveries, tuberculosis was little understood, and the person who developed the disease faced sure death. But with Koch's remarkable discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus, a new note of hope rang round the world. In the last fifty years the mortality from tuberculosis in Britain has fallen 50 per cent, and there exists to-day in the mind of the student of medical science a sure belief that with time and care tuberculosis will become a rare- disease.
Cuba, which at the time of the Spanish-American war was a plague-stricken land, was,, under the administration of the United States health service, cleared of malaria and typhoid, within a few years of the close of that war, and transformed into one of the garden spots of the world. The greatest thing that the United States has done for Cuba and Porto Rico since the close of the war has been its contribution to those countries of good health and sanitary science.
When the French endeavoured to build the Panama canal their attempts ended in utter failure, owing to the prevalence of disease in that section of our continent, but Surgeon-General Gorgas, by the application of modern science, destroyed the plague-producing agencies and made the construction of this great work a possibility and an assured success.
Our minds are centered to-day upon the great European war, -and it may be interesting to know something about what medical science has done for our armies.
Typhus fever in Scotland in 1865 was responsible for a death rate of 108 per 100,000 of the population. This disease, with its unnumbered tens of thousands of sick and its thousands of dead, has practically vanished in the last fifty years-and its extirpation is a triumph of administration. Typhoid fever, the scourge of armies in previous wars, has, through scientific methods adopted for its control, become in the present war a minor cause of disease in all

armies except those in the Balkans, where sanitation was neglected. The history of smallpox is little less striking. With a death rate in Scotland fifty years ago of 35 per 100,000, it has been reduced until it is less than one per 100,000. With antitoxin, diphtheria has lost its chief terror.
In England and Wales the death rate for the five years from 1861-65 was 21-4 per thousand persons living. From that date the death rate gradually declined, until in 1908 it had fallen to 14-6 per thousand living. Under the improved methods of , medical and sanitary science there was a saving from death of seven persons per each thousand living, or a total saving of
245.000	lives in each year for England and Wales.
Amid all the itumult, amid -cries of anguish and defeat, aanid thunderings of artillery, there stands on the European battle plains the man of science-a -conqueror, undismayed, bringing life and healing to fields of death. He has cut our casualties in two. The bullet has always been a great enemy of human life and Safety, and it has a brother in the bacillus; in fact, the bacillus has generally been -considered a greater enemy th-an the bullet. Disease has been the soldier's deadliest foe. In the Crimea, 6,000 British, 80,000 French and 800,000 Russian soldiers died from fever. In 1870, in the Franco-Prussian war, for every 10 Germans killed, 15 died from disease. In 1877, in the Russo-Turkish war, for every 10 Russians who were killed, 27 died from disease. In Britain's -campaign in Egypt, for 10 British soldiers killed, 42 died from -disease. In the iSpanish-American [DOT] war at one time
20.000	Americans out of an army of
100.000	were ill from typhoid.- In the Boer war, there were 60,000 typhoid cases in the British Army, with 8,000 deaths, -and for every 7 -soldiers killed 'by bullets, 10 were killed by disease. Disease, not cannon, has swept away -the great armies of the past. For years we have had the power to banish half the disease of the world, but we let our power lie idle, and let people die. But war is a great master. It can nationalize railways in an afternoon. It can take over coal mines, close public houses, seize factories. It can take a useless citizen, put him in khaki and make a man of him. So science became clothed with the power of war. While men in the trenches were keeping the -Germans hack, men in the laboratories were keeping back that unseen enemy, disease. The British Army in South

Africa was moTe severely smitten by invisible foes than by all they met in the open. But there was one wise nation, Japan. It remained for her to teach the Governments of Europe how to apply the knowledge they had given to -the world, lapan went to war with science on her side, and for the first time bacilli were less deadly than bullets. There had never been a w-ar with so little typhoid or so few deaths from wounds as the Japanese army which took part- in the Rus-so-Japanese war. [Sir Frederick 'Treves, who observed what happened on that occasion, declared that Russia had been beaten by an English Quaker named Lister. It had been demonstrated that medical science could save men by thousands and tens of thousands, and- at last governments knew it. Admiralties and War Offices knew it; and so it comes about t-hat, for the first time in the history of war, a British army has been equipped against its greatest foe. Science has armed it so effectively that with the greatest British army ever placed in the field, the cases of disease were even less than under conditions of peace. Science makes our soldiers typhoid proof, cholera proof, and tetanus proof. These three enemies are beaten for all time. Under former sanitary and health conditions, and with armies fighting amid the present surroundings, probably typhoid would have claimed 100,000 victims by this time. That it has not is one of the great victories of the war. When all is over, it will be seen that the merciful science developed by France and Britain has saved hundreds of thousands of the lives of the men who are giving their -all to save to the world its civilization and its freedom. If we can conquer disease in war, we can overcome disease in peace; and the nations that have seen what science has wrought in France and in Flanders will be unwilling in years to come to let their people die when they might live. Canada will be one of those nations. These form a minor part of the story of the progress and accomplishments of medical science during recent years and indicate in some small measure what we may expect in the future.
Canada has only begun the business of naition-building, and at this period when the great European war has demonstrated most clearly the advantage of good health among our young men especially, it is opportune that this Parliament should become aroused to the need of devoting more attention to the health of our population, for it

is the physical, mental and moral quality of our people that will establish our position in the world. The future is before us; men of science have afforded us the means of avoiding the errors of the United States and European countries. If we do not build up in this Canada of ours a nation which will surpass physically all others of past history, it will be because of the incapacity and the indifference of the public men of the present day.
Public health is a great social and economic question, one of the most important that any nation has to face at the present day. First, there is the matter of feeblemindedness, so closely associated with immigration which is directly under the control of the Federal Government. At the close of the present war there will undoubtedly be a very large influx of immigrants both from Europe and the United States. It is estimated that in Great Britain there are about three hundred thousand feebleminded. In the United States there are an equal number, rapidly increasing. It is most important, therefore, that the greatest care should be taken in the inspection of our immigrants, as the above figures indicate a fruitful source of supply of mental defectives. It is open to doubt whether our present methods of inspection are all that are required. It seems to me that none but trained experts, qualified for the detection of mental as well as physical ailments, should be in charge of this work.
In 1914-15, 59 immigrants were rejected on account of imbecility, insanity, and mental defect, but in the same year 154 were deported for similar causes; while in the last three years 606 deportations have been made for these causes. Doubtless many of those deported were the offspring of parents whose history, if inquired into in their home lands, would have prevented the immigration to Canada of those deported persons.
To show the prevalence of feeble-mindedness in our country, let me quote the results obtained at a special clinic for feebleminded, conducted by the Toronto General Hospital for twelve months from July 1, 1914, to July 1, 1915. During that time there were discovered 425 feeble-minded persons, of whom 203 were Canadian born and 222 foreign born, showing again that considerable numbers of feeble-minded are gaining admission to our country.
Recently a carefully-conducted examination of 2,064 children in four schools in Toronto by a specialist from the feebleminded clinic of the Toronto General Hospital showed almost four per cent to be
feeble-minded. We have no statistics to show how many mental defectives we have in this country, but it undoubtedly numbers thousands. Someone has said that the greatest menace to race regeneration today is our ever-increasing population of inefficient and feble-minded. Our first duty is to strengthen the inspection of immigrants. A feeble-minded immigrant may in one or two generations cost the state thousands of dollars annually. Let us in this country not repeat the mistakes of the United States, where the care of the insane per annum is costing thirty-two million dollars.
To emphasize the danger to Canada, look at New York State where the authorities havo given the subject more attention than in any other part of America. There are in that state 32,000 feeble-minded in a population of 10,000,000. Of these only 4,900 are cared for. Of the balance, 7,000 are girls and women of child-bearing age, and they are producing children at nearly twice the rate of normal women. A very large percentage of these children will inherit the mental weakness of their mothers and go on adding to the already tremendous burden of providing for the mentally deficient of the state. Let Canada wake up to the threatening danger in this regard; let us profit by the warning given us by New York State.
Infant mortality is another subject which is becoming a great national problem. Our present knowledge of infant life, and the measures taken for the prevention of deaths among infants, guarantee that about 47 per cent of those dying under one year of age could be saved, and that 67 per cent of all diseases that afflict children under five years of age are preventable.
John Burns says: "We are beginning to concentrate on the child." Why should the state spend so much on inducing immigrants to come to our land, and so little in attempts to save our own native born children? Infant sickness and mortality is one of the greatest preventable wastes of to-day. We have in Canada no statistics regarding the economic loss to the nation through sickness of the people but figures from the United States will suggest to us something of our loss.
There are no complete vital statistics collected for the Dominion, the registration of births, marriages and deaths being under provincial control. New Brunswick collects none, and there is no uniform system in the other provinces in the method of collection.


Mr. CARROLL:: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the United States has a Federal department of health in addition to the state departments?


Michael Steele: The United States have a 'most, efficient service-a federal public health service which is under the control of the Federal Government. It was found by the United States that the state boards of health did not meet the full requirements of the nation along these lines.
Let me quote an extract from a book entitled "Health and Disease," written by Dr. W. L. McKenzie, a member of the Local Board of Scotland, in which he says :
It is our duty to prevent death.
That seems like a strong statement, but perhaps it expresses the idea more clearly and succinctly than any other statement could.
It is our duty to prevent death. Out of the effort to keep alive those that would die of preventable diseases, the vast health service has grown. Of what diseases do we die? Of


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) should be congratulated on having brought before this House a subject of very great interest, and he is to be congratulated, also, on the well considered and admirable speech in which he has moved his resolution, a speech that, I am sure, will receive most favourable comment throughout the country, and be of great value in the consideration of this matter. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture, within whose department this matter more especially falls, is not able to be present to-day, and, in common with the other members of the House, I more regret the Circumstances which make his presence here impossible on this occasion, because the Minister of Agriculture has given a great deal of thought and careful consideration to this very important subject. If he were present I know he would be able to make an address to the House that would be interesting and illuminating, and that would give far more information than it is possible for me, temporarily filling his position-as I hope for a very short time' only-to do.
The hon. member for South Perth has referred to certain constitutional questions involved in "this subject. I do not think there is any constitutional objection to a department of public health being established by the Dominion Government, either as a separate department or as a branch of one of the departments that at present exist, because, from Confederation down to the present hour, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have been giving consideration, and have been dealing with questions affecting public health. I think 'it may be fairly said, speaking from a constitutional standpoint, that while there are certain matters in public health, such as quarantines, sick mariners, etc., that come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament, there are many other matters connected with public health over which the Federal Parliament and the provincial parliaments exercise a joint control. The provincial legislatures, for many years past, have be^ji dealing with this subject by law, in practically every province of Canada, Boards of health, provincial and municipal, have been established, and those boards of health have applied themselves, with very excellent results, to the task of improving the sanitary conditions of their communities, and of handling all epidemics of contagious

diseases, such as small-pox, that have arisen from time to time. They have dealt with these matters themselves and have borne the expense of them, and these Acts have been administered by officials appointed under Acts passed by the provincial legislatures.
In addition to that, the provinces of late years have been giving very considerable attention to the question of the prevention of the great white plague, tuberculosis, and in different provinces throughout Canada we find established sanatoria where those who are affected with tuberculosis in its incipient stage can receive treatment, and institutions for those who have passed the incipient stage are being established now in different parts of Canada under legislation passed by the provincial legislatures. In my own province of New Brunswick, a splendid establishment for the cure of incipient cases of tuberculosis is to be found at River Glade, in the county of Westmorland. This institution was established through the generosity of the widow of Mr. Eben Jordan, of the firm of Jordan, Marsh' & Company, of Boston, and it is administered by a commission appointed under an Act passed by the legislature of New Brunswick; Mrs. Jordan being a most valued member of that * commission. In the city of St. John, the municipal authorities have erected an institution for the treatment and possible cure of cases of tuberculosis arising within the city and county of St. John. That institution is carried on * under provincial legislation which provides that the province shall pay a per capita allowance for each patient who is in that sanatorium or in sanatoria of a [DOT]similar character that may be established in different municipalities throughout the province. Similar legislation is to be found in almost all the other provinces.
There is no constitutional objection to the establishment of a department of public health,	but the	question will arise,if such a department should be established, with what subjects connected with public health that department should	deal, so	that it will not
intrench upon what, by practice, has fallen under the jurisdiction of the different provinces, and before any such health 1 department is established, it would be most desirable to consult the different Provincial Governments so that no action may be taken .that would be regarded as tresspassing upon the jurisdiction of the provinces, and upon the work which they feel it is their duty to undertake. As the constitutional question involves considerable interest, I have prepared a statement dealing with what this Dominion has done since Confederation with regard to matters of public health. I find that by chapter 67 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which created the Department of Agriculture in 1868, immediately after Confederation, the subjects of public health and quarantine were placed under its administration. It. is laid down in chapter "74 of the Revised Statutes of Canada that the administration of quarantine pertains solely to the Dominion Government, so that the precedents established under the British North America Act would lead us to the conclusion that there are certain subjects relating to public health that come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, and that there are others as to which there is equal control by the Dominion and by the provinces.
Until 1872 the,Quarantine Act contained provisions charging the Department of Agriculture with the administration of publie health, there having been under that department a public health medical board, of which the late Dr. Taehe, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, was the secretary. In 1872, however, the then Minister . of Agriculture, the late Hon. J. H. Pope, advised the elimination of the publie health clauses from the Quarantine Act, because he found that heavy accounts for public health service were presented to him for payment by the provinces while he had no control of appointment or in the direction of the service, which had gradually become provincial. The then premier, Sir John A. Macdonald, concurred in this view, and the Quarantine Act was amended by the elimination of the directory administrative clauses pertaining to public health. The Government of Mr. Mackenzie, which succeeded to office (in 1873) strictly carried out this policy, and did away with the health statistical office at Halifax, which had been retained by the-previous Government.
In 1878, on the return of the ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald to power, Mr. Pope again becoming Minister of Agriculture, on the very earnest representation of Dr. Taehe, the subject of leprosy within the Dominion-which belongs to public health and to which Dr. Taehe had devoted special study on a reference from the Imperial authorities-was again taken over as part of the administration of the department. For many years there has existed in the county of Gloucester in the province of New Bruns<-

wick, and, I believe, to a slight extent in some portions of Nova Scotia, the disease of leprosy, and before Confederation the province of New Brunswick maintained at Tracadie in the county of Gloucester a lazaretto, all the expenses of which were paid by the province. That continued for a short period after Confederation, and then the expenses were borne by the Dominion Government; I believe that the lazaretto was again taken . over by the province, but, in 1878, I find that an arrangement was made with the province of New Brunswick by which the lazaretto at Tracadie was transferred to the Dominion Government, and it has since been administered through the Department of Agriculture. That lazaretto, I may say, has done very excellent work; it has been well managed and well maintained, and the disease i"ith which it is especially intended to cope is gradually though slowly being-eradicated. In addition to this, the Dominion Government from time to time has taken action in isolated cases of leprosy reported within the Dominion and, in late years, more particularly amongst the Chinese in the province of British Columbia.
Under the Canada Shipping Act the care of sick sailors pertains strictly to the subject of public health, and was formerly under the administration of the Department of Agriculture. It is now administered, as hon. gentlemen know, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to which it was transferred in virtue of an understanding between the then ministers of the respective departments, the Hon. Mr. Pope and the late Hon. Peter Mitchell. It may further be stated that the practice of the Dominion Government since Confederation has been to take votes for both public health and quarantine.
To sum up, I may say that the administration in all matters pertaining to quarantine, that is the dealing with any infectious disease on its presenting itself at any of the ports of the Dominion, maritime or inland, is vested solely in the Dominion Government; while it is contended that all other matters pertaining to public health are joint between the Dominion and the provinces, in virtue of the provisions of the British North America Act.
There is a Dominion Public Works Health Act, under which sanitary arrangements and matters of that sort in connection with the construction of public works are attended to throughout Canada by the Department of Agriculture.
' Having said that much in a general way

with regard to thd powers of the provinces and of the Dominion with respect to this very important subject, brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for South Perth (-Mr. Steele) I may say that we are all aware that the question of public health is daily assuming greater importance in this country. It has become a distinct subject and branch of study in medical universities throughout the land, and to such an extent is this the case, and it is so recognized as a distinct branch of medical science, that special degrees in public health, for which being now looked universities, including, I believe, the University of McGill, and men who have graduated in public health from these institutions are in some cases acting ' as health officers in different cities of Canada, having been appointed to such positions by virtue of legislation passed by the Provincial Legislatures.
The subject is considered to be of so much importance that the man with the ordinary diploma of M.D. from any university is not regarded as being qualified to deal with the question of public health for which being now looked upon as a special branch of science special degrees are conferred after courses of study.
The progress of hygiene and preventive medicine known under the name of "Public Health " has been rapid and marked, especially during the last few years, and there has undoubtedly been an increasing demand for governmental regulation, In the United States the marine hospital service has been by Act of Congress enlarged into a public health service. There are already departments of public health, I am informed, in some of the sister colonies. There has been discussion about the matter in England, but I do not think the movement for the appointment of a Minister of Public Health, which was very active a few years ago, has been discussed recently, all other subjects, of course, having been made secondary to the problem of the war. The medical profession of Canada speaking through the Canadian Medical Association, has urged the importance of the establishment of a Department of Public Health. The object of the creation of such a department by the Dominion Government, having in view all the subjects related to the public health with which the Government deals at the present time, would, it seems to me, be to consolidate with a view to efficiency and economy in those matters concerning public health and sanitation which are already within the jurisdiction

of the Government, but which are now scattered among the different departments. The question of adding to the duties of a department of public health other matters such as now fall within the control of provincial legislatures, and to which they have been industriously and energetically in many cases giving their attention for years past, will have to be considered carefully, and there would have to be conferences on the subject between the Dominion and, the provinces. The establishment of such a department, it is contended, would obviate the confusion and extra correspondence often caused by the want of knowledge of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture in public health matters, and would facilitate the business of those who come to the capital in connection with the various sanitary matters now divided up amongst the different offices of the Government, many of them under the direction of non-medical heads, who have little knowledge of medical or sanitary science. That would be a matter of internal domestic consolidation within the Dominion Government itself. It would be a governmental recognition of the importance of public health, and of the authority of such a department to issue rules and regulations on the subject. The experience of the Department of Agriculture, I am informed by its permanent officials, as well as the example of other countries, leads them to believe that such publication so issued would carry much more weight than similar publications issued in the name of any other department.
It may surprise the ftouse to know how many matters affecting public health are dealt with by this Government at the present time. These subjects are now scattered over several departments, without co-ordination or homogeneous supervision, and might well be grouped together in a department of public health:
In the Department of Agriculture:
T. Sanitary advice to Dominion Government.
2.	Quarantine (maritime and frontier.)
3.	Leprosy throughout the Dominion.
4.	Public Works Health Act.
5.	The sanitary part of the census.
6.	Vital statistics (Dominion).
7.	Health of animals.
8.	Inspection of meats and canneries, and factories of foods generally.
In the Department of Inland Revenue:
9.	Adulteration of foods and drugs.
In the Department of the Interior:
10.	The sanitary and medical side of immigration affairs.
11.	The sanitary and medical side of Indian affairs.
In the Department of Marine and.Fisheries :
12.	Sick seamen and marine hospitals.
Also	.
13.	Supervision of sanitary measures and sanitary police in the Territories which have no organization corresponding to a Provincial Board of Health.
14.	National bacteriological laboratory.
A department of public health could be equipped with a national bacteriological laboratory, as is the case in other countries. Such a laboratory could report promptly on suspected specimens of micro-organisms from vessels, trains, etc., held under quarantine of observation. The quality and purity of the various protective and curative agents, such as vaccine, tuberculine, Haff-kine's prophylactic plague fluid, and the anti-toxins and serums of plague, cholera, diphtheria, typhoid, anthrax, etc., are of the utmost importance to the public health and to the well being of the country. It is suggested that the manufacture of these protective and curative agents might be carried on by salaried officials in the national laboratory, and the issue of them could be under the supervision and direction of the proposed public health department. In this way, it is claimed, the maximum protection of the people of Canada in this matter can alone be attained and that confidence secured which will induce the people to properly avail themselves of these all-important means of protection from epidemic and infectious disease. It is also contended that in such a national laboratory here might well be bacteriologists and chemists engaged in original research. This country would thus rise above the position of hanging on to the skirts of other nations and waiting to hear from them of the progress made in these important lines of science. Other people have suggested additional subjects that might be included if a department of public health is esablished. After conferences with the various provinces, the following might be included:
15.	Sanitary direction of the service of protection of international waterways-a most important subject.
1C. Sanitary supervision of the protection of the public health against tuberculosis, a subject that is being dealt with on a large scale by several of the provinces.
17. Smallpox and vaccination.
That, I understand, is already dealt with

by the Dominion Government. In case oi a smallpox epidemic along the border, the Dominion Government takes means to see to it that the people are vaccinated and the spread of the disease prevented while the local authorities take steps to quarantine the disease in the different cities and towns and to isolate people who have contracted the disease.
18. Railroad, car and steamboat sanitation, a most important matter-to see to the disinfection of cars, and public conveyances, in order to assure the exclusion of malignant microbes so that disease may not be spread by those who travel.
There is already an official of the Government known as the Director General oi Public Health and Sanitary Adviser of the Dominion Government, with the rank of deputy minister. But, up to the present, the matters I have enumerated have been left scattered through the different departments and not collected under the control of a specially qualified officer. I presume that their union, co-ordination and development would naturally follow the creation of such a department.
As I said at the outset, I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) is not here, because I know that in the last few years he has given a great deal of thought and study to this very important subject. My hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele) has undoubtedly accomplished a good work in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It will no doubt attract attention throughout the country, and will cause the public to give consideration to this important matter. And, while, at the present moment, our thoughts are taken up with the war now being waged, and upon which our liberties and the institutions of our country depend, to the exclusion of practically every other subject, yet I think that all will agree that the time occupied by the House this afternoon in a discussion of this matter, so well brought to our attention by the hon. member for South Perth, is time not wasted. I would suggest to my hon. friend that it would not be desirable to cause the resolution to be pressed to a vote this afternoon. I can assure him that the matter will receive, as it has received, the best thought and attention of the Government. I am sure that when the Minister of Agriculture is once more restored to health and able to deal with the work of his department he will be only too glad to pursue the study which he has been giving to this matter, that in future it may receive the considera-

tion, and I trust the action, that its importance deserves.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: This, in my judgment, is one of the most important questions to come under the consideration of this House, and I regret that I did not know that the motion was to be up for discussion this afternoon. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) who has charge of the department under which this arises, and who has given the subject special consideration, is not here, and for that reason, and because I know that, besides myself, there are a number of medical men, members of the House, who would like to present some ob-
5 o'clock, servations on this interesting subject, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


FRENCH CANADIANS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Mr. BOULAY (Rimouski):: (Translation) moved,
That, in the opinion of this House, Canadians of the French language should hold positions in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway, and in the public service of Canada, in proportion to their number in the country; and that it is urgent and in the public interest that all civil servants holding higher offices, and drawing salaries of $2,000 and oyer, should understand the two official languages of this country, and that no official in the said service should be admitted into the Civil Service in future unless he can fulfil such conditions.
He said: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, There are two distinct parts to this motion; the first refers to the employees on the Intercolonial railway, the other one states that the higher officials in the Civil Service, those belonging to Class A and first subdivision A of Class B, should speak the two official languages of this country.
As to the first part, namely, that concerning the Intercolonial, I have many times in past years, drawn the attention of the House to the injustice done the Freneh-Can-adians and French-Acadians, who are not treated as their number would warrant. That state of things has been in existence for the last forty-four years.
French speaking Canadians seem to have been completely ignored, or nearly so, on the whole system of the Intercolonial.
Notwithstanding repeated requests on my part and numerous articles in French publications we have always met with difficulties that should not exist, especially when the facts are called to the attention of the authorities.

Last fall, Le Progres <hi Golfe had an article, dealing partly with our grievances, which I intend reading, so that it may be of record in Hansard. It read as follows:
French Canadians and the Intercolonial.
Some newspapers published in English complain that French Canadians are not enlisting at a sufficient rate in the ranks of those who are going to the battlefield of Europe to be scorched alive.
The charge is groundless. If only the proportion were properly computed, it would be seen that the native .English Canadians who have enlisted are not more numerous than the French-Canadians. It must be kept in mind that a large number of English recruits come to Canada to enlist, likely to obtain a higher salary, but they are Englishmen and not Canadians, as may be seen by the daily newspaper bulletins.
If the English-Canadians received the same treatment as French-Canadians in Canada's Civil Service they would be less anxious than ourselves to rally to the colours. In fact, were we not moved by our feelings of sympathy for blood-bespattered Belgium, were we not connected with France by the sacred ties of blood, were not with Great Britain, which has always treated us in all fairness, entitled to our gratitude, and were we to consider solely the treatment meted out to us by the English speaking population in Canada, not one French-Canadian should be found at the front.
Why? We are systematically debarred from every public employ ; we are treated as outcasts and slaves, all the best-paying offices in the country are closed to us, there being nothing left for the French-Canadian but the small salaries and the positions as snow-shovellers and messengers; how may we in return be anxious to get killed at the bid of those gentlemen who flay us alive?
Our national pride, inherited of old from France, revolts every day against the injustices we are made to suffer. And why protest? Our English-speaking fellow-citizens are in resolve bound to allow to French-Canadians a bare twentieth part of what they are entitled to. That crying injustice has been in existence of old; it is continued from decade to decade, and the present generation of Englishmen is nothing loath to -take our places and crush us under heel. Here and there, a sympathetic Englishman may be found whose feelings towards us are sincerely generous, but the number of such is so small that their voice is not listened to. I shall point out one case in a thousand that happened on the Intercolonial. The section from Mont-Joli to Campbellton is 105 miles in length, of which 3,2 miles run through the province of Quebec. All along the railway, the population is French-speaking. Although situated in the province of Quebec, not one of the superior officials of that section of the line speak a word of French. There is a superintendent, an assistant, a chief train despatches four other train despatches, a bridge foreman, four line foremen, a divisional engineer, all high-salaried officers, not a single one of whom is a FrenCh-Canadian. One of them has within the past two years learned to speak a little French, and the intention, it seems, is to put in his place an employee who cannot understand us.
Should men be wanted for some important work, French-Canadians are hired for the heavy work, but the foreman and even the timekeepers are always English-speaking who cannot understand the men. Even foremen are appointed
of the stamp of a certain Bulmer who writes articles in tAe Orange Sentinel against our language and our faith.
During last fall, a vacancy occurred in the position of superintendent on the section from Moncton to Mont-Joli, when I saw that the illness of the superintendent was likely to prove fatal, I set to work to notify the railway authorities that in case of a vacancy caused by the expected death of Mr. Price, the French-speaking Canadians would ask the appointment of a French superintendent. That cannot be denied either by the Minister of Railways or by the general manager, because I took the trouble to interview those officers and explain to them the situation. Some of my friends also wrote more strongly in support of my re- . quest that justice be done to the French-Canadians.
The facts show that our efforts failed. Yet' candidates for the vacancy were not wanting. I suggested a number of names, among others, that of a man who has been on the Intercolonial during thirty years of his life and who was dismissed for the bare reason that he was a Conservative. He was entitled, from all viewpoints, to the gratitude of his party, on account of both his personal qualifications and his services on the Intercolonial. His name is Rodolphe Blais.
I also suggested names of many others whose qualifications could not be impeached.	.
What was the result?-A man has been appointed by the name of Davenish, who hails from Ulster, and who has been a year or two on the Transcontinental and only one year in the offices of the Intercolonial at Moncton.
I felt sorry, lately, to hear the answer of the acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) to the question asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CAMPBELLTON SUPERINTENDENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Marcil:
1.	Who succeeded the late Mr. Price as Superintendent ot the Intercolonial railway, at Campbellton?
2.	Was the principle of promotion followed in the appointment?
3.	Was the new appointee connected with the Intercolonial railway service?
Mr. Reid:	,
1.	W. R. Devenish.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
Peculiar promotion that, when the highest appointment on the Intercolonial goes to foreigners who know nothing of the railroad, the employees or the travelling public!
[Stage Direction]
What? You call it a promotion when a man is appointed who has only one year's experience on the railway?
He was appointed over the heads of old employees, who, a great number of whom began as mere labourers at small salaries; and how many among them would be glad to earn those fat stipends paid by the railway to those foreign officials.
Instead of an attempt being made to encourage the employees who properly >
perform their duties, they are debarred from any promotion. One might think that they are expected to do the bare work that their salary pays for.
That particular state of things is not specially of this Government's doing, as I pointed out in another article published in Le Progres du Golfe last November, -but this treatment of the employees has been prevalent since 1896, at which time strangers were invited from all over, to take the place of those higher officers who were found to be too Conservative.
I claim that in all justice, such should not be the case, and that if it be a shame for common employer of labour to act thus unfairly, it is still more so for the (Government, who ought, to set the example of fair treatment and justice.
When the new superintendent was to be appointed, a few suggested for the vacancy the name of the member for Rimouski and Matane.
The Hon. the Minister of Railways -quickly replied that the Government's policy was not to give appointments to members, and that moreover an officer in a position of such importance required in the interest of the public certain definite qualifications. I shall first state that I have never directly or indirectly sought the position, and had it been offered me, I .should have refused it; and secondly I wish to tell the Hon. the Minister of Railways that I pretend to know as much as he about railway administration, since I have been connected with it almost all my life, by my intercojirse both with the employees and the management.
Let us now revert to the reasons I gave at that time in support of my request for the appointment of a JFrench-Canadian superintendent.
I first invoked the fact that for the last 44 years 92 miles of the Intercolonial, running in the province of Quebec, have always been annexed to the x\ew Brunswick division going into Moncton; I also put forth the fact that the territory under

tire superintendent of that district was for the most part French-speaking, and in support of my contention, I shall give a statement of the population of the different counties bordering on or crossed by the Moncton-Mont-Joli division.
Population of the counties served by the Intercolonial Railway, within the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the Moncton-Mont-Joli division.
Statement by nationalities, taken from the 1911 Census, comprising the branch lines from Fredericton and from the Intercolonial.
(English- French-
	speaking.	speaking.
Westmorland. . ..	. . . . 25,726	17,081Kent	.... 6,'5.9*8	17,441Northumberland. . .	.. .. 23,413	6,818Gloucester	. . . . 4,775	2-7,783Res-tigouche	. . . . 7,216'	8,136Bonaventure. . . .	. . . . 7,316	20,050Rimouski	. . . . 1,118	50,07576,2132	147,334
Those figures show a French majority of 71,102, if only the main line is taken into account. If the branch lines from Fredericton on the International are added, we have the following figures :-[DOT]
Victoria and Madawaska. .	8,160	18,480York	
2S.&02	71236,762	19,192
The grand total of the population of the counties along the Intercolonial including the chief branch lines is then according to the 1911 census English-speaking 112,994, French-speaking 166,466, which means a French majority of 53,472.
In proportion to our numbers we are consequently entitled on the Moncton-Mont-Joli division and the above mentioned branch lines as regards the quota of employees included in the list just cited to 13 employees for every 10,000 inhabitants, that is to 208 French-speaking employees as against 142 English-speaking. The count is therefore short by 136 French-speaking employees as will be seen by the following list:
English. French.
Officers of the super .ntendent
at Campbellton	
66	5Workshops at Campbellton. . ..	62	7Workshops at Gibson, N.B..	2-5	0"Workshops at Newcastle,. ..	IS	0Station employees, Moncton-Mont-Joli division, main line from Moncton to Flatlands. .	71	11From Matap&dia to Mont-Joli. .	0	27
Section men, North division - No. 2, from Campbellton to
Newcastle	 29	8
Section men from Newcastle to
Moncton, foreman	 27	1
Section men from Mont-Joli to
Campbellton	
7	13Total	270	72
Even in Montreal we do not get our proper share. In a city where the population is three-quarters French, there are several men employed who are ignorant of French, as follows: -
English. French.
Asst, traffic manager, Montreal	27	14
Office Montreal-Mont-Joli sec-	[DOT]
toon	 16	37
So that including the branch line from Fredericton and from the International, there is still to be found a French majority of 68,472 out of a total of 279,510, within the teritory under the Moncton-Mont-Joli superintendent. That shows a strong proportion in favour of the ,French-speaking element, ' and is another proof that we are right in asking that the number of such employees be increased and made-proportionate to the number of our population.
I must, also add that those employees that come from New Brunswick or elsewhere, who had no experience on the road are responsible, especially in the Quebec section of the line, for a large number of grievances, accidents, and discontent among the employees and the whole public, and for much delay in the running of trains.
It often happens that trains - are sidetracked for two or three hours to give the right of way to other trains, and for no other reason except that the train de-spatchers know nothing of the railroad and its slopes.
Those train despatchers have always been strangers. Not a single French-Canadian from the province of Quebec or the Maritime Provinces ever could obtain a position in the office at Campbellton.
Only lately I called the general superintendent's attention to the fact. And though Mr. McNeillie is himself a stranger from the Pacific coast, he was struck by the reasonableness of my stand in the matter.
Nor are we any better in the distribution of the public positions at the Moncton headquarters, and as regards the appointment of divisional superintendents.
A glance at the list pf employees in those offices will show the situation:
Names and salaries of the office Monoton.
MM. Gutelius	
Brady	
Brown	
Whelply	
Paver	
Burpee	
Hayes	
Allen	
Jog-gins	
McKenzie. .		
Dustan. . . v	
Barnes	
heads at

[Stage Direction]
MM. Logan.. . Melancon. Hippy..	.
Alward.. Shannon.. Burns. . . Es-tano. . Clock..	.
Avard.. . Walker. . Simpson. . McDonald Appleton. Taylor. . Cameron.
$	1,400
3.000 2,100
4.00-	0
5.00-	0
2.400
2.400
2.400 1,6-80 2,100 2,10-0 1,8-00
3.000 2,100
2.400
We have a total of $99,930, distributed among 27 men, of whom one only is a French-Canadian.
Those figures 'are taken from the report of the Auditor General, French translation, for the year ending March 31, 1914. Page W- 198 and the following pages.
Mr. E. DEVLIN:: Is that where Mr. J. B. T. Caron was employed?	[DOT]


Herménégilde Boulay: Yes, out of a total of 27 men receiving the large salaries in the higher offices of the Intercolonial, there is only one French-Canadian. Why is that?
If you read down a little farther, or if you look at the list of French and English employees in ithe (Maritime Provinces, you come to a state of things much to ibe criticised. -
The French people of those provinces seem to have been completely ignored and debarred from the road, and the list of the employees in the Moncton offices furnishes ample proof of that fact.
It must be kept in mind that the Moncton offices are supposed to be for the service of people who do business directly with the Intercolonial or the provinces through which it runs, that is the province of Quebec and the three Maritime provinces. Comparing the French and English population of those provinces, 66 per cent will be found to be French-speaking as against 34 percent English-speaking
We ought therefore to have, on the basis of population, 66 per cent of the employees French-speaking as against 34 per cent English-speaking. But what are the facts?
English. French.
General manager's office at
Moncton	 16	1
Office of the superintendent of
car service	
32	7General superintendent's office	20	3
General solicitors and claims
agents	
7	3Chief engineer and right-ofway and lease agent..	-	87	12Comptroller's office	
15	4Cashier's office	
3	0Auditors of disbursements..	..	35	4
English. French? .
Insurance and providence fund	30	3Audit office	6<9	22Engineer of maintenance. . . .	18	3General tie and timber agent. .	20	0General traffic manager's office	5	1General freight agent	19	1Assistant general freight agent	6	1Weighing department	4	1General passenger department	23	6General baggage agent	3	0Mechanical accountant's office	16	6Superintendent of motive power	13	4Fuel agent's office	16	General locomotive foreman. .	9	0General car foremen	14	6Chief draughtsmen	8	1General master mechanics.. . .	13	0Division master mechanics. .	14	6Inspectors and foremen	36	2General storekeepers' office . .	c	3Moncton stores	.17	5Moncton issuers	
(The above item comprises the messengers and all the labourers and storemen with aggregate salaries amounting * to $31,411,310).	30	42Freight claims agent	20	6Headquarters staff at Moncton Montreal assistant general	6	0freight agency	
Montreal-Mont-Joli division	27	14office	16	37Total	686	206
Out of the total number of men employed at headquarters at Moncton, and who have to do with the four provinces, dealing directly with the Intercolonial, 66 per cent should be French-speaking as against 34 per cent English-speaking.
Thus, instead of 686 English-speaking and 206 French-speaking, as now is the ca'se, we should have 590 French-speaking to 304 English-speaking, a difference of 384.
If we go on, again, and examine the list of the employees in the workshops in the various divisions in the Maritime Provinces, the situation disclosed is even worse. I shall give that list to prove what I say. As will be seen the number of watchmen, conductors, brakemen, engineers, firemen and temporary employees is not given, but I presume the same state of things is to be found.	-
	English.		French.
Halifax-St. Moncton. ,	John division,	10	1Halifax-St. Truro.. .	John division,	31	1Sydney and	Oxford	43	0Workshops	at Campbellton, locomotives	61	644	Gibson, locomotives . .	24	044	Halifax, locomotives	57	044	Halifax, cars.. . .	103	0"	Mulgrave . .	25	F"	Newcastle . .	18	0English. French.	Workshops at	Pictou . . . .	21	044	Stellarton,	locomotives	46	244	Stellarton,	cars	23	2Offices of the superintendent. .	50'	5English.	French. -	Salaries	.. . .$ 8,3,859 39	$ 2,665	12Average	. . . . 1,677 00-	242/	00PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.	English. French.	General offices. .	31	0Workshops, locomotives.. . .	'5/8	0cars.	31	O'Extra help	14	0Machinists	48	2Train conductors. .	17	0Brakemen	4*	1Station employees	71	6Total. . . .	315	9
There is then a' deficiency in Frenchspeaking employees appointed for this class of work on the Intercolonial, amounting, according to the public accounts of March 31, 1914, to the following figures:-
Employees.
General offices at Moncton	 523
Heads of department at 'Moncton..	17
On the road and in offices outside
Moncton	 399
Total	 939
In order that the French population should receive their due share of those positions, 939 persons must be appointed over the actual number which is 366 in the Maritime Provinces, leaving the Moncton-Mont-Joli division out of count.
In the latter division, we lack 136 employees out of a total of 304. There is, therefore, a shortage of French-Canadian employees on the Intercolonial amounting to 1,075, taking into account only those classes mentioned in this analysis, and leaving aside th'e classes already pointed out.
No doubt the statements I have put before the House will come as a- surprise to many who had no inkling of the true state of things, and the question will be asked why have French-Canadians not insisted on having their deserts with the Intercolonial.
The answer is easily given. I shall first read the following letter which is nothing but a scrap of paper like all the "replies we get from the heads of the various departments of the railway:
Canadian Government Railways.
E. 1^. Gutelius.
H. Boulay, Esq., M.P.,
Sayabec, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Boulay :	'
I am in receipt ot your letter of December 31, enclosing one from S. Morissette, applying for a clerical position with these railways.

All those employees are supposed to be men of especial ability, and to be paid by the country, according to their qualifications and their education. But, any among them who speak no other lnaguage but English, are not in a position to properly perform their duties, when they are called on to meet citizens who speak French only or vice versa, supposing those higher officials were French-speaking and had, now and then, intercourse with Englishspeaking members of parliament or citizens. Those gentlemen have to travel throughout the country in the interest of their department, and, as for us, in the province of Quebec, we have to deplore the fact that those who are acquainted with nothing but English are of no practical benefit. Let us, as an instance, take the higher officials of the Agriculture Department. They have to impart their practical knowledge by means of lectures delivered, not only to the English population, but to the French people as well. I do not remember ever seeing them in the county of Rimouski, where, in any case, their presence would be of no practical avail, so far as their giving useful information, since they would not be understood by most of the farmers. That is altogether unfair to French-Canadians who speak no English, for they are called upon to pay their share of the salaries of those officials equally with the English-speaking farmers.
I have no objection to the lower grade of civil servants speaking only the language they choose. But, as regards higher officers, I strongly insist on a complete reform being made. It is a common thing for some of us among the members to go into an office where in a staff of a dozen employees, none are found to understand our French. See what would happen to a farmer from Quebec who could not speak English. If at least the head of the depart- -ment spoke French, we should at any rate get from him the information sought. Such a regulation would also result in all those who aim at the higher appointments having to study the two official languages, a boon indeed to both English-speaking and French-speaking people. It must be admitted that in England itself and even in Austria


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: (Translation.) Even in
Japan.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) Nobody
claims to have any education if he cannot speak French in England, and yet there is but one official language, English.

If no French-Canadian can secure one of the higher appointments in the Civil Service at Ottawa, unless he be acquainted with English, why should not the same, requirement be asked of English-speaking candidates?
The first question a French applicant for a position at Ottawa has to answer is: Do you know English? Why, even here, in the House of Commons, we are unfairly dealt with. There are twelve young pages, and only three of them speak French. In the office for the distribution of Hansard, although the officer has beeii changed three times since 1911, in each case the position went to a man who could not understand a word of French. And most of the employees of the House who are of English origin do not speak a word of French.
If my suggestion were put into practice, we should learn to know ourselves better, to appreciate one another better, and my remarks apply not only to the English provinces, bu't as well to what takes place in my own province.
I remember that in my young days, every one in my parish held everything English in high detestation. Brought up with that idea, we came to college strongly determined to speak nothing but French, and the teachers met with all kinds, of difficulties, and generally failed to make us understand how important was to us a knowledge of English. Most of our educational institutions of the province of Quebec turn out graduates who can neither speak nor write English. Only later, when they have to do their share in the struggle for life, do they see the awful mistake they made in neglecting the study of such an important language. .
It must be acknowledged that conditions even worse prevail in the English provinces, where I must say the French language is completely ignored. People have the idea that it will never be of any use to them. If students were made to see as they enter school, that in order to secure certain important positions in Canada or become somebody, they must learn the two pfficial languages, I "feel sure that, first of all, the teachers would find them less refractory to learning a second language, and secondly, the students themselves would later realize how beneficial it has become 'to them.
As a result of a general knowledge of both languages, we should become less averse to each other, because the fact stands that, in certain quarters, there are between the two races feelings of distrust

and aversion. I grant that a number of people are to be found, with a wider and more patriotic outlook, \yho are above those petty jealousies, and will readily give each one his due, whether French or English. But they do not form the bulk of our population. Let us get rid of our blinding fanaticism; let us study the two official languages of the country, and I feel sure that the first step will have been taken towards an era of peace and happiness, unprecedented in Canada.
When both languages become necessary in order to reach the most remunerative positions in the gift of the Government, the tyrannical legislation which seeks to bar French from the schools in the English provinces will gradually disappear, the present agitation will cease and there will come to exist the same conditions as prevail in Quebec: complete freedom in education for both races..
Let us also suppress papers such as The *Sentinel, and put a stop to the furious attacks made against our faith and our language, and complete harmony will he restored among all classes of citizens.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Herménégilde Boulay: It is his duty not to allow his preferfence to be seen.
If enlistment seems to be going slower in Quebec than in the other provinces- which I am not prepared to grant-the English and French fanatics in this country are responsible for it. Let us have justice throughout Canada. We want very little after all: only the right of teaching our language, of educating our children as we desire, of receiving our share of the public offices, and no more. We do not want to hamper the teaching of English in Canada, ' far from it. Let it be taught everywhere. We say that our British connection is the FrenchJCanadians' best safeguard. We are not annexationists. We desire to remain-. Canadians and inhabit the land we have inherited from our ancestors. If we are to be denied that legitimate request for freedom, if we are, not to be treated on an equal footing with all the other citizens of this ' country, better know our fate once for all, so that we may ask without delay the repudiation of the Federal pact, which would not then have for us the value of the scrap of paper on which it is written. The destruction of individual freedom will always entail endless controversies, going even to' the shedding of blood. If justice is not to be ours, let it be known now, and we are willing to see the province of Quebec withdraw from Confederation. It is not our desire, of course, to pass under any other domination buit the British Crown, nor, become one of the United States, but we must have complete and absolute freedom.
The few remarks I have made are not prompted by any bitterness or secret design; their only purpose is to point out the conditions in which we are placed, and I hope my intentions have been clearly grasped by the statesmen who sit in this House and are called upon, each in his own sphere, to enlighten public opinion. The teaching of French properly is no danger to public morality. One may easily judge of its moral effect from a comparison of the two races. The Citizen of Ottawa, edited in English, admitted that in the province of Quebec, crime was much less prevalent than in the English provinces.
If such be the case-and there is no doubt of it-there can then be no harm in practising the Catholic faith and teaching the French language and I trust that the greater fanatics among our friends will grant that my words are perfectly true.
I would now like to say a few words in English, so that my fellow members who 
speak that language may understand what I have said, and I hope they will admit that I am right. The first part of the resolution refers to the employees on the Intercolonial railway. For forty years the Intercolonial railway has been running through the province of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, and I claim that the French speaking population of these provinces have not had their share of patronage on that railway. I have given a list that will show my fellow members that I am- right in what I say. The French speaking population in the Maritime Provinces and in the province of Quebec are perfectly justified in claiming their rights. Of the population along the Intercolonial railway, particularly between Moncton and Mont-Joli, 66 per cent are French, and 34 per cent English, but instead of the number of French speaking employees being according to the population, they number only 20 per cent.
In the second part of the resolution, I refer to the CiviJ, Service of Canada, and particularly to the employees in the higher grades, those whose duties render it necessary for them to come in contact with the French speaking population, or with the French speaking members of this House while in attendance at Ottawa. It refers to the employees who, by reason of the fact that they cannot speak French, are unable to give satisfaction. It often happens that when a French Canadian member enters one of the departments, he finds a staff of from ten to twelve employees, none of whom can understand him. The resolution does not refer to employees of the lower grades, but simply to those who are paid large salaries, from $2,000 to $5,000 a year, and these I maintain should be men possessing a knowledge of the French language, so as to be fully equipped for their positions, and to give satisfaction, not only to the English speaking people of this country, but also to the French speaking population. Take the men for instance at the head of the Department of Agriculture. They are called upon to attend conferences in various parts of the country, and to direct the development of agriculture throughout the country, but so far as the French speaking population is concerned, they are practically of no use, because of their lack of knowledge of the French language. Men with less knowledge could fill their places just as well at smaller salaries. The French speaking population cannot profit from their services at all. When they go into the province of Quebec, the people, except in a few centres, cannot understand them. I maintain that the employees of the Civil Service ' occupying the

higher positions should know both the official languages of this country.
In closing these remarks, I may express the hope that they will be accepted in the best spirit. I am not actuated by any animosity or hatred; I simply wish my fellow countrymen to understand the situation. It is not only in connection with the school question that there is a kind of animosity, if I may use that term, between the two great races in Canada. The feeling does not start there; it started at Confederation, and perhaps before Confederation. We feel that we have never been treated as fairly as we should have been. We do not want to do injustice to anybody, but we want fair play, and when we get that, our English speaking countrymen will find that we will cease to grumble.


Mr. E. PAQUET (l'lslef):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I should like this evening to say a few words in support of the resolution moved by my hon. friend, the member for Rimouski, but as the Minister of Railways is ill and Dr. Reid, who take his place could not reach the House on account of the storm, I think it better to move to adjourn the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned-.


WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John city) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Government should promote legislation to amend The Dominion Elections Act, so as to provide that upon any province/ of Canada enacting legislation giving women the right to vote for members of the Provincial Legislature, such women as are on the Provincial voters lists, or as are otherwise entitled to vote for members of the Legislature in such province, shall also, unless otherwise disqualified, have the right to vote at elections for members of this House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is now nearly thirty years since I had the honour of proposing in the Provincial Legislature of New Brunswick a resolution to grant to women the right of suffrage. I had made that question an issue at the polls in the county for which I was a candidate, and I was elected. The people approved of my stand, but the resolution which I proposed was defeated in the Legislature by a small majority, and although the resolution was largely supported, the proposed measure never became law. Entertaining the views which I did at that time, that it was proper to grant to women the right of voting, and not having seen any occasion since to change those views, it is particularly gratifying to me at
the present time to know that a Bill has already passed the Legislature of Manitoba granting equal suffrage to women, and that at the opening of the session of the Alberta Legislature, it was declared in the speech from the Throne that one of the principal measures which the Government would submit would be a Bill granting female suffrage. I have the Edmonton Bulletin, which contains the speech of the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, and I find in it the following paragraph:
For many years there has been a growing feeling that the equality of the sexes should be recognized, and that the women, who, perhaps in a special degree in a new country, have aided in the development, put up with the hardships and assisted in the prosperity, should have the right to take an equal part in the Government of the country. My Government has considered this question, and has decided that so far as the legislature has power, this equality should in Alberta be fixed by law, and that for the future there should be no distinction of sexes in our province.
I think that declaration reveals the spirit which should animate the members of legislatures in the other provinces of Canada, as well as the members of this Parliament.-For my part, I do not see that one supporting the proposition of equal suffrage is called upon to present any arguments in -its favour, because I think that the burden should rest entirely upon those who oppose the granting of this measure of justice. I am unable to see one reasonable argument that can be presented against granting to the women of our country the same right to -share in public affairs, the same Tight to vote for members of the legislatures, or of Parliament, as is granted to the male portion of the community. But, with respect to the. resolution which I have ventured to submit for the opinion of this House, it is not necessary, I think, that one should declare in the abstract in favour of granting female suffrage and for this reason: when the Liberal party came into power in 1896, there was then upon the statute book an Act providing for a federal franchise and providing federal machinery for the making up of the lists of voters and for the qualification of voters. The Liberal Government took office, and at a very early period it carried through Parliament a measure doing away with the Federal Franchise Act and making provision that the provincial lists in the various provinces, and the law providing the -qualification of voters, should govern in federal elections as well. During the whole of the period while tiie Liberal party was in power.



that principal was adhered to. The Conservative party has now been in office governing this country for upwards of four years, and no move has been made to change the present Dominion Elections Act. So, I think we may fairly take it for granted that both parties in this country are agreed that whatever may be the qualification for voters for the provincial legislatures in the different provinces, shall also be the law in so far as the right of electors to vote for the Dominion House of Commons is concerned.
It will be observed that my resolution only proposes that the Government should frame legislation to provide that in those provinces where the right of suffrage has been granted to women by the legislatures, women in those provinces shall have the right to vote at elections for members of the House of Commons. The necessity for making some such provision, I think, will be abundantly clear from an examination of the Dominion Elections Act. An examination of the provisions of the Revised Statutes of Canada, Volume 1, chap. 6, shows that in respect to all of the provinces, except Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory, there is no express prohibition of women voting.


Robert Rogers: There is no prohibition in Saskatchewan against the ladies voting.
Mr. PU'GSLEY:	There is, unless the
law has been changed recently.


Robert Rogers: They voted there in 1912.


William Pugsley: For the Dominion?


Robert Rogers: No, for the provincial legislature:


William Pugsley: I am speaking now of elections for the Dominion House. There is no express prohibition in the Dominion Elections Act against women in that part of Canada other than Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, voting for the Dominion House of Commons, and it might be very well argued that if, in that part of the Dominion which is not embraced within Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory women'weTe placed upon the provincial voters' lists they would have the right to vote in Dominion elections. But, when we bear in mind that also in respect to the representation in this Parliament there is no prohibition against women, and that the statute is equally silent in regard to women sitting in this House as it is in regard to women ' voting for members, I think, perhaps, it would raise a very strong
[Mr. Pug-sley.l
doubt as to whether or not, if the question came before the courts, it would be held that women have the right to vote, merely because there is no express prohibition of their exercising that right. The words of the statute with regard to candidates for Parliament are simply that a British subject may ibe elected to Parliament. The words will be found in 'Section 69:
Except as in this Act otherwise provided, any British subject may_be a candidate in an election for a seat in the House of Commons.
These words-, of course, are broad enough to allow a woman, if she is a British subject, to be elected to this House. The same argument, which could be made in favour of giving isuch ia construction to the provisions of the Act which relate to the rest of Canada, apart from Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon as would give to women the right to vote for members of Parliament would also give women the right to sit as members of Parliament. I doubt very much if the statute would be so interpreted by the courts.
My hon. friend the, Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knows that some years ago, in the province of New Brunswick, an application was made 'by a lady for admission to the Bar. There was no prohibition in the provincial statute against women practising at the Bar, and therefore there would have been, on the face of the statute, apparently no reason why a woman should not be -admitted to practise law. But, when the question came before the courts on application for a mandamus to compel the Barristers' Society to admit a lady to the practice of the law, the court determined that as from time immemorial women had not been allowed to practise, or had not practised either at the Bar in Great Britain or in New Brunswick, it had not been the intention of the legislature -to grant that privilege in the	absence of express
language of the statute granting it. Assuming that decision to be correct, I should judge that a similar argument might be made in respect to women being elected members of this House, namely that from time immemorial women had not been permitted to be elected as members of the British House of Commons or of this Parliament, and therefore were not eligible. It would, I fear, be held that when this Legislature passed the Dominion Elections Act it had not in mind the giving to women of the right to vote. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) informs me that a similar

case arose in respect to an application of women to study law in the province of Quebec. In one portion of Canada, there is an express prohibition against women voting for members of Parliament. Part two of the Dominion Elections Act, consisting of sections 32 and 33 says:
In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta except, as in this Apt otherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act, who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years and has resided-
Then follows the provision for residence. There is the same prohibition in respect of the Yukon territory in section 33:
In the Yukon Territory, save as in this Act ptherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act, who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years.
Then again by the form of the proclamation which will be found upon page 82 of volume 1, revised statutes; and which is made a part of the statute there is this notice for the electors:
The following is the qualification of electors as prescribed by Parliament:
In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory except as in this Act otherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act, who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years and has resided in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Yukon territory, as the case may be, for at least 12 months.
And then in the oath, which will be found on page 89, in case the right of any one to vote is challenged, the oath is as follows:
Do you swear you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, that you are of the full age of 21 years and have resided in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Yukon territory, as the case may be, for at least 12 months.


Robert Rogers: What Act is my hon. friend quoting?


William Pugsley: The Dominion Elections Act. ,


Robert Rogers: There have been some changes.	'


William Pugsley: I have not been able to find any revisions of these sections; they have not been altered buit remain in the statute.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend should
look up the Saskatchewan Act and he will find in it some very important changes.
751	.


William Pugsley: That would be so far as the Saskatchewan Legislature is concerned.


Robert Rogers: The same law applies in Saskatchewan to the Dominion and to the provincial elections.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong. The Legislature would make provision for the lists, but this Parliament has never altered those provisions of the statute which expressly limit the right to vote to males. Parliament has' not changed the law in that respect. I am quite aware that the Legislature of Saska/tchewan has made provision for electoral lists and, as a reasonable consequence, one would suppose that apart altogether from this question having arisen, this Parliament would have followed the action of the Legislature of Saskatchewan and made in regard to that province similar provisions to those which exist in other provinces where there are lists.


Robert Rogers: Surely my hori. friend would not ask us to follow Saskatchewan, when they provided that it was not necessary to be a British subject to exercise the franchise in that province.


William Pugsley: I should think myself that the right of franchise should be limited either to British subjects or to those who have taken the statutory declaration. Perhaps my hon. friend might be able to point me to that statute.


Robert Rogers: I shall be delighted.


William Pugsley: Since the fire we are at a great disadvantage in getting books of reference.


Mr. TURRIFF:: The Minister of Public Works is a little bit wrong. There was a question whether the Saskatchewan Act stated definitely that the voter had to be a British subject, but that was removed by amendment in the session after the question arose.


Robert Rogers: Following an election.


John Gillanders Turriff: In Saskatchewan we do not use the provincial lists in Dominion elections.


William Pugsley: I thank my hon. friend from Assiniboia for the statement he has made. I have no doubt the minister made his statement in perfect good faith.


Robert Rogers: My statement is perfectly correct.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt the minister is glad to have the information from the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Robert Rogers: There is no information that changes my statement at all.


William Pugsley: At all events, this does not at all militate against my statement that this Parliament has not yet taken away the disqualification on female residents of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the- Yukon, and I care not what may be the legislation of the provinces, until this Parliament chooses to legislate these sections which I have read are in force and must necessarily govern the returning officers, and must necessarily determine the right to vote, so far as sex is concerned.


Robert Rogers: Would it not be well for my hon. friend to amend his resolution and make it applicable to all parts of Canada?


William Pugsley: If I were to do that it would raise in a broader way the question of the right of suffrage, and it would be changing the provincial lists. If the law were changed in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend, the result would be that in all the provinces where female suffrage has not been adopted there would have to be two lists.


Robert Rogers: I should think the provinces would be very glad to follow the example of this Parliament if we should adopt it.


William Pugsley: I am not sure that this Parliament has decided that it will be governed by the .views of the Provincial Legislature in this respect. I did not think it wise to make the resolution so broad as my hon. friend suggests, and, further, I did not deem it desirable to do so in this Parliament because we have it on record, if the right hon. the Prime Minister is reported correctly, that ih an interview which took place recently between a committee representing the women of Canada who are in favour of female suffrage, and himself, when the Government was pressed to promote legislation along the lines now suggested by the Minister of Public Works, the Prime Minister stated that the Government could not deal with the matter because it was one entirely for the legislatures of the different provinces. The Prime Minister is quite correct in that statement because, as long as Parliament says that the franchise shall be defined by toe legislatures of the provinces, and that toe provincial lists shall be the lists upon

which elections for the Dominion shall be held, we cannot properly depart from the franchise as it may be laid down in the different provinces by the provincial legislatures. The House will at once recognize how anomalous it would be that in Manitoba, which has given to women the right to vote, they might have the right to vote for members of this House, that is, on the theory that there is no direct prohibition in Manitoba, and in the province of Saskatchewan they would be denied that right by reason of the express prohibition which is in the Dominion Elections Act.


Robert Rogers: It is in our power to correct that.


William Pugsley: Yes. That was my
object in bringing this matter before the House to-night, not in any partisan spirit, but simply with a view to getting an expression of opinion from the House, and with a view to having the Government act so that there may be no question as to the right of women to vote in those provinces in respect to which the right to vote in a provincial election is granted to them.


Mr. PROULX:: Would the hon. member be willing to go as far as the legislature of Manitoba did and extend the franchise to include the right of women to occupy seats in this Parliament?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can answer that question for himself. It is not involved in my motion and it will be time enough to consider it when the question arises. I am not at all disposed to fear that any harm will come to the province of Manitoba by reason of women being given the right to sit in the legislature and take part in the government of Canada. I think they have that right in New Zealand and Sweden.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: And Norway. ,


William Pugsley: I know they have it in a large number of the states of the Union, and I have never heard that any harm has come to the people of those countries or states by reason of women having been given the right to sit in the legislatures.
During the terrible eighteen months through which this Empire has passed, the women of this country have shown that they are just as loyal and that they know their duty just as well as the men, and that they can make the same necessary sacrifices in the interest of the country and of the Empire. In England they have shown their willingness and ability to take

the place of the men in the workshops and to engage in those various avocations to which it was supposed before that men were specially adapted, and in which it was supposed that women had no place. By their, conduct during this war the women of this country have earned the right to be recognized as the equals of men and to be given the opportunity of discharging equally with men those duties which pertain to citizenship in a free country. That is the answer which I make to my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), and if he or anyone else will move that women should be given the right to sit in Parliament, I can assure him that he will have, in the person of myself, a sympathetic listener to his arguments. I am inclined to think that the motion which I am making to-night will be received with hearty approval by my constituents. I am only asking this Government to promote legislation which will carry out what has been the view of this Parliament for the past nineteen years, that is, that the provincial lists of voters in the different provinces shall govern in the elections in those provinces for members of this Parliament. This legislation is necessary in order to remove difficulties and make the provincial lists really and truly the lists for the election of members of Parliament, and to place all the provinces, which from time to time may grant women suffrage, in the same position so far as electing members to the House of Commons is concerned. It is not necessary for me to argue the general question, because the events of recent years, the trend of legislation in . other countries, the benefits which have accrued to those countries which have adopted woman suffrage, all tend to throw, and ought to be sufficient to throw the onus upon those who would seek to oppose such a measure as this which is manifestly founded upon the principles pf justice and equal rights to all the members of the community.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, while it is a common practice m this House, when a mere academic resolution is proposed,, to have it disposed of either by an adjournment so as to place a further discussion of it beyond the possibility of being reached during the session in which the motion is made, or by a vote being taken upon it as a mere matter of form, I do not intend to sit silent until the matter proposed by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is disposed cf. I
desire at the earliest possible moment to put myself on record, in language as concise and clear as I may command, as being against the principle enunciated, in the resolution.
My hon. friend has stated that the onus is upon those who oppose woman suffrage to show that they should not be permitted the right to vote in Federal elections. It will not be very difficult to give reasons why the reception which the proposal to give women the right .to vote received in the states of Massachusetts. New Jersey, and New York a few months ago ought to be accorded to the present resolution by representatives occupying seats in this House. I am opposed to the resolution of the hon. member for St. John because it refers only to a franchise to be exercised by women in the, province of Manitoba. This Parliament ought not to be asked to legislate piecemeal with respect to those who shall have the right to vote in Federal elections. I cannot understand why the women of the province of Manitoba, estimable and intelligent though they may be, shall have the right to vote in Federal elections, while the women of the other provinces are excluded from that privilege. We are legislating here, not for one province alone, not for one section of the Dominion, but for the whole of Canada, and any proposal or resolution designed to give the people, either male or female, certain privileges in any particular portion of Canada ought not to prevail unless those rights and privileges are made applicable throughout the Dominion.
The demand for woman suffrage is made because women claim to be the equal of men in all respects, and that is one of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for St. John. For my part I never dispute the proposition that women are not only equal, but in many respects, superior to men; but does it add to their superiority, or does it increase their virtues to accord to them the privilege of voting and becoming a part and parcel of the political machinery of this country? The right to vote is only one prilivege which is sought to be conferred upon women by this proposed legislation. Although women are the equal of men in this country, there are certain positions which men occupy which are not occupied by women, although they are not prevented from occupying them by reason of any hostile or adverse legislation. In this country there are large railway corporations, banking institutions, and industrial corporations which are governed by men alone. There is not a railway, bank-

ing, or industrial corporation in this Dominion on whose board of directors women sit. Now, is that because there is any legislation, or any lack of legislation, which prevents them from 'sitting there? There is no reason in the world why the good women of this country should not occupy positions on these boards of directors, but they do not, and I have not heard of any great agitation on the part of our estimable women to be accorded seats upon these boards. I presume that the reason why we have no agitation with respect to that is that it is not necessary to come to Parliament in order to have these rights accorded. It appears to me folly to say that women are excluded from the right to vote in this country because they iare not assumed to be the equal of <men. As I ipointed out, there are other responsible and important positions in this country in which women could take their seats beside men, and have not done so up to the present time. I do not understand that there is any particular reason why these positions should not be occupied by women unless it is that these large corporations have been managed from the beginning by men and have (been .made successful by the business energy and pluck put into them by .men. It may also be because the wealth of this country, like the wealth of all countries of the civilized world, has been, produced by men, women not having participated to the same extent in adding to the wealth which makes these corporations possible. These may be the reasons why women have not put themselves forward as entitled to participate in the management of these institutions.
The demand is also made that women should have the right to vote because there should be no taxation without representation. The right to vote will not give these women representation. I am opposed to the resolution of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) because if it were accepted by the House it would not settle anything. The right to vote is only one of the rights which, if that be granted, must be .accorded to women. My hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) I think hit the nail upon the head when he asked the hon. member for St. John if he is willing to concede to women the right to sit in Parliament. The influence of electors is very small in matters of taxation. Tom Jones or John Brown, living in a Temote district in Nova Scotia, has v*ery little influence on the Finance Minis-
ter in settling his Budget. In order to give representation to which one is entitled who is subject to taxation, it must be given not in the electoral list but on the floor of Parliament. But there are certain advantages and rights which women enjoy by reason of any taxation they pay quite equal to those enjoyed by men. In the matter of civic taxation, women who have property have the same police protection, the .same enjoyment of municipal regulations to protect their property, as the men have. On the other hand, hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in the other branch of this Parliament, though they are considered intelligent men, possessing considerable wealth in some instances, have no right to say in what manner taxation shall be levied upon them. We have there a case of taxation without representation.
It is stated by the advocates of woman suffrage that women are [DOT] entitled to vote because it would give them an opportunity to exercise their influence with respect to matters pertaining to property and civil rights. Now, property and civil rights are matters concerning which this Parliament has no. control. Uuder the British North America Act such matters are relegated to the Provincial Legislatures, and if there is any argument in favour of women being accorded the right to vote on account of their disability to exercise their influence with regard to these subjects, then the right to vote should be limited to the Provincial Legislatures, and not extended to the Dominion Parliament.
Another argument used in favour of woman suffrage is that women would exercise a most beneficial effect upon all questions of social and moral reform. Well, vve have had questions pertaining to social and moral reform before this Parliament and before the Legislatures of the several provinces for many years. We have had temperance legislation promoted in the various provinces. We know that in three of the provinces at' least there is practically total prohibition. The women of this country are naturally interested in the question of temperance. It is to the highest degree commendable in them that they have always given their influence on
9 p.m. the side of temperance. But , they have made their influence felt in the legislation adopted by this Parliament and by the legislatures of the provinces on this subject. In Nova Scotia

we have practically total prohibition. In Saskatchewan they have prohibition to the extent that there is no such thing as a liquor business carried on by private individuals. And there are assurances that Alberta will have prohibition within the next few years. These reforms have been brought about notwithstanding that women have no votes and have not occupied seats in the provincial legislatures or in this Parliament. There is a stronger feeling in favour of Dominion-wide prohibition today, I believe, than ever before. On all sides we see evidence that the temperance movement has received enormous momentum within the last few years, and we have every reason to believe that there will be more temperance legislation within the next few years than in all the previous history of the Dominion. And all this is brought about by representatives in the . legislatures and in the Parliament of Canada among whom women do not sit. Mere men are willing to give ear to pleas for social and moral reform; and I question very much if the influence of women, if they were given the right to vote and to sit in Parliament, would be more potent than it is at the present time. Has there ever come up in this Parliament a question in which the rights and interests of women have been discriminated against as compared with men? Very few subjects are dealt with in this Parliament in which * women have an exclusive interest? Take our criminal law, as an example. There is not a line from one end to the other of that code that discriminates against women. On the contrary, exceptions are made in favour of women under the provisions of the criminal law that do not apply to men. Therefore, women cannot ask the right to vote on the ground that because they do not exercise the franchise theiir interests are not safeguarded in Parliament or in the legislatures of this country.
Women's condition in the scheme of citizenship has been vastly improved by the legislation of the last hundred years. The Married Women's Property Act, which has been placed upon the statute-books of the various provinces of this Dominion within comparatively recent years, accords to women the right to exercise control over their own property which they did not exercise fifty ot a hundred years ago. It was brought to the attention of the representatives of the people in the legislatures of Canada that the right of property was not enjoyed by married women to the same extent as by men, and immediately these
legislatures took up this question and enacted laws on the subject of women's property, so that to-day women exercise practically the same control over their property as men do with respect to the property which they own.	.
Woman suffrage is demanded because it is complained that virtuous and intelligent women have no votes, while male illiterates and drunkards have the right to vote. I ask, are all women virtuous and temperate? I am willing to concede that the exceptions are not so numerous among women.as among men; nevertheless, if you are going to extend the franchise to women you will be extending it to some who are of the same class as those among men whose exercise of the rlight to vote is objected to. We have in some provinces a limited franchise. In the province of Nova Scotia, and I think in New Brunswick and Ontario, and some other provinces as well, there is a property franchise upon which the right to vote is based. In Nova Scotia, before a person is permitted to vote, he must show that he is the owner of real estate to the value of $1&0 at least or is in receipt of an income of $250 a year. But in the province of Manitoba, if I am correctly informed, there is manhood suffrage. Every male person of the age of 21 years has the right to have his name placed on the electoral list, quite irrespective of whether or not he owns property. The same law prevails in the province of Saskatchewan, and, I have no doubt, also in Alberta and possibly in British Columbia. Therefore you have an adult suffrage in these provinces. If the principle contended for by my hon. friend from St. John is carried, you not only place the women owning property upon the electoral list, but you put upon the electoral list the name of every woman 21 years of {ige whether she owns property or not. As I say, you take in the whole scope of the female population of these provinces, and again I ask are there no drunkards among the women of these provinces?


Robert Rogers: No.


George William Kyte: I do not know; but I do
know that in some countries we sometimes find that the virtue of sobriety is not as universal among the women as we would like it to be.


Robert Rogers: That is not so in the
West though.


George William Kyte: If such a thing happened
that there were any women in those prov-

inces where manhood suffrage is enjoyed who do not possess the highest standard of sobriety and morality, they would be equally objectionable as voters as those male electors of whom the women complain. You have these undesirables, if there be any, placed upon the electoral list, and I should like to know how much more the undesirable female voter would improve the moral condition of this country than the undesirable male voter. Government means force; it means endurance; it means physical power. Voters do not make Governments. The decrees of Governments are not enforced mechanically or automatically. After laws are passed in the legislatures and Parliaments it is necessary to give effect to them, very frequently by force. Our civic ordinances are enforced by certain officers who constitute the police force in the community where the ordinances apply. Our national laws are enforced very frequently by our soldiers and international rights are necessarily enforced by arms. If women claim that they occupy the same position exactly in the scheme of citizenship that men do, then how are their laws going to be enforced, because there will be no distinction? They say that in all respects they are equal to men and they are prepared to assume the same burdens that are imposed upon men. Then if that be true women must assume the garb of the police officer if she represents the public in civic matters. Her sisters, by virtue of whose support perhaps she occupies a seat in the civic or municipal council, must assume the garb of policemen and must do pelice duty to enforce civic laws. If rebellion breaks out in this country it is necessary to call out the militia. There is no reason why the militia force should be confined to the men, because if the resolution of the hon, member for St. John passes and women become as important a factor in the government of this country as men, then they must have the same obligations imposed upon them, and these women must be prepared to shoulder their guns, to march out and take their places in the trenches, and to do their full share in enforcing the laws which they are parties in the making. We have a condition of affairs existing now which shows how futile would he the assertion of international rights if they were not backed up by force of arms. Advocates of woman suffrage, if the ideal conditions are brought about which they have in mind, must agree that women shall constitute part of our armies and shall endure the same hardships, the same discomforts and the same 
privations that are endured by the men now occupying the trenches. It is folly to say that women are physically the equal of men. In some other respects they are superior to men.
Those in favour of women having the right to vote seem to be influenced by two notions. One is resentment at the suggestion that women should be counted by men as inherently inferior in certain respects. The second is reprehension of a state of society in which more money, * more personal liberty, more power, more public recognition and happier psychological conditions fall to the share of men. The interference in polities on the part of woman I very much fear is more likely to degrade women than her influence is calculated to .elevate politics. We do know that in certain states of the Union women have enjoyed the right to vote, for 48 or 50 years. Twelve states have adopted prohibition with men alone voting, while only four states have adopted prohibition with the aid of women's votes. The State of Maine, which has defeated every attempt to introduce woman suffrage, has had prohibition since 1850. NoTth Dakota, which defeated woman suffrage at the polls in 1914, has had prohibition since 1889. Not a single state went dry with women voting before Nov. 3, 1914. According to Senator Works of California, the city of San Francisco has 3,500 saloons. The male suffrage city of Boston, with a population one and one-half times as large as San Francisco, has only about 700 saloons. On May-4, 1915, the women of Reno, exercising the franchise for the first time, voted against the proposition to reduce the numbeT of saloons from 80 to 40, and were publicly thanked by the liquor interests for standing by them. After 46 years of woman suffrage, the State of Wyoming is still wet. Colorado, woman suffrage since 1893, adopted prohibition Nov. 3, 1914, but the city of Denver, under the local option provision for cities of 50,000 and over, voted to remain wet.
I cite these facts for the purpose of showing that one of the reasons advanced in favour of woman suffrage has not been realized as respects prohibition. Originally, when this agitation was let loose' in the United States, the contention was made that woman had the inalienable right to exercise the franchise and have her name placed on the electoral list. The Supreme Court of the United States, 20 years ago, upon that matter being referred to them, declared unanimously that women had no

inalienable right whatever in regard to the matter. So the advocates of woman suffrage were obliged to shift their ground and they based their argument on the claim that, while they did not have a right to claim the exercise of. the franchise, it was desirable in the public interest because their influence would be so elevating on all subjects of social and moral reform. The facts I have cited as to the influence of women voters on the prohibition question in the portions of the United States where they exercise the franchise, goe^ to show that no marked advancement has been brought about by reason of their exercising that privilege. As I stated a moment ago, the granting to women of the right to vote does not settle anything whatever. In .the province of Manitoba the legislators recognized) that fact; they felt it would be useless and futile to stop at giving women the mere right to vote, so they coupled with it the necessary corollary of giving them the right to sit in Parliament. I repeat, there is no question as to women being inferior or unequal to men in any way, but there is a vast difference between the functions of women as compared with those of men. In every well-regulated family the work is divided among its members, so that each duty is assigned to such member as should most properly perform. Take a homely illustration from country life. The father and sons do the outside work, while the household duties are performed by the mother and daughters. Now, any rearrangement of those duties, that would place the mother and daughters upon the roof of the barn to repair the leak, and the father and sons in charge of the pastry and needlework, would be universally regarded as highly inequitable and improper. Votes for women mean foT the suffragette not only the right to vote, but the right to canvass in elections, to serve upon committees, to attend caucuses, to sit in Parliament, to have no time left to devote to those tender duties for which she alone in . the whole creation is specially fitted. The division of labour that I referred to a moment ago was decreed by God himself and honoured and respected by man throughout all the ages. It implies no lack of capacity, no inferiority, on the part of women. It is the sturdy trees of the forest that beaT the brunt of the storms, and thus afford shelter to the tender foliage that vegetates beneath their protecting branches.
The agitation for women suffrage began in the United States some seventy years
ago, and it has been going on merrily ever since. It is quite true that in some of the Western States they have succeeded in getting the suffrage as respects State elections, but during those seventy years every attempt made to grant women the right to vote in federal elections has been persistently and consistently opposed. I recognize and appreciate the character and quality of the citizens of the United States, and there	are many	respects inwhich they can set us an example, in certain	departments	of government, as well as regards intellectual development; but there are other aspects of their social and civic life from which I would not like to borrow, or which I would care to have engrafted upon the body politic of this country. There are two evils from which the United States has suffered as no other country in the world has suffered; the first is that of divorce, and the other arises from the agitation lor woman's suffrage. I submit Mr. Speaker that the agitation for woman suffrage bids fair to rob the people of the United States of the remnant of domestic and social life which has been left to them by their divorce laws. The agitators in favour of woman suffrage would call her away from the functions which she was designed by nature to perform, and would change her from the gentle creature that we have always known her to be into a raving militant suffragette. The agitation in England has been such as to leave a blot upon the civilization of that country. Advocates of woman suffrage say that the women would eAnoble public life. I would ask if they approve of the actions of the militant suffragettes in England previous to the war. There was no breach of the peace, no destruction of property, no invasion of private rights which they failed to conceive and carry out. The jails were filled, week in and week out, with the women who believed that by those methods, and those methods alone, they -would be able to carry out the reform which they sought to establish.
I referred a moment ago to the consequences upon the social life of the United States of the advocacy of woman suffrage. I will quote a few statistics shoeing the result of the agitation during recent years.
In the House of Representatives, January 12, the proposed suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution was defeated by a vote of 174 yeas to 204 nays, with 57 representatives not recorded. In a full House the suffragists would have needed 290 votes to carry the amendment. They fell 116

short of that. On the vote recorded they needed 252 votes. They fell 78 short of that.
The following were the results so far as the 'legislatures are concerned. In Alabama, the suffrage amendment for which the suffragists had made an active campaign, did not get out of committee. In Arkansas, the suffrage amendment was crowded out by the provision that only three constitutional amendments can be submitted at dne time. In Connecticut, the proposed amendment was defeated in the House by a vote of 106 yeas to 124 nays. In Delaware, the proposed amendment was defeated in the House by a vote Of 8 yeas to 22 nays, and in the Senate by 6 yeas to 11 nays. In Florida, the proposed suffrage amendment was defeated. In Georgia, a resolution for the submission of a suffrage amendment was laid on the table by a unanimous vote by the Legislative Committee. In Illinois, the resolution for a constitutional convention, for which the suffragists laboured, in the expectation that the convention, if it met, would make full suffrage one of its chief considerations, failed to pass the House after receiving a nearly unanimous vote in the Senate. In Indiana, a limited suffrage Bill, after the Illinois model, was defeated. In Maine, the proposed suffrage amendment was defeated in the House. In Michigan, the suffrage attempt to secure the enactment of a limited suffrage Bill failed because .the Bill was found to. be unconstitutional. In Minnesota, the proposed suffrage amendment was defeated in the Senate. In Missouri, the attempt to persuade the- legislature to resilbmit the suffrage amendment which was defeated at the polls last year by a majority of 140,206 failed. In Nebraska, a limited suffrage Bill was defeated. In New Hampshire, a municipal suffrage Bill was defeated in the House by a vote of 121 yeas to 230 nays, an adverse majority of nearly two to one. In North Carolina, a proposed suffrage amendment was indefinitely postponed by the House by a vote of 68 to 39. In North Dakota, the proposed suffrage amendment, which passed the 1913 legislature, came up for the required action by a second legislature, but was tabled in the Senate by a vote of 26 to 21. In Oklahoma, the proposed suffrage amendment was indefinitely postponed in the Senate. In Rhode Island, a presidential suffrage Bill was defeated in the House by a vote of 65 to 31. In Vermont, a combined presidential and municipal suffrage Bill was defeated in the House by a vote of 129 to 100. 
In Wisconsin, the resolution providing for the submission of a suffrage amendment to the electors was defeated in the House, April 20, and in the Senate, July 1.
The results at the polls were: In New Jersey, October 19, for the suffrage amendment, 1133,201; against, 184,474; majority against, 51,273. In Massachusetts, November 2, for the suffrage amendment, 162,482; against, 295,939; majority against, 133,487. In New York, November 2, for the suffrage amendment, 544,457; against, 732,770; majority against, 188,313. Unofficial anti-suffrage majority in Oneida county, 6,154, making the total majority against, 194,467. In Pennsylvania, November 2, for the suffrage amendment, 385,348; against, 441,034; majority against, 55,686.
If after seventy, years of agitation in the United States these important and wealthy states of the Union have pronounced so decisively against female suffrage, how can my hon. friend from St. John hope that this Parliament is going to accept his resolution upon a mere moment's notice? He stated in his opening remarks with much pride that thirty years ago he had proposed a similar resolution in the legislature of New Brunswick. I commend him for his persistency, I commend him for the consistency of his course, but inasmuch as the legislature of New Brunswick has not yet accepted female suffrage, the hon. gentleman cannot boast of the success that has crowned his efforts.
I am opposed to the resolution of the hon. member for St. John because it imposes an obligation upon the vast majority of the women of this country that they are unwilling to assume. The right to vote is not a contest between the women in the United States and England who seek the franchise and the men who are opposed to it. I say, and I say with authority, that the contest, both in England and the United States, is rather between the women who are in favour of the exercise of the suffrage and the vast majority of the women in those countries who do not want to exercise the suffrage. Take a poll of the women in England, and a poll of the women in the different states of the Union in which this agitation is going on, and it will be found that there is a vast majority of women who are opposed to woman suffrage. So far as this country is concerned,
I am unwilling that this Parliament shall impose upon the vast majority of women an obligation which they are unwilling to asume, which they do not wish to assume and which, according to all womanly and motherly instincts, they ought not to be

asked to assume. If the resolution of the hon. member for St. John becomes crystallized into law we will bequeath to our children, and our children's children, a social and domestic life as bald and barren as the mountains of Gilboa.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the wide difference of opinion which exists between such weighty men as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs ley, and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), and in order that they may have an opportunity, between now and a future session, of adjusting their differences amicably, and as there is a great number of gentlemen on this side of the House who desire to speak on this most important subject on a future occasion, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is moved by Mr. Bennett that the debate be now adjourned.


William Pugsley: I think that upon reflection my hon. friend'(Mr. Bennett) will see that .it is hot desirable to press this motion. It is quite early in the evening and my motion has stood over on quite a number of occasions when it was called particularly at the request of members of the Government. It having now come up for consideration I think it is desirable, if possible, to take a vote upon it to ascertain what is the opinion of the House .so that the Government may be guided by that opinion. If the House should be in favour of refusing the motion, of course, the Government will act accordingly. If the House should be of the opinion that the motion should carry, I think it is desirable that it should be so informed at as early a time as possible, because Manitoba has passed woman suffrage. There are two vacancies in Manitoba, and unless the legislation is made clear there will be inextricable confusion in connection with these elections when they come on. There will be many lawyers, I venture to say, who will claim that women have the right to vote for members of Parliament. There will be many others who will say that they have not the right to vote. It is desirable to make it clear. If the motion stands over to-night by the ingenuity of my hon. friend, it may not come up again during the present 'session, as the 'Government have given notice that they are going to take Wednesdays, and Government business will have precedence on that day. I would therefore ask my hon. friend not to press this motion.
Mr. ROGERS. In answer to my hon. friend, I may say that this is undoubtedly a very important question that has been raised, and, in so far .as any fear my hon. friend may have with respect to the question not again being brought to the attention of the House, I assure him that the question will come up again before the close of the session. It is an important question and we are most desirous of disposing of it in the most reasonable and the clearest manner possible. Therefore, I entirely agree with my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) in moving the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon) :	Mr. Speaker, before the motion to
adjourn the debate is put, I would like to say a few words as coming from the province of Saskatchewan, which is one of the provinces that in the very near future will adopt suffrage for women,


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of the hon. member for East Simcoe?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I declare the motion
lost.


Mr. McCRANEY:: As has been pointed
out in the House already, the province of Manitoba has passed a resolution which will give the franchise to the women of that province. The legislature of the province of Saskatchewan is now in session and Mr. Walter Scott has given the assurance that similar legislation will be passed. In Manitoba a very large petition was presented by the women of the province asking for the franchise. The same has been done in Saskatchewan-	,


Robert Rogers: I am afraid my hon.
friend is rather out of order in view of the fact that the debate has been adjourned.
An hon. MEMBER. No, the motion was lost.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The hon. member for
East Simcoe made a motion to adjourn the debate and I declared the motion lost.


George Ewan McCraney: I do not know whether or not a petition was presented to the legislature of Alberta, but that legislature is now in session, and the Premier of the province has pledged that there also

woman suffrage will be granted. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Kyte) argued that if these women were given the franchise they would have to assume obligations different from those assumed by men in respect of the franchise-as though they had not the right to exercise the franchise as men do. If women are given the franchise, those who do not care to exercise it may stay at home, as the men do when they do not wish to exercise it. The motion of the hon. member for St. John city does not seek to impose woman suffrage upon the county of Richmond; it simply asks that any province desiring to do so may have the right to give their women a voice in public affairs. This has no reference to the question of prohibition. In the province of Manitoba, women will not vote in the plebiscite which is to be taken on the thirteenth of next month. Women had no part in the vote which was taken last summer in the province of Alberta. In Saskatchewan it had already been determined to take a vote on the question of prohibition, and it is only because that vote has been accelerated that in the meantime women will be given the right to vote.
But what is the real reason why we should give women votes if they want them? We have learned many things from the war, and one thing that I believe we have learned more than any other is that women are able to take a place in public affairs that we had not previously thought them capable of. Their patriotic instincts have been a surprise to us; they have shown an ability to organize and a desire to advance national welfare which entitled them-at least in our province, we think-to take part in public affairs. In no province has the right of women been more fully recognized than in my own province-in the. matter of their being given a right similar to dower, in the matter of their rights in cases of intestacy, in the matter of their right to vote in municipal and school elections. The right which I have last mentioned is extended to unmarried as well as to married women. There are reasons why the western provinces recognize the copartnership of husband and wife in public affairs which may not apply with equal force in the eastern provinces. It is well known that in every new country the burden of settlement and of building up the community is borne by women as well as by men, indeed, as one who has lived quite a number of years in the West, I would say that those burdens fall more heavily upon the women than upon the men. The men of our
[Mr. McCraney.J
province and of the other Prairie Provinces wish to give women a share in public affairs because they recognize what women have done in the building up of the country.
My hon. friend has argued that if women take part in public life they will have to bear arms and act as the policemen of the country. That is as we will. If we say to the women: you must bear arms and be policemen, I am quite sure that there are many of them who will do so and will do it well. In any such argument there is no appeal to our chivalry, and I am quite sure that my hon. friend was not in serious vein when he made use of it. The fate of this motion has been indicated; it will probably arrive at nothing more than discussion this session. But I believe that after women shall have been given an opportunity to take part in the public affairs and have shown their capacity to do so, we shall have in all our legislatures a >
better class of men than we have had hitherto. That result in itself would be sufficient. In view of the results which have come from the part taken by women in elections, I do not think this Parliament should refuse to give to the women of the western provinces who already have a vote in municipa' affairs the right to exercise the franchise as proposed by the hon. member for St. John city.


Edmond Proulx: I regret to
have to differ from the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) in that I think the franchise should be extended only to widows and spinsters.


William Pugsley: You think they are the most sensible.


Edmond Proulx: No, but a widow may toe the head of a family, and may take great interest in the affairs of her country. In Ontario the right to vote in municipal elections has been extended to widows and spinsters who hold property, and it was recently proposed to extend this right to provincial elections. If the resolution of the hon. member were limited to widows, and spinsters, I should feel disposed to support it, but I do not feel disposed to support a proposal to extend the franchise to married women, thus introducing into the home matters of political discussion and dissension.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You are a man of peace.


Edmond Proulx: The home is sacred and no cause for dissension or quarrelling should be introduced into it. Often per-

sons who marry entertain opposite political views and controversy may arise, but in the case of widows and spinsters there would be no danger of that. Parliament and the provincial legislatures may enact laws affecting the property and civil rights of women, and I think they should have the right to exercise the franchise. At one time the franchise was limited to a certain class of persons who had to own property assessed for a certain amount; but when this Parliament accepted the provincial franchise in 1898, that was done away with. In Ontario the provincial franchise is very wide, including every British subject of twenty-one years of age. Now, as men 'in all countries have always held a higher place than women, the privileges can still be given to men and not extended to women. There may be some agitation in some of the provinces for female suffrage, but I do not know that it is very wide in the province' of Ontario, and I have never heard of any agitation in my county. I, one time, was at a meeting of the Ontario Liberal Association and a lady who was supposed to be the president of the Women's Suffrage Association at Toronto wanted to have the privilege of addressing the meeting. We gave her that privilege and, after she had addressed us, I asked her whether, if we adopted her programme, she would work for the Liberal party. Well, she told us that women should not have any party. Now, if the, women have not decided what party they belong to, or if they do not belong to any party, I do not think it will be of much use to grant them the franchise. Some years ago I read a speech delivered by Mr. Justice Longley, of Nova Scotia, in which he admitted the great influence that women exercised over the affairs of our country. We all know from history that women have always played great parts in the ruling of various countries; we have all read of the great ladies of France 'and England; we have heard of petticoat governments; that is, of governments ruled by the influence of women, but Mr. Justice Longley said that he had never seen a woman very anxious for the * franchise unless she had lost all confidence in her charms. I believe that, although women are denied the right to cast their vote, many men deposit their ballots according to the will of their wives, and that women, if they so desire, can exert a great	influence in the
election of members of this House as well as of members of the different
provincial legislatures. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but if this resolution comes to a vote, I am afraid I shall have to record my vote against it.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that -I was not in the House when my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) proposed his motion, but I have gathered that his proposition is one that would lead to the gradual substitution of the vivacity of women in the affairs of the state for what is usually the crass stupidity of men, the quickness of observation of the female sex for what is the absolute dullness of man, and, if I have rightly gathered the object and purport of the motion, then I now hold with my hon. friend from St. John. I support the motion on very broad grounds. It seems to me that, for the ordinary purposes of the nation, the duties of men and women are pretty equally divided, and it would not be regular nor proper, nor even possible to endeavour to carry on the general purposes of the nation without women. Every one must realize, if he will reflect for a moment, that he had a woman for his mother, and, if he happens to have a daughter, she is a woman also, and he cannot get married without having a woman to help him to the business. The two sexes are really absolutely necessary for carrying on human affairs. A proper appreciation of this elementary fact on the part of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) would have kept him from delivering what I think was the weakest logic and one of the weakest speeches to which I have ever listened. I have frequently listened to my hon. friend and he always delivers an eloquent speech, and sometimes a comprehensive and logical one, so that I am inclined to be charitable enough to attribute the weakness of his logic in this case to the feebleness of his subject, or to the absolute want of any subject at all.
The greatest political evil that we have in Canada at the present moment is political corruption. I am sure I am right in this, because if I did not know it was so, I was told so by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) the other day. I have asked a good many very observant and very knowing people of both sexes what they thought would be woman's attitude towards political corruption. Nine out of ten observers, whose opinion I would value, at once answered: " Oh, you cannot buy an average woman at all to do anything against her will," and

that is just my opinion of the sex, having seen a great deal of them in all the avefiues of life that are followed by medical men. Therefore I think that the greatest political evil existing m this country at the present time would almost cease to exist if you had many women taking interest in politics as men do to-day. But perhaps one can best demonstrate the strength of the position of my hon. friend from St. John by looking at a few of the arguments advanced by my hon. friend from Richmond. My hon. friend said, in referring to an argument which I have always thought a very small one, as to a certain number of women being intemperate, that, after all, in enfranchising women we should enfranchise such women, and therefore the case would not be mended as against the fact that there are a certain number of intemperate men at the present time. He said-and I think in saying it he gave away his case-that in enfranchising women we should be dealing with the same class as men belong to, although I admit that he modified his opinion.
I have already said that the strongest argument for woman suffrage is the fact that women do belong to the same great human family that men do. If my hon. friend had extended his observation a little further he would have seen that the restricted application of his argument was wrong, and that the wider application of it absolutely takes the ground from under his own case.
The hon. gentleman said that if woman suffrage were granted we should need to make women policemen. As my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) has said, that would not necessarily follow. But 1 agree with my hon.' friend from Saskatoon .that if we do make women policemen they would be very efficient ones. I never saw a man so far gone in crime, so very much the worse for liquor, that he would not rather be taken to a cell by a woman than by a man. In fact, the great majority of criminals, unless the most desperate class among them, would accept the gentle leadership of women and make the duties of policemen very much easier than sometimes they are at present.
Then the hon. gentleman said that we should have to be prepared to put women in khaki and send them to the trenches. Why, he misses the whole case that women set up for the vote, the whole case that reformers put up for woman suffrage. Is there a member of this House who does not know that if woman had the vote there [Mr. M. Clark. 1
would be no trenches and no khaki, in a very short time? They would put an end to war, they would not be such fools as men are; they would take the more rational, elevated path of reason for the settlement of international disputes. Such, at any rate, is the argument of the social reformer. It does not meet the case to say that we1 should have to dress women in khaki and send them to the trenches after khaki and the trenches had been done away with.
Then my hon. friend had a very eloquent passage about the weakness of woman and the strength of man. There is perhaps no one who can so fully understand the erroneous nature of that argument as a medical man. I recall a story that Max O'Rell used to relate, and which I think he has put in one of his books. He tells of listening to a bunch of men talking about a woman acquaintance of theirs who had to undergo an operation without chloroform, and one of them spoke of her admiringly as having " stood it like a man." There is not a woman who does not 10 p.m. know, and there are not many men who do not know, that if she had only stood it like a man she would not have stood it at all like a woman. I have seen many a man go into fits of fear and desperation about an ailment that a woman, if he had consulted her, could have told hinj meant that there was nothing particular the matter with him. Take it from me, Sir-and in this I speak more dogmatically than I usually speak-that for endurance, for patience, for all the virtues of that kind, no man.who knows himself and also knows woman will ever put himself in comparison with a woman for a moment. 'That is my experience; I give it for what it is worth. And I do not think that any man in this House really disagrees with me.
My hon. friend admitted that in a great many ways which he did not mention women are the superiors of men. That scarcely seems an argument for the inferiors keeping their superiors out of the vote. I submit for his consideration that that admission of his wrecked another portion of his platform beneath his feet.
The hon. gentleman seemed to argue that women, if given the vote, would vote against prohibition. Well, there is something to be said on both sides of the prohibition question. I am not now discussing the question of prohibition in its restricted sense as applied to the sale of liquor; but on general principles I am very much in favour of freedom, as this House well knows. It is freedom we are fighting for in Europe,

and it is freedom for which men have been willing to lay down their Jives throughout all ages of the world's history. So, if a woman has an instinctive or intuitive prejudice against prohibition, even of intoxicating liquors, she has, I say, the mental characteristic possessed by the best men throughout the ages of human history. She possibly has some little sex and domestic reason for being opposed to prohibition-if she be opposed to it, as the hon. gentleman suggests; and I only meet the statement as he makes it. Nothing would terrify a married woman more than the thought that she had to have her bus-band, dangling on her hands, morning, noon and night. Nothing bothers a woman's life more than to have a man of that kind. There are exceptions, of course, but the exceptions only prove the rule. The woman, like the man, likes to have a little time to herself, and it may be a little domestic prejudice that gives her that view of prohibition, if my hon. friend is right, and she really does hold that view.
My hon. friend said he would not like to have the women of Canada turned into the militant suffragettes of Britain. Well, I rather admire the militant suffragettes of Britain from this point of view, that I recollect what men had to do in Britain before they got the vote. I know something about the Chartist movement. I have heard of the massacre of Peterloo, and the riots that men had to betake themselves to before they got the vote. And, after all is said and done, if the women in Great Britain are so determined to have the vote that they have proceeded to certain practices which to the men now comfortably ensconced in their privilege seems reprehensible, I would remind the hon. gentleman and those who think with him that women are only paying to men the sincerest form of flattery by imitating them in this respect, and that they are being met only as entrenched privilege has always met the demands of the people for enfranchisement and the broadening of their rights.
In this connection, the hon. gentleman used an expression which to my mind was distinctly alarming. If he could prove his case, I am sure he would change my position on this subject, and I think he would change the position not only of all the men but of all the women in Canada who think with me on this question. He said that the women would become " bearded Amazons." If he means that literally, and had said only "Amazons," I would not have been so alarmed, but when he spoke of them becoming
"bearded Amazons" he seemed to think that ten'e of the results of the extension of the suffrage would be that they would at once proceed to grow beards. If this part of his case could be proven I believe it would change the attitude of every supporter, male or female, on my side of the case. But I do not think that his physiological knowledge would enable him to place the proof in such a shape before us that we should be convinced that he has the correct view of this matter. In the same connection he said that it would interfere with the performance of the functions proper to women. I think that in that he held out a more alarming prospect even than that of the growth of beards on the part of women-that the extension of the suffrage to women would lead to the extinction of the species. I desire to reassure him, when that state of affairs comes about we shall be so near to the millennium that all these questions of suffrage, and prohibition, and the others that occupy our minds will have ceased to interest us. But I think that for the present he need not be alarmed, over any such prospects as either the general growth of beards by women or the extinction of the species.
The weakest argument that the hon. gentleman used he used last. He said that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was presenting a professed reform which bad been rejected in that enlightened country, the United States, for seventy years. My answer to him upon that point would be: Just think of the weakness of any reformer-though I am sure you will never find it in the hon. member for St. John city-who would cease to attack any evil simply because it has been supported for seventy years. If the argument meant anything, it meant that if a political ^evil is old enough, it should not be interfered with. There is nothing in the way of reform that has not been fought for, not merely for seventy years but for centuries. Why, parliamentary institutions had existed in Britain for hundreds of years before the first Reform Bill, which was passed, as you remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1832. By that Reform Bill, as an elementary knowledge of English history reminds us, boroughs were destroyed where there were only two houses and, in other cases, where were not more than five voters. That -state of affairs had existed for the hundreds of years that Britain had parliamentary institutions before the destruction of the rotten boroughs. Would it have been logical, while Macaulay was de-

livering his wonderful speech on the Reform Bill, or when Grey was laying the foundations of the first extension of political liberty in Britain; would it have been logical to go before the British House of Commons and say: You must not attack this evil of restricted franchise; it has existed for centuries? I think my hon. friend will say that that would have been a most illogical position. Reformers have never taken that attitude. For a period of thirty-five years after the first Reform Bill was passed, from 1832 to 1867, the reformers worked for househld suffrage in the boroughs of England. In 1867 they got it, from a Tory Government. From 1867 to 1885, a period of nearly twenty years, the workmen in the boroughs had the vote, but the workmen in the counties did not have it. The reformers went on working for the next twenty years, and then the workmen in the counties got it. That was thirty years ago, Mr. Speaker, and they have not manhood suffrage in Britain yet; but manhood suffrage will come by the same patient per-severaance against odds and difficulties and prejudices by which the other extensions of the suffrage came. Woman suffrage may be right or it may be wrong, but it is neither right nor wrong because the United States has refused it for the last seventy years.
From a careful study of the qualities of the sexes, I am persuaded that women have more endurance than men, tnat they see more quickly, that they see further than men, that their moral qualities along other lines are higher than those of men. I am persuaded that vfhen they get an equal voice in public affairs, as they always take very good care to have more than an equal voice-and with our consent-in domestic affairs, I am persuaded that it will be a better world to live in, and that the countries that adopt this reform will be better countries to live in. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion of the hon. member for St. John City.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think that some irregularity might result from giving the franchise to women, in provinces where they already have the right to vote in provincial elections. Throughout the Dominion we. have pretty much the same kind of voting in all the provinces; it is nearly all based upon the principle of manhood suffrage. This condition results .in the vote being equalized throughout the Dominion! if this resolution should become law, however, some inequalities would exist.
I am - not one of those who had to wait for the war, as the hon. member for Saskatchewan evidently did, to find out that women are equal to men in business as well as in other respects. My experience is that, so far as business is concerned, women are quite equal to men. I would just as lief have women on a board of directors as men. I am not making any reflection on the ability of the men, but I am in dead earnest when I say that, so far as my experience goes in business matters, women have just as much ability as men have.
As to their other qualities, we all know them. Women are the salvation of humanity. Were it not for the influence for good that women exert over men, we would be a fine bunch. As to the argument that the granting of the vote would change them, I doubt that. As a matter of fact, women are a powe"r behind the Throne, and they exert a great deal of influence on elections, as we all know. There are few men who are not influenced more or less for good by women. The finer instincts of men are due, I think, to the influence of their mothers, and when a man grows up be derives the best kind of influence from the women who surround him. If a man has a mother and sisters, even when he comes to my age, their influence over him is certainly good. Therefore, I think their influence upon politics would be equally good. In all probability this resolution will not go much further to-night, but I see a difficulty in this that the women in one province would have votes while those in another province would have no votes. That does not seem to me to be putting them on an equality. As for the argument that if we give women the right to vote, we must give them the 76
right to sit in Parliament, I can only say that that would be no hazard for me. I would be very glad to welcome my sisters in Parliament if they wished to sit here and were elected. I assure you they would elevate the tone of Parliament. Outside of the question of inequality in the franchise throughout the different provinces, I am certainly in favour of giving women the franchise, but I would not like to force it upon any woman who does not want it. I do not agree that women should he given the right to vote even if they did not exercise it. It is one of the drawbacks of our electoral system, that a great many men do not vote. That is one of the reasons why there is so much corruption in elections; they do not vote, or they vote during the last hour. I do not believe in passing laws that will not be lived up to, and I do not agree with my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). If the women of this country demand the right to vote, by all means give it to them, they are perfectly capable of exercising it but if they do noi want to vote, and they will not vote, then by no means give it to them.


William Pugsley: Might I ask my hon.
friend if in connection with the difficulty that is in his mind as to equalizing the vote in the different provinces he has kept in view the fact that each province has a fixed representation in this Parliament dependent on its entire population?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It might not alter the
representation of the provinces, but my hon. friend can easily see what I mean, that in one province the women would have the right to vote, while in another province only the men would have the vote, so that they would have a double franchise in one province, and only a single franchise in another.


George Ewan McCraney: They would have the
same representation.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose we went further and gave them representation according to the votes.


William Pugsley: The British North
America Act assures that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question is one of sufficient importance to entitle us to expect that some hon. gentlemen on the Government side of the House will indicate the attitude of the Government with regard to it. The matter has not been br'ought



forward as a party question in any sense, and the discussion has extended over a very wide range. The proposition submitted in the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugs-ley) does not necessarily involve a discussion of the wider question; it merely raises the point as to whether or not this Parliament should recognize a change in the franchise as might be brought about in the different provinces of the Dominion, in the direction of permitting women to vote. The views of hon. gentlemen who have spoken have varied as to the wisdom of such a change, and the discussion has been entirely apart from any political differences that exist in the House. As my hon. friend from St. John pointed out, the change is only imminent. Already, in one of the provinces, the franchise has been made sufficiently broad to permit the women to vote, and two other provinces are on the point of granting the same privilege. These provinces are in the West, and it has been urged by some hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-night that the conditions in those provinces are peculiar, that they are such that it is only natural and proper that the women should have the franchise. The question is whether or not we in this Parliament should recognize the View which has been adopted by those provinces in regard to this question, and I think the proposition is sufficiently important to justify some pronouncement on the part of the Government as to their attitude.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) has suggested that some reference should be made on this side of the House as to the attitude which the Government takes [DOT]in respect to the question under discussion. If I could believe that my hon. friend Who moved the resolution was quite sincere in presenting it to this House, I would be disposed to discuss it from a somewhat different viewpoint.
The hon. gentleman started out by telling the House that it was his privilege thirty years ago, when seeking election in a constituency in New Brunswick, to advance this same proposal of votes for women. But, strange to say, although my hon. friend from St. John has had ample opportunity, in his native province, from that time on, to secure the enactment of such legislation as would give the women of that province the right to exercise their franchise, which he is proposing here this evening for another province, he has not availed himself of that privilege. My hon. friend from Pictou has

apparently a doubt also whether this legislation should be extended to one particular province and not to all the provinces of Canada. When I suggested to my hon. friend from St. John that we amend his motion so as to provide for the extension of the privilege to the women in all the provinces of Canada he was not disposed to acquiesce in that proposal. I submit that if my hon. friend was sincere in the proposal which he has made he would have adopted this suggestion and then this House would have had something before it to consider in a tangible manner, and something that we would have reason to give very *serious (Consideration to. It has 'been suggested that the proposed resolution should be confined simply to one particular province which has already adopted the principal of woman suffrage-the province of Manitoba-and ,that it might be extended to any other province- that might follow Manitoba is example later on. 'The question is whether this Parliament should adapt a principle of a limited character or whether it should go the full length and adopt the principle of extending woman suffrage to all the provinces of Canada as well as to the individual provinces that might adopt it.
I am sure we all agree with the principle of equal rights to all the provinces. My hon. friend who sat down a few moments ago raised that particular question. I think he was quite right in saying that if we are to have woman suffrage in any one parti-' cular province we should have it in all the provinces of Canada. If the hon. member for St. John would amend his motion I would he disposed for one to give it consideration and to support a resolution by this House to extend the franchise to women in all parts of Canada.


William Pugsley: How would my hon. friend reconcile that with the statement which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is reported to have made that this Parliament would not interfere with the provincial franchise, but that the question must be left to the provinces to deal with?


Robert Rogers: We would not at all be interfering with the provincial franchise. Each province has the right to make its own franchise. If we extend the franchise we shall be extending it to all parts of Canada alike. I do not see that we would in any way be interfering with the provincial franchise, because it would apply to all the

provinces of Canada. We have a right in this Parliament to grant that extension if [DOT] we so wish. It is true, in view, as has been stated here this evening, of the part that our ladies have taken in the recent war, that they are entitled, if for no other reason, to full consideration and to all the rights that it is possible to extend to them in the matter of their franchise. That would be, therefore, a very powerful reason why this question should receive serious consideration at 'the hands of the members of this House.
As far as the franchise in the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, I would like to say t-hait in the last local election certain women were allowed to exercise their franchise, although there was no law of the province to enable them to do so. However, they were allowed that right, and they did really in certain places cast their votes.
Mr. MeCRANEY: I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me what riding he is referring to. I have never heard of any such incident.


John Gillanders Turriff: Neither have I.


Robert Rogers: I do not remember the
particular riding but I remember the fact that ladies voted in certain parts of the province. I have the evidence to substantiate that statement, and I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with sworn declaraiom of a scrutineer and naming the ladies who voted in that particular province in the election of 1912.
Mr. MeCRANEY: I would ask the minister to lay the declarations on the Table if he will.	.


Robert Rogers: I shall be very glad to
do that, and I shall be very glad to present the House with that sample, of the elastic manner in which the franchise of Saskatchewan was exercised in the election of 1912. At the same time, in that province, before the election, they removed that portion of the Act which provided that it was necessary for a man to be a British subject in order to vote at the election. It is true that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House told us that that had been rectified later on. It was rectified but not until after the election was over, and in the event that there would be a Dominion election, it would be necessary for a man to be a British subject before he would be entitled to exercise the franchise in that province. We have no guarantee that the
76}	.
same province will not change the Act before the next general election thus repeating that which was done before the last election. It is their privilege, of course, if they desire to carry out their election law in that manner.	t
I do not believe it would be in the interest of the women of Manitoba, to have the franchise unless it were extended to all the provinces, and if my hon. friend had, as I suggested, amended his resolution to that extent, I would have been disposed to have supported him. But, in view of the fact that he has not done this, I will have to record my vote against his resolution and I will ask the members on this side to do likewise.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr,
Speaker, I want to say a word in favour of the resolution of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I shall content myself with saying that I shall be in favour of the resolution and until reasons are shown to me why the ladies should not be free in this country as well as the men, I mean to support all similar resolutions. I can hardly agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). His contention is that only a half loaf is offered to the ladies and that because they are not offered a whole loaf he is going to refuse them the half loaf. That is poor logic and I hardly think it will satisfy the ladies of this Dominion. I have a feeling that our ladies in Canada are thoroughly satisfied with the manner in which the men carry on the affairs of the country, but there is a desire that they should enjoy the same freedom and liberty as the men do. I therefore support the resolution of the hon. member for St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), I believe, has alluded to some answer to a delegation which he stated I had given a year or two ago. Am I correct in that?


William Pugsley: I do not think it was a year and a half ago-some months ago.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not received any delegation on the subject for a year and a half at least. I did in 1912, when in Great Britain, receive a delegation of ladies there; I think, in fact, there were two delegations, one supporting the idea that women should be invested with the franchise and the other opposing it. In the same year, 1912, I received. I believe, a delegation of ladies in Toronto, but I am not aware of having done so on any other

occasion. In regard to the delegation in Great Britain, I ventured, to say that I thought, in view of certain statements which were made, that the women of Canada were quite capable of looking after their own jnterests in such matters, and that the ladies of Great Britain would ijot require to interest themselves particularly in the matter in so far as this country was concerned.
My hon. friend refers, I understand, to the
answer I gave to that delegation. The answer I gave, as I recollect, was that, under the system which had prevailed in this country from 1897 or 1898, the Federal franchise had been made to depend on the franchises 'of the several provinces; that persons entitled to vote at provincial elections were entitled to vote at Federal elections; and I suggested to them that probably the ladies of Canada would find it desirable, in the first place, to address themselves to the provincial authorities. And I said, that until we departed from that system of having the franchise for Federal affairs dependent upon the franchises in the several provinces, such would be the proper course for them to take.
My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has perhaps raised some considerations this evening which might make it desirable for us to take the whole question of the Federal franchise into consideration, and I do intend to take it into consideration in view of what the hon. gentleman has stated. When that question is so taken into consideration, the enfranchisement of women must be considered, not in relation to any individual province or provinces in Canada, but from the standpoint of the whole Dominion. We shall then be prepared to come to the House if necessary, with proposals based upon a wider conception of the matter than that which has impressed itself upon my hon. friend in proposing his motion. It would seem to be quite undesirable that we should be responsible for any enactment by which the women in one province of Canada should have the right to vote in Federal' elections, and the women in other provinces should not have that right. Upon reflection, hon. gentlemen must come to the conclusion that such a result, which is apparently desired by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) would not commend itself to the good sense of the members of the House, or to the good sense of the women of Canada. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the motion of the hon. gentleman,

which has in view the granting of the Federal franchise to women in some provinces of Canada and the withholding of it from women in other provinces, ought to commend itself to the good sense or the good judgment of the House. For my part, and reserving my right of judgment on the wider question, which is one of very great importance and which I shall be prepared to discuss at the proper time, I venture to submit that the proposal of the hon. gentleman ought not to command the support of hon. members, for the reason that, as regards the right to vote of one half the proposed electorate, it would create a discrimination in the franchise, as between the various provinces of Canada.


William Pugsley: 
Robert Laird Borden: You are.


William Pugsley: -and this must be a most remarkable question which I have presented to the attention of the Government; one so important that the Minister of Public Works wishes his party to vote it down, and
that my right hon. friend thinks it is going to- cause the repeal of the whole system under which the elections have been held for the past nineteen years, and that the Government must take up the responsibility and labour of evolving a new franchise Act for the purpose of carrying into effect the ideas which I venture to propound vthis evening in presenting this simple resolution, which might so easily and with such great, advantage be adopted by the House.
Now, just a word in answer to my hon. friend the member from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who said that the only objection he had to the resolution was that it would prevent an equality in the electorate of the different provinces. That would not make any difference, as between the representation of the different provinces, because, under the British North America Act that representation is based entirely, upon population, and in any province, if there were ten times as many women as there are men, there would still ,be the same representation according to population. If ladies were allowed to vote in any one province, only between the people of that province would it make any difference, the number of representatives would remain the same; but a great deal might depend on the quality of the candidate who might be chosen by the people, because the women, if allowed to vote, might prefer one candidate to another, and they might succeed in electing a candidate who might not have been elected if men alone had the vote.
My right hon. friend says that there would be a difference in the franchise upon which the elections were held. That is the case to-day. In some provinces there is manhood suffrage, all men over twenty-one years of age having the right to vote if they have resided in a district for a very few months, whereas in other provinces no man has a right to vote unless he own3 four or five hundred dollars worth of real estate or personal property, or has an income to that amount.


Mr. HANNA:: What province is that?


William Pugsley: I think the province of Prince Edward Island. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) says that there is a property franchise in Nova Scotia. That must exclude many thousands in that province from voting.


Robert Laird Borden: Practically a
manhood franchise.


William Pugsley: I am told not.


Robert Laird Borden: An income franchise.


William Pugsley: I am told not; but suppose it were different, what is to hinder any province from going back to property franchise? What is to hinder any province from disfranchising thousands of men who in other provinces would be entitled to vote? Nothing at all. Therefore there is nothing in that argument. If this Parliament chooses to adopt the provincial franchise, to allow an election to take place on the provincial lists, I see no inconvenience and no difficulty whatever, in any province in which women are allowed to vote for members of the Provincial Legislature, being allowed the right to vote for members of Parliament. It must be borne in mind that this resolution merely- proposes:
That, in the opinion' of this House, it is desirable that the Government should promote legislation to amend the Dominion Elections Act, so as to provide that upon any province of Canada enacting legislation giving wcmen the right to vote for members of the Provincial Legislature, such women as are on the provincial voters' lists, or as are otherw'se entitled to vote for members of the legis'ature in such province, shall also, unless otherwise disqualified, have the right to vote at elec1 ions for members of this House.
If in the cours-e of time the other .provinces of Canada should follow the example of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, then women throughout Canada would be alloyed to vote; but so long as we act upon the provincial franchise and use the provincial lists, then with no degree of justice or fair play can we refuse to allow women whose names are on the provincial lists also to cast their vote for the members of the House of Commons. When I made my first observations in support of the resolution I did not think it necessary to present arguments- in favour of the general principle of giving women the right to vote; but if any such arguments were needed to support .such a -proposition such arguments were afforded by the speeches made by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), my hon. friend, from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) and my hon. friend from As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff). Their arguments were unanswerable, and to any fair-minded man they should fiave been convincing in favour of passing this resolution. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and my Tight hon. friend the .Prime Minister need not pretend to the
TSir Robert Borden.]
women of this country that they are in favour of woman suffrage; they need not think for a single moment that they can keep thfs thing hanging before the women of this country for years and. make them believe that at some distant date, some time after the next election, in case the women should be foolish enough to give the Government their support, they will he willing to introduce a general franchise Act in which they will give women the right to vote.


Robert Rogers: That was your policy
thirty years ago.


William Pugsley: To-day in the three Prairie Provinces, with a population of about 1,500,000, or one-fifth of the entire population of Canada, there is the opportunity of giving women tile right which they are demanding to-day, that is, to vote for members of this Parliament at the same time that they are given the right to vote for members of the legislatures of the three provinces.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Does the hon. member think that the women of Manitoba have any better right to vote than the women of New Brunswick?	- .


William Pugsley: 

PRIVILEGE.


Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.

I desire to refer to the report of a recruiting meeting which I had the honour of addressing last night at Massey Hall in the city of Toronto. I find in this morning's Montreal Gazette a very fair and very complete report of that meeting, with one exception. There is one sentence in the report which gives it an altogether different meaning, and I deem it my duty to correct the mistaken impression at the earliest opportunity. In that report, I am made to say, in speaking of the bilingual question:
Why should they talk like that? Are there any difficulties to settle?
ThatAs far from what I said. The exact words are:
Why should there be difficulties to settle?
Which puts altogether a different meaning upon the whole report. The Toronto Globe, in a more lengthy report, after placing in my mouth the same question, gives my exact words. I followed up the statement. "Why should there be any difficulties to settle?" with the words:
I have met many people from all parts of the Dominion, and I am absolutely sure that there is not one man who is not perfectly willing that the French-Canadian jreop'e should be allowed to have their children learn French if they so des're, and to-night I tell you that there is not one French-Canadien who is not anxious to have his child or children taught to speak and understand the English language as I do.
The reports of La Patrie, the World and the Mail and Empire, as well as that , sent to other papers, by the Canadian Press Service are substantially correct. [DOT]
I did blame Bourassa and Lavergne in Toronto. I did not blame them for having been the cause of the bilingual trouble in Ottawa; I blamed Bourassa and Lavergne in Toronto as I would blame them in this House, and as I would blame them in any part of the province of Quebec, for having used the bilingual trouble in Ottawa or elsewhere in Ontario as an argument against recruiting in the province of Quebec. That is why I blamed them in Toronto, and that is why I will blame them at every pbssible opportunity in my own province. To-night I find in Le Devoir an article addressed to myself. It certainly dbes me too much honour. It is signed by one of the writers in Le Devoir, Mr. Omer Heroux. Before waiting even to see the Toronto papers, basing himself entirely upon the report of the meeting wired to the Gazette, he wrote a strong editorial concerning the statement attributed to me in Toronto last night. I am well aware of the difficulties in Ottawa. I am very sorry those difficulties should
exist; there is no reason why they should. I wish to correct the statement attributed to me; and I feel sure, knowing the honesty and integrity of Mr. Heroux, that he will correct the mistaken impression he has given respecting my statement. If he wishes to repeat exactly what I said, he will say that I blamed the editor of his paper, Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Armand Lavergne for using the bilingual question as an argument against recruiting in the good ol'd province of Quebec.
On motion ofSir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, February 29, 1916.