1916-05-17

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of Canal Statistics for the season of navigation, 1915.-Mr. Reid.
Report of the Auditor General for 1915, vol. III.-Sir Thomas White.

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

Mr. THOMSON:: 1.	Is Mr. A. DeWitt Foster, late member for
Kings, N.S., in the employment of the Government?	*
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: No.


MR. R. H. KENNEDY.
Mt. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Is R. H. Kennedy,, M.L.A., employed for recruiting purposes-in Colchester county, N.S. ?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and is he still acting as a recruiting officer? If not, when was he relieved?
3.	What is his remuneration and the total amount paid to him to date on account of salary and expenses?


Robert Laird Borden: R. H. Kennedy, M.L.A., was appointed recruiting officer for Colchester county on October 10, 1915, with pay at the rate of $3 per day till January 31, 1916. Since January 31, he has been a voluntary recruiting officer for that county, and is still acting. Amount of salary paid, October 10, to January 31, $183. Travelling expenses, same period, $161.50. Total, amount paid to date, $344.50.


ESTATES OF DECEASED SOLDIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: I beg to lay upon the Table a memorandum which has beta* prepared by the Estates Branch of the Department of Militia and Defence with regard to the distribution of the estates of soldiers who have lost their lives while on active service with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. It was thought that -this information might be of use, and without reading it perhaps I may be permitted to have it incorporated in Hansard. The memorandum is as follows:
On the death of a soldier whilst on m ft lire service in France the casualty is notified, hy cable, to England, and then to Ottawa; his personal effects are collected, placed in a package, and forwarded to the Base. There they *re checked and an inventory is sent with them to-the office of the director of pay and records services (estates branch), London, England, where they are there again checked and rewrapped for distribution!
When there has been very heavy fighting there is little chance of collecting any effects, and in many cases if death has been caused by heavy shell fire there are unfortunately, neither effects nor remains; but. in some cases the London office receives the personal effects-of soldiers dying in territory occupied by the enemy.
If a man has left any personal effects in England before going to the front, these are collected and forwarded to the London office and the whole of his personal effects are thence forwarded to the estates branch, Ottawa, that is, if the beneficiary or next of kin resides in this country.
The deceased's pay account is closed as soon as his death is officially reported, and it is then known as his non-effective account. A lapse of four or five months is necessary before a non-effective account can be properly certified as correct, and in some cases six months. If the next of kin, or beneficiary resides in this country, the account is forwarded here for settlement.

The pay books are all forwarded to the London office, and if the same contain a will, it is extracted and placed on file for safe keeping and properly indexed.
When the non-effective account, personal and surplus effects reach the office of the Estates Branch, Ottawa, the legal domicile of the decreased is carefully gone into and in the case of an intestacy the military estate is distributed according to the law of the province or country of the deceased's domicile.
It is worthy of note that a minor (unmarried) cannot acquire a domicile of choice but has the same domicile as his father-that of origin.
A soldier, even if he is not of full age, may, under section 9 of the Wills Act, whilst on actual military service, dispose of his personal estate either by a holograph will, by letter, or by a verbal statement substantiated by witnesses. This section applies to all the provinces' in Canada, with slight difference in Quebec. Section 849 of the Civil Code of Quebec provides that a soldier on military service may make a will which if valid in England as regards its form would likewise be valid in Quebec, though by section 835 a minor is incapable of bequeathing any part of his property by will. So, therefore, a soldier domiciled in Quebec, if a minor, as declared from making a valid will; but if of full age can dispose of his personal property without the necessity of the regular form.
All wills are carefully examined here, the domicile decided, and the intention of the testator is carried out as far as possible. A military will can only dispose of personal estate. Real estate is in no way affected unless there is a will duly executed and attested by witnesses according to the ordinary legal practice. This is a point which should be brought to the attention of the soldier when he is making his will, ns sometimes it is impossible to carry out his full wishes after death.
The legatees named in the wills are all notified, a certified copy is forwarded to them, and an identification form is enclosed for completion and return to the office of the Estates Branch.
The officer in charge of the Estates Branch is fully empowered by an Order in Council, dated 28th March, .1916, promulgated under the authority of the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, and an order made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dateij 3rd December, 1915, to decide all questions of domicile, of validity of wills, of law and of fact, and to distribute all military estates in the manner laid down by the different sections of this said Act. No appeal can be taken from this officer's decision.
All estates are distributed without delay as soon as the necessary papers reach the office of the Estates Branch; but it must be borne in mind that it is always from four to six months at the very earliest before an estate can be legally distributed.
Numerous cases are delayed by a will turning up at the last moment, but every care is [DOT]taken that no wrongful distributions are made.
In the case of missing men, thirty weeks must elapse before the necessary steps can be taken to presume death (a presumption entertained for official purposes only) and the estates of such missing men cannot be distributed until four months after such presumption of death lias been made.	-
H. Spencer-Relph,
Captain,
Officer i/c Estates for A. & P.M.G.
I Sir Robert Borden.]


TRADE COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Can the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce give the House the names of the gentlemen who have been selected as members of the commission to promote better trade relations with the allied countries?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have not the names in full, but I can give my hon. friend the surname of each member: Mr. Andre Dupuis, Vice-President of the Chinic Hardware Company of Quebec; Mr. Wad-dleworth, of Montreal, President of the Chemical. Society, and a member of the Board of Trade of Montreal; Mr. Pauze, President last year of the Chambre de Commerce, Montreal; Mr. J. M. Wood of the Gordon McKay Company, Toronto; Mr. Geo. W. Allan, of Winnipeg; and, from the Maritime Provinces, Mr. Frank Hathaway, of St. John; six in all. The commission will be provided with a secretary and the secretary who has been selected is Mr. Roy Campbell, a graduate of the University of Toronto, who has lately been secretary or assistant secretary of the Manufacturers' Association in the city of Montreal.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Is the Mr. Frank Hathaway referred to a former member of the Provincial Legislature of New Brunswick? The reason I ask is that I saw in a newspaper that it was his son who had been appointed.


Mr. HAZEN:: Mr. Frank Hathaway has no son.	-


George Eulas Foster: It is Mr. Frank Hathaway, the gentleman to whom my hon. friend referred.


ENLISTMENTS IN NORTHERN ALBERTA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. OLIVER:: In discussing the militia Estimates, I asked the Prime Minister if he would* have prepared a detailed statement of enlistments in Northern Alberta. He was good enough >to promise that that would be done. I hope ^t will be available before the close of the session.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that the deputy minister had taken a note of everything the hon. member had asked for. However, I do not think he has furnished me with that statement, but I will call hii attention to it.


PLANS OF NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	[DOT]
Air. ROGERS:: I would once again invite the attention of the members of the House to the matter of the reconstruction of the Parliament Buildings. The committee who have the matter in charge have reached the point of considering the advisability of providing an additional story. We have the plan of the old building, as it stood, and of the building proposed to be constructed. They are in Room 1. and the committee will be very pleased, I am sure, if hon. members would take the trouble some time during the afternoon to visit that room, where they will meet one of the architects who will explain everything they might desire to know in respect to the proposal which is approved by the committee.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Have the committee come to any decision upon that?


Robert Rogers: AVe have considered it
very fully, and I think the committee are fairly unanimous in favour of the additional story.


William Pugsley: As a member of the
committee, perhaps it would not be out of place for me to say that the committee had before them the strong recommendation of Mr. Pearson, one of the architects-the other architect not being present at the time-in favour of an additional story. My own view was that, as we trust that the reconstructed building will last for a very long time, and as the number of members of Parliament is likely to increase very considerably in the not distant future, it would be desirable, if possible, to give considerably increased accommodation, providing that it would not interfere with the architectural aspect of the building. I think the view of the committee was quite unanimous that that result could be obtained, and that with the additional story the building would be a very handsome one indeed, and one of which the country would be proud.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have tiie
architects expressed any preference in the matter?


Robert Rogers: The architects have, 1
think, a preference for the additional story.


TEAIISCOUATA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Air. MARCIL:: I am requested to ask the hon. Alinister Of Public Works (Air. Rogers) wh ether he has authorized the sending of a despatch down to anybody at lie Verte, Temiscouata county, stating that an expenditure of $1,000 would be made on wharves out of a sum voted for that purpose by this House. It is reported that the message was sent by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain):


Robert Rogers: I have no knowledge of the message referred to.


LOBSTER FISHERY IN NORTHUA1BER-LAND STRAITS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Air. MACDONALD:: I am advised thatthe lobster fishing in Northumberland straits only opened on May 11, or six days ago. I would ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) to take that fact into consideration, and to regard favourably an application which will be made to him by the fishermen and packers for an extension in order to make up the time during which they would have been entitled to fish had the season opened at the regular period.


John Douglas Hazen: It frequently happens
that, although the fishing season is somewhat late in opening, the catch of lobsters is so good during the balance of the season that the average catch ds as good as it is in other years when the fishing season opens earlier. The whole situation will be very carefully watched, and instructions have been given to that effect already by the officials of the department. The facts will be considered when the time comes for a decision as to whether the season shall be extended or not. As an ordinary proposition, it is not desirable to extend the season for catching lobsters. The seasons have been fixed by commissions that have been appointed to deal with the lobster question and the question of fishing generally, and when the last commission made its report it was evident that unless something was done in some way to restrict the amount of fishing that was being carried on, there would be great danger of the lobster fishery of the country being destroyed. It was in consequence of this that provision was made for a shortened season.



Last year, in many parts of the country, the lobster fishery was very satisfactory, and larger lobsters were caught than had been caught in past years, showing that the shortening of the season in the past three years had some effect in that direction. I understand, however, that there are some occasions when, in consequence of ice conditions, and other weather conditions, the fishermen are unable to fish for many days during the season. We have had cases of that sort, and upon investigation we have found that, while they had several slack days in which they could not follow their calling as they have done in some previous seasons, yet the catch has been quite as large, and that being the case there was no necessity for the extension of the lobster season. All these are facts which have to be taken into consideration. I will instruct my officails very carefully to watch the conditions that exist along the Northumberland straits this year, and give such consideration as is possible, having regard to the preservation and perpetuation of the lobster-fishing industry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the consent of the House, I wish merely to point out that the report of the commission having fixed the season in each particular year, if the season has been shortened this year on account of ice conditions from April 26 to May 11, it causes an absolute loss to the men who depend on that industry for their living.


WAR SUPPLIES-CLOTHING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the request of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), I would like to ask the Chairman of the War Purchasing Commission whether he is going to give us, before the House rises, the return which was ordered by the House six weeks ago in regard to clothing which was purchased by the commission.


Mr. KEMP:: A few days ago the hon.
member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) brought this question up. We had a personal conversation in regard to the matter, and he intimated that he would see if he could not modify the order in such a way that it would be possible to comply more readily with it. I expected to hear from the hon. member before this, but I have not heard anything from him since.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is in Nova
Scotia.


NEW MILLS FISH POND.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: I am requested by a citizen living along the Restigoucbe river, who takes an interest in salmon fishing, to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the following question:
I understand that the fish pond at New Mills has been destroyed this spring and that they will not be able to use it this summer. Would you find out from the department where this fish pond is to be placed?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no information to the effect that the fish pond at New Mills has been destroyed. I understood that some injury had been done to it by icg, or something of that sort, but I did not know that it had been destroyed to such an extent that it could not be put into condition to be used this year. Suggestions have been made by people living along the Restigouche river as to the proper place for a fish pond. One suggestion favoured the establishment of a fish pond on the Quebec side of the river, somewhere, I fancy, in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil). But, as far as I am aware at the present moment, I think the pond at New Mills will be available for use during the present season.


ENLISTMENT IN GASPE AND BONAVENTURE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: I would like to ask the hon. Acting Minister of Militia and Defence another question, and I do so at the request of a citizen in Bonaventure, who takes great interest in recruiting. Recru it-ing is now being done in Gaspe and Bonaventure for Quebec regiments, and I would like to know if there is any way by which we could ascertain how many men from Gaspe and Bonaventure have been enlisted in New Brunswick regiments. At the outbreak of hostilities a large number enlisted in those regiments. Now they are enlisting in Quebec regiments, and we would like to know how many of our people have enlisted in New Brunswick regiments. Is there any way by which that information could be obtained ?
Mr. KEM1P: My hon. friend has directed his question t-o me. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence at the present momeih and I shall refer the matter to

him and ask him if it is possible to furnish my hon. friend with the information he asks.


THE CIVIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Committee of Supply:
Mr. PROULX:: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the Government a matter of public importance. At the end of the session of 1914 my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said that at the next session it was his intention to introduce a Bill to increase the salaries of civil servants of the lower grades; but nothing has been done in that direction yet. Shortly afterwards war broke out, and since then it has been the alleged policy of the Government not to give any salary increases during the war. This matter was brought before the House a few weeks ago by the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier), and I was in hopes that something would be ddne this session, but I see nothing in the Estimates providing for an increase in the salaries of the lower grade employees. Some of these men-packers, messengers, sorters and so on-receive only from $500 to $600 a year, and they cannot get more than $800, which is the maximum for that class. Many of these men are married and have families to support, and the Government must know that it is impossible in these days, when the cost of living is so high, for a man to bring up his family properly on $500 or $600 a year. I would suggest that the Government grant a flat increase of $100, but not go beyond the maximum of $800. When tlris matter was up a few weeks ago the Minister of Public Works said that there would be no salary increases during the war, I have made inquiries, and find that in the Interior Department alone, in 1915, ten persons received salary increases ranging from $150 to $500. The annual increase in the lower grades is ordinarily $50 a year, but in the higher grades it depends upon the recommendation of the head of the department. The Minister of Public Works suggested that these employees who were dissatisfied should enlist and go to the front. I might tell him that seventy-five of these employees are between the ages of forty-five and seventy-seven, so it is impossible for them to go. Another suggestion the minister made was that they might go west and take up land. Many of 257i
these men have had no experience on the land and have no capital, and, of course, it would be impracticable for them to take up farming. I therefore consider that the minister has not given any sufficient explanation why the Government is not doing anything for the employees of this class. I trust that the Government will do something evien now, before t'he session closes, and that next session, or perhaps after the war, the Minister of Finance will provide for this class permanently.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: It is not the
intention of the Government to bring down any further proposals dealing with the salaries of civil servants. I do not think it advisable that that question should be dealt with in piecemeal fashion; it should be dealt with as a whole or not at all. The Government is of the opinion that it is not advisable to consider increasing the salaries of the Civil Service during the war.


Edmond Proulx: In 1908 there was a flat increase of $100 or $150 to the Civil Service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Civil Government-House of Commons-to appoint M. Crossley Sherwood to second division, subdivision A, as assistant clerk of Orders and Records of the House of Commons, $1,600.
['I desire to say that it is only after a great deal of hesitation indeed that I have decided-I would rather say to submit to than to accept all of the amendments which have been made by the Senate to this Bill. The amendments consist in striking out the penalty of suspension of a license proposed to be imposed upon manufacturers violating this law for the first and second offences, leaving the penalty of forfeiture for the third offence to stand. It is not in that regard that I have my greatest hesitation in', 'accepting the amendments. There has been struck out of the Bill clause 5. That is a provision which enabled prosecutions for violations of this Act to he instituted as well at the place to which the liquor had been sent as at the place whence it had been sent. The striking out of this provision, I think, will very materially and in a most serious manner prejudice the effective enforcement of the Act-. I feel this so strongly that, were it not that I have good reason to believe that if, this House refused to concur in the amendments and sent the Bill back, we might run the risk of losing the measure entirely, I would not make the motion which I am about to make. I may say that in making the motion to concur in these amendments I do it with the hope of having an early opportunity, of which I shall be glad to avail myself, of submitting again to this House for its adoption and for transmission to the other House, the disposition which that House has seen proper to strike out of this Bill.']
Mr. TURRIFF:: I am glad the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are in their seats, because when I point out the facts of this case, I think they will see that it is only reasonable that this item should be withdrawn. What are the facts? Mr. Sherwood may be a very worthy young man; I do not happen to know him. He has been a sessional clerk for the last two years, and the late Speaker, Hon. Dr. Sproule, said that if he wanted to get into the service of one of the departments he would have to pass the usual examination. Mr. Sherwood has not passed that examination, and is therefore ineligible for this position. Some time ago I asked for the correspondence to be brought down in connection with this matter, and I find that on the 17th of January, 1916, the Clerk of the House wrote to the Civil Service Commission asking to have Mr. Sherwood appointed. This was done at the request of His Honour the Speaker. That letter was answered by the Civil Service, Commission on January 26, as follows:


Mr. REID:: What is this business?


John Gillanders Turriff: Photographic supplies- at 65 Sparks street.


John Dowsley Reid: Is not that his father's store?-


John Gillanders Turriff: No. Look up the telephone directory and you will find the name there-H. Crossley Sherwood, photographic supplies. It is this young man's own business. Now, why should he be put in at double the regular salary when he has not even passed the examination? The only reason I can see for it-and I judge from what I know of how appointments are made-is that my hon. friend the member for Ottawa desires to force this through. And why? Because this young man's father is secretary of the Conservative Association in the city of Ottawa. That secretaryship is an honourable position, and I have no possible objection to any man holding it; but I do not think that the Minister of Finance, who has been preaching economy to us during this session, should allow anything like this to take place at a time when we should be practising economy. Surely

the members on the Treasury benches did not understand the position when they put this item in the Estimates. This is a small matter, If you dike: it means the paying of $1,600 a year instead of $800 a year. But it means also the pitchforking of a man into a position over the heads of others who have been in the service for many years. If there is one thing more than another that is affecting the Civil Service and making trouble and dissatisfaction, it is such acts as this. The young man writes a letter to the Speaker, and you would think he was the Government by the way he points out how his appointment should be made. He shows that he cannot be appointed under section 21, and goes on to say that the way that is here proposed is the only way in which he can be appointed.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Why could he not be
appointed under section 21?


Wilfrid Laurier: That provides for the appointment of experts.


John Gillanders Turriff: salary, even though he had not passed an examination. I think that no more glaring case ever occurred. Then the Clerk of the House, in accordance with the letter from the Speaker, wrote to the Minister of Finance as follows:
Dear Sir Thomas:
X am directed by His Honour the Speaker to communicate with you as to his wishes in the matter of an assistant clerk in the Orders and Records Office of the House of Commons.
He desires to appoint Mr. H. C. Sherwood of Ottawa to that office at a salary of $1,600 per annum, and he desires to have this done by direct appointment in the Appropriation Act. The grade of the office is B of the second division.
All these appointments, I understand, have to be recommended by a certain board. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Speaker of the House, and Sir George Perley were the members of the last board. You will find in the Civil Service list of 1915, page 273, the following: " Vacancy, 2-B, assistant clerk in Votes and Proceedings office." The board recommended that this position he filled, and I understand that as there was no vacancy in the staff of the House of Commons in subdivision A of the second division it was not competent for this House to put a clerk in subdivision A without a resolution or Order in Council. In order to do this, as I have said, it would be necessary to pass a resolution or Order in Council. In the face of these facts, simply because the young man in question has some political pull, everything is overridden, dissatisfaction is caused throughout the Civil Service and the country is out $800 a year that it should not he out, especially under the present conditions and in view of the economy urged by the Minister of Finance. I think that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the facts that I have stated, ought to see that this item is withdrawn. I depend a little more on the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance than upon some of their colleagues in a matter of this kind. One thing I cannot understand is how the change came to be made from subdivision B to subdivision A. I point out further to the Minister of Finance that as we are going to prorogue to-morrow there will be six or eight months during which this clerk will have absolutely nothing to do. Under these circumstances, in the interests of the Civil Service and of the country generally, I ask that this item be withdrawn.


Robert Rogers: In answer to my 'hon. friend, who seems very much disturbed about the item now before the committee, at this late hour in the session it is not my purpose to discuss the treatment meted out by the present Government to its employees in the city of Ottawa and elsewhere. I can only say in a most respectful manner that the statement of my hon. friend regarding this case simply adds insult to injury so far as it concerned the 'treatment that we have extended to employees of thg late Administration. The hon. gentleman has dwelt at some length upon Mr. Sherwood securing a salary of $1,600 a year in the position which he is now filling. The position is a very important one, requiring special knowledge of the work. We have had the services of Mr. 'Sherwood temporarily in this office for four years, and he has performed his duties with entire satisfaction to those associated with him in the office, and, I think, to the House. As to the assertion of my hon. friend respecting political pull, Mr. Sherwood did not require to rest his case upon that consideration, because he was so eminently qualified to fill the position that the Speaker was justified in making the recommendation to the Minister of Finance that this amount be placed in the Estimates. The best justification that I can give t'he committee for the action of the 'Speaker in making the Recommendation that he did is a letter written by Mr. Colwell, who is head of the branch, and who has had Mr. Sherwood associated with him during the past four years. It was as I understand it, on this strong recommendation of Mr. Colwell that the Speaker made the recommendations which we are now considering.


John Gillanders Turriff: I see no record of 't in the papers brought down.


Robert Rogers: I have not seen the papers brought down; but I have here a letter from Mr. Charles S. Colwell.


John Gillanders Turriff: It was kept off the file.


Mr ROGERS:: 
William Thomas White: That is from his superior?


Robert Rogers: That is the gentleman
who was at that time the head of the department, who has since been temporarily dismissed; and so far as I am concerned I sincerely hope that he will be permanently dismissed.


Edmond Proulx: Was it for writing this
letter -


Robert Rogers: No, it was for writing
the speech delivered by my hon. friend from Assiniboia CMr. Turriff).


John Gillanders Turriff: That is not true.


Robert Rogers: Because I have here a
memorandum prepared by Mr. Colwell giving the history and the story of the letter that was written by Mr. Sherwood, and recounting all the facts here. It seems that my hon. friend was a very regular attendant at the office of Mr. Colwell during the session, where he was able to have the assistance of Mr. Colwell in placing certain orders on the Order Paper from time to time. I have no desire to go into the details. Mr. Colwell has admitted to the Speaker that he wrote certain memoranda which I shall not trouble the House byreading, because it would be only a retailing of affairs that I would regard as unworthy of the House. Therefore, all I have to say is that we have evidently been fortunate, according to Mr. Col-3 p.m. well, in having secured the services of a man so eminently qualified to fill the position; and if it is filled as well as Mr. Colwell says it will be, by Mr. Sherwood, then $1,600 a year is a very reasonable salary. I may say that when Mr. Colwell was appointed a few years ago he started in at once, in the same position, under the reign of hon. gentlemen opposite, with a salary of $1,800.


John Gillanders Turriff: As chief of the office.


Robert Rogers: As chief of the office, but he started in at that, and he was not as 'well qualified and prepared at that time as apparently Mr. Sherwood is to-day, after his four years' experience. I do not think my hon. friend has much to complain of or very much reason to take the time of the House in bringing up this trivial matter, because I am sure the record of the present administration stands high-at least, it ought to stand high in the estimation of hon. gentlemen opposite-for the manner in which we have respected their appointments both in Ottawa and elsewhere. That is a condition of affairs which I do not approve of myself, and I frankly acknowledge it here in this House. If we are going to have, in return for that record, insult added to injury, then I for one will endeavour, with whatever little energy I may possess, to correct this condition of affairs by cleaning out a lot of the staff we have in Ottawa and elsewhere who devote 90 per cent of their time, as Mr. Colwell has been doing, to political affairs rather than to the duties of the offices to which they are appointed. I think, therefore,

that hon. gentlemen opposite have no grounds for complaint. .


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it is only fair
to Mr. Colwell for me to say that this matter was brought to my attention by half a dozen civil servants outside of the House of Commons altogether, and I went to Mr. Colwell for information, just as I would go to any other chief clerk or deputy minister when I wanted information in connection with anything concerning their departments. It is absolutely unfair to Mr. Colwell if he has been suspended and is going to be dismissed, as my hon. friend suggests, if he can bring it about, on the ground that he gave me information, because he gave me no information that I did not go to him and ask him for.


Wilfrid Laurier: The very
natural observations which have been presented to the House by the hon. member for Assiniboia have been met, I am sorry to say, by the Minister of Public Works in a manner which I hope he will, on reflection, regret. It is useless to wrangle over this matter. When he insinuates that the late Government did not deal with civil service appointments as they should have done, I retaliate by calling his attention to the manner in which dismissals have been made by the thousands in certain departments. I will make an offer to my hon. friend in this matter. We have a law which regulates the Civil Service. I ask nothing more than that law shall be observed, for the Civil Service or against the Civil Service, as the case may be. Is he prepared to do anything else? Does he not think that is a reasonable offer? Does he not now think that appointments should be made according to the law which we have laid down in reference to this matter? This appointment is an exception to the law which has been laid down for the regulation of the Civil Service. It was made on the application of Mr. Speaker, and I call the attention of the House to the manner in which it was made. This is a letter addressed by the Speaker to Dr. Flint, the Clerk of this House. It has been read, but I shall read it again, because the whole germ of the difficulty is to be found in it:
re H. C. Sherwood.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, and thank you for your information.
Will you kindly communicate with the Finance Minister and tell him that I desire to give the position of assistant clerk in the Orders and
[Mr. Rogers.3
Records Office of the House to Mr. H. C. Sherwood at the salary of $1,600 per annum, and that I would like to have direct legislation naming Mr. Sherwood in the Appropriation Rill for that office.
Why is it that the Speaker asks for an appointment of that kind and asks to have a special appropriation of Parliament?
Why is it? Simply because the gentleman in question is not qualified under the Civil Service Act. No one questions his ability. Mr. Colwell gave him a good certificate, and upon that certificate it was quite within the province of the Speaker to recommend his appointment. But there is a condition attached to such appointments; it is that the man who is recommended for the position should qualify for that position as the law requires. The law was passed in 1908, with the concurrence of both parties in the House, to put an end, as was suggested, and, as I believe, rightly suggested, to appointments being made matters of patronage. That law was passed, and it requires that every man, before being appointed to an office, must pass an examination. Is that a fair regulation, or is it not? Is it not quite proper that an applicant for a position in the Civil Service should, by passing an examination, show that he is competent to serve the country? Mr. Colwell wrote this letter on the 26th March. I do not know the circumstances. Mr. Colwell evidently wanted to be agreeable to the Speaker. The Speaker wanted this young man appointed. I do not inquire what were the circumstances. It is stated that he is the son of an official of the Conservative Association in Ottawa.' That does not matter, if he was entitled to be selected. They say that he is intelligent. My hon. friend says that he is also in business. Evidently he has given more attention to his business than to his studies, because he knew that to get the appointment he must pass the Civil Service examination, and he took that examination and failed. If he wanted to be appointed, having failed once-that he is intelligent is admitted- he should have applied himself to the studies which would have qualified him to pass when he tried again. It was open to him to go to his books and acquire the necessary knowledge, and apply again to the Civil Service Commission. But to-day, after this young man has failed in his examination, after it is recorded by the Civil Service Commission that they cannot give him the certificate which the Speaker must have in order to appoint him, he very

coolly asks that Parliament should appoint him, thus setting aside the law altogether. I ask, can anything be said in reply to the observations which have been made by my hon. friend from Assiniboia, that this is not the way to improve the Civil Service? Is it to be believed by anybody that a man can disregard the law relating to the Civil Service and that, for some reason or another, he can override that law and obtain his appointment from the party in office? Does any one believe that this would be conducive to the dignity of the Civil Service, or to the good administration of the country? My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce during this session, spoke very forcibly upon the evils of patronage. Nothing could have been more charming than what he said on that occasion. This is an example of the evils of patronage. Can my hon. friend justify this appointment which is in direct disregard of the law? I think my hon. friend will not rise in his seat in defence of such a course.


William Thomas White: Will the right hon. gentleman say whether or not, from 1908 till 1911, officials were named in the Estimates under his Administration, just as this man is named in these Estimates?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


William Thomas White: I ask the question. My right hon. friend says the law is being violated because we are naming an official in the Estimates. I ask my hon. friend whether or not, from 1908 till 1911, a similar course was not pursued in regard to any official or officials.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can not say at this moment.


William Thomas White: I can.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us assume that several appointments were made in that manner. Certain officials in the customs and other officials have to be appointed in this way; but here we have a man who failed to pass his examination and who is trying to pass over the rules of the Civil Service Act. I do not think that such an appointment was made by the late Government. I may be in error; perhaps my hon. friend has something in his mind, but I do not think so. I will put another question to my hon. friend: does he approve of this Government doing wrong because we did wrong when we were in office? Is that what he told the people of this country in 1911? Where would it lead
to if a party coming into office disregarded its pledges and said, "Our opponents did the same?" I repeat that I do not believe -I do not know, because matters which took place between 1908 and 1911 are far away from my memory-I do not think the late Government was guilty of making an appointment under the circumstances in which this appointment has been made. If my hon. friend has a case in mind I shall be glad to hear of lit. Even if we had done so-and I do not believe it-would that be a precedent or a justification for what the Government is doing to-day? Let us follow the Act or abolish it. Everybody knows that we must have a good Civil Service if we want to havie the affairs of this country properly administered. Nobody will deny that. My hon. friend will be the first to admit that. We 'have an Act; let us follow it. There are circumstances in which some justification might be made for disregarding the law. I am not so positive, or so dogmatic, as to say that there is to be no exception, but the exceptions must be justified, and in this case there is no justification at all. It is an abuse of the rules of the Civil Service, an abuse of the law passed 'by this Parliament. When it is considered that this man attempted to qualify himself and failed, and that he will not attempt to qualify himself, I say that there is no possible justification for such an appointment.


William Thomas White: My Tight hon. friend, like the rest of us, occasionally loses his sense of proportion, and this is one of the occasions. He suggests that the Government is doing something wrong in inserting the name of this man in the Estimates. The Government is doing nothing wrong. The Civil Service Act is in full force and effect, and it would be impossible to appoint this man to the position to which he has been appointed without the sanction and authority of Parliament. If Parliament approves of this Estimate the Civil Service Act is to that extent repealed with the consent of Parliament, so that I entirely dissent from the view put forward that anything wrong is being done. Here we have 'before us an exceptional case, the case of a -man well qualified for the position, but unable, presumably, to pass the Civil Service examination. What has been done in this case has been done in fifty, in a hundred cases since 1908, namely, where a man is qualified for the position and ds not able to

pass the Civil Service examination, an exception is occasionally made and the man's name is inserted in the Estimates. I may say that I do not know this man.


Wilfrid Laurier: Neither do I.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend produced some correspondence which had taken place between the Speaker and myself. The Speaker passes on t'he name of the party whotn he thinks suitable for the position. The presumption is that the Speaker has given the matter consideration, or that the Committee on Internal Economy 'has given it consideration. It comes before the Minister of Finance, who inserts the item in the Estimates, and it is considered by the Treasury Board and by the Council. The question asked is whether the man is qualified, whether he has had experience in the office. According to the letter read by the hon. Minister of Public Works from the chief of the department, this man as eminently qualified for the position. The salary is $1,600 per annum.
From the way that the hon. member for Assiniboia brought the matter forward one would imagine that this was a question of international importance instead of being that of the appointment of a $1,600 clerk to a position requiring the skill and experience which apparently it does. The Civil Service Act, while serving a useful purpose in regard to the great majority of public appointments, is inflexible to a degree. Cases arise continually, and it is perfectly clear to any one who has common sense, in which the service is debarred from taking on men well qualified for the positions because they are not able to pass an academic examination. One case wa-' brought to my .attention the other day in which a first class messenger-and they are d'fficult to get to-day

was debarred from taking a position in the Civil Service because he could not do long division. I doubt very much whether my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition could pass the examination at which this would-be messenger failed. He could not be a messenger because he was not able to divide 5,685 by 334.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Could he do subtraction?


William Thomas White: I think better than my hon. friend can; my hon. friend could not pass that examination. I doubt very much if any of these hon. gentlemen could qualify for the 2nd division. I doubt

if any hon. gentleman opposite, even my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, could to-morrow pass the matriculation examination. They could do it once, but they could not do it to-day. I am just instancing this case because it illustrates how the Civil Service is suffering by a strict adherence to the letter of the law. I agree that the Act is a useful one and that its provisions generally should be observed, but to regard in the letter all the provisions of the Civil Service Act and to make no exceptions, such as that which is being made to-day, would, instead of being to the advantage of the Civil Service, prove a detriment to it. It would prevent the Civil Service from obtaining desirable appointees who might not be able to pass the examination although eminently qualified for the .positions in question. A business man seeking a clerk for his office does not submit the applicant to a test such as that to which he is subjected by the Civil Service Commissioners. He inquires generally .as to tlhe education he has had, and then he estimates whether he is qualified for the position. While I am saying this in regard to exceptions to the Civil Service Act, I desire to say that I regard the Civil Service Act as a highly desirable enactment, but that no exceptions should ever be made to it would appear to me to he against the public interest rather than advantageous, and I am quite certain, although I 'have no particular eases in mind, that I could find fifty eases from 1908 to 1911 in which parties who could not pass the Civil Service Act were named in the Estimates of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend to-day has put forth the common law view, the fixed view of the letter of the statutes. I know that he, like myself, is an admirer of Abraham Lincoln. I would commend to him an extract from a letter which Abraham Lincoln once wrote to one of his officers in the Northern army on behalf of a junior officer whom he desired to be promoted. In that letter he said something like this to the commanding officer: I want you, if you can, to consider favourably the promotion of So-and-So to such a rank irrespective of whether or not he can tell the shade of Julius Caesar's hair. What he had in mind was that he wanted him to be appointed to this office oii his merits, but he did not want him to be necessarily debarred from the position by reason of his not being able to pass an examination as to the military history of the Romans.
At AY 17, 1916


George Eulas Foster: It is said that
Caesar wore a wig.


Wilfrid Laurier: He did not
have much hair to show.


Edmond Proulx: There is one phase of
this question that has not been touched upon by the lion. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) or the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said that under the Civil Service law this appointment came under 2B, where the minimum salary would be $800 and the maximum $1,600. It was changed to 2A. I do not know at whose direction this was done, but he is getting $800 more than he should have received. When we are told that poor messengers getting only $500 cannot get any increase to enable them to support their families, notwithstanding that they are employed not only during the session, but the whole year round, a man with a business in town is appointed at .a salary of $1,600 instead of $800. While an appointment of this kind is made poor men are starving with salaries of $500 and $600.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. Minister of
Public Works and the hon. Minister of Finance have laid stress on the point that this was a particular appointment needing skill and ability. Let me read again to my hon. friends the statement of the Clerk of the House of Commons, who knows what the office requires. Here is what Dr. Flint says to the Speaker on February 16:
The office does not require a person of professional or technical or any peculiar qualifications, at it is, like most all the clerkships of the House, a mere ordinary clerkship, requiring no professional or technical qualifications whatever.
I have nothing to add to that.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I might be permitted to say a few words on this. It is true that Mr. Sherwood was recommended to me and to the Government for the position. Mr. Sherwood is represented to the committee as being a young man; one would believe that he was a young man of about 15 or 16 years of age.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: That is a boy.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Mr. Sherwood is a married man with a family living in Ottawa, and the recommendations which I received on his behalf could not have been better. I asked for some information from the Clerk of the House as to the appointment, and it is true that in his letter of the
14th February the Clerk of the House advised me that Mr. Sherwood would have to get a certificate from the Civil Service Commission. That point was mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff); but in that letter from the Clerk of the House there is also another point which the hon. gentleman omitted to mention. Here is what the Clerk of the House said:
If Mr. Sherwood is to be appointed under the Civil Service Act there is no way that I know of by which he can omit obtaining the Civil Service certificate of qualification for the grade referred.
The only other method is the one suggested by him in his letter, viz., a direct legislative Act naming him in the appropriation Bill for the office and fixing his grade and salary after its insertion in the Estimates. This is a matter solely ih the jurisdiction of the Government.
This course has been followed in a great many cases not only this session but in other sessions, and it is the course which I have adopted on this occasion. Mr. Sherwood has had a very good certificate given him by his chief, Mr. Colwell, who has described him as a very good man and perfectly qualified. At the opening of the present session, when Mr. Colwell was ill, Mr. Sherwood was in charge of the office and everything went well. Mr. Sherwood has been attending to his duties during the session, and he is doing well; he could not do better, according to his chief, and he desires appointment to the office.
Would it be possible for Mr. Sherwood, who is attending to his duties here morning, afternoon and night, to prepare for the Civil Service examination? I submit that consideration to the House, and I think that every hon. gentleman who wants to be fair will admit that it would not be easy for Mt. Sherwood to prepare for an examination. The Speaker is responsible for the good ladministration of this department. Here is a man who is perfectly qualified. His functions are very, very important, as can be judged by the letter of Mr. Colwell, which was read this afternoon. If there is anything wrong in connection with the work ot this office any member can come to this House and place the blame upon the Speaker. I ask the House if I was not well advised in asking the Government to put this amount in the Supplementary Estimates?


Edmond Proulx: Why was the grade
changed from subdivision B of the second division, to subdivision A of the second division?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Because it is a very important position; and I think that this is

a matter that can be decided by the members of this House just as well as by the Civil Service Commission. I think that, for a married man who has a family, the salary of $1,600 a year, especially in these hard times, is a very reasonable salary for any position.


Edmond Proulx: Is it not a fact that he works only during the session?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: When this legislation
has passed he will be a permanent officer, and will have to come here every day.


William Pugsley: We have had no answer to the question why, when the Clerk of the House stated that the only position to which Mt. Sherwood could be appointed was subdivision B of the second division, and when Mr. Speaker had that request transmitted to the 'Government, the classification was changed by somebody from subdivision B to subdivision A. The result is that, whereas if Mr. Sherwood had been appointed to subdivision B, his salary could not rise above $1,600 without his passing later on an examination and qualifying for the higher division, his classification has been changed in these Estimates from subdivision B to subdivision A, so that he begins immediately at $1,600 and his salary will increase automatically up to $2,100. That has not been explained to the committee and I think it ought to be. It appears from the statement of the Clerk of the House that Mr. Sherwood is being appointed to a class in which there is no vacancy, a class which is already filled; and is being appointed to a higher position than Mr. Speaker apparently recommended he should be appointed to. I do not think this -is a mere trivial matter, as the Minister of Finance has said, because there is a principle involved. The principle is whether we should have any regard whatever to the Civil Service Act or whether whenever anybody who has some influential friends is desirous of an appointment to a position under the Government, it will only be necessary for him to go to those who have influence and his name will be put in the Estimates and he will be appointed, irrespective of the requirements of the statute. It does seem to me that, to take a young man who is unable to pass the Civil Service examinations neOessary to qualify him for the discharge of the duties of a routine clerk, and put him at once in this high division, starting at a salary of $1,600, in a higher class than that which many employees of the Government who have been

for years in the Civil Service have been able to attain, is excedingly unfair. We know that there are hundreds of clerks working all the year round, not merely during the four months that Parliament is in session, who are receiving less than $900 per year; men who are better qualified than Mr. Sherwood, but who cannot rise above the $900 because they have not been able to pass the qualifying examination. It is very discouraging to, them that a young man, not able to fulfil the requirements of the Civil Service Act, should be pitchforked into a higher position at a salary $700 more than they are able to attain, and with the certainty that his salary will increase ahtomatically until it reaches $2,100. That is very discouraging to the hundreds of employees in the Civil Service who have passed examinations and who cannot rise beyond $900 a year without passing further examination and being recommended by their chiefs for promotion. I do not think my bon. friend the Minister of Public Works ought to threaten dire vengeance upon employees of the Civil Service simply because there is some little criticism of the attempt which the Government is making to override the Civil Service Act. This young man has simply been employed as a temporary clerk, and has not been able to pass the Civil Service examination; yet he is to receive immediately a salary of $1,600 a year for four months work, because, say what you like, that is all he will have to do. He is employed for fouT months in the year, and during the rest of the time he will be able to attend to the ordinary mercantile business he is carrying on, in Ottawa. He will be receiving a salary about equal, considering the time he is employed during the year, to that which a deputy minister receives. The salary of a deputy minister, as provided by the Civil 'Service Act, is only $5,000 a year; and he has to work the whole year round and to carry very great responsibilities. Yet this young man, as I have said, who has been only a short time in the service, for this short period of from three months to four months, about one-iquaTter of the time that a deputy minister has to work, is to receive a salary practically equal to that which a deputy minister receives. I do not think it is at all encouraging to the Civil Se'rvice. I cannot see why my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has approved of this. That hon. gentleman, during this session, made

remarks with regard to subsidies which aroused very warm approval throughout the country; but I am very much afraid that, in respect of patronage as in respect of many other matters, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce reserves his eloquent remarks and his strong arguments for the ears of the private members of this House and for the ears of the public, instead of for the benefit of his colleagues in Council, because we find that continually the Government is bringing down to this House measures of which, if we are to judge the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the speeches he makes here, he cannot be expected to approve. I should like to hear whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce approves of this departure from the terms of the Civil Service Act, approves of this yielding .to the demands of those having influence with the Government, and approves of the making of this appointment in defiance of the provisions of the Civil Service Act. It is surely a step towards yielding to those pernicious views with regard to patronage which are of the very worst description.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to call, attention to an answer which I received in this House during this session in regard to the frequent overriding of the Civil Service Act. It strikes me as an extraordinary circumstance.
The hon. gentleman will remember that when the Act was passed in 1908 it was drawn to the attention of the House that there would be cases in which experts were required for the service of the Government -eminent engineers, for example, coming from outside of Canada and entering the Government's service for a time. It was clear that it would not be practicable to submit such men to .examination. Clause 21 was put in the Act to enable the Government, by going through a certain process, to have men of that class appointed. I asked the question during the present session, how many men had been appointed in the different departments of the Government under section 21 since this Administration came into power, and the answer I received was that these appointments numbered 220. That is an alarming number. Of course, 220 experts were not appointed. A large number of appointments were made of men who were more than thirty-five years of age and could not be appointed under the terms of the Civil Service Act. But dozens and scores of these people were appointed in violation of the
Act, by calling them " experts." I would ask the Minister of Finance to look into this matter. If we are to have a Civil Service Act that is to be of any use it will not do to ignore its provisions in this way.


William Thomas White: If the hon. gentleman would like to know to what extent the Civil Service Act has been ignored, I would recommend him to look over the Estimates under the late Liberal Administration from 1908, when the Civil Service Act came into force, until 1911, when this Government assumed office. He will find cases on all fours with this case-[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: I am not talking about this case.


William Thomas White: I have not had an opportunity of looking into the matter carefully, but I would call attention, for instance, to item 319 of the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909. I find the following:
To provide for the appointment of F. X. Saucier to a second-class clerkship at $1,200, from 21st July, 1908.


John Dowsley Reid: In what department?


William Thomas White: In the House of Commons. Why was it necessary to name Mr. Saucier? I do not know Mr. Saucier; I assume that he was a man qualified for the position. But the right hon. leader of the Opposition-I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment-was doing wrong in this matter according to the views of his supporters. Here is a case of an appointment made under authority of the Estimates, just as in the case of Mr. Sherwood who is named in this Estimate. Then I would call the attention to the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If Mr. Saucier had not passed the examination, the item would have read " Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act."


William Thomas White: Not at all. Let the hon. gentleman look at the Estimate now under consideration. He will not find there the words " Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." That is implied.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman will find that the late Administration, upon the advice of the Minister of Justice of that day, inserted these words. If they

did not appear, it was assumed that the party 'had passed the examination.'


William Thomas White: The Minister oi Justice, I have no doubt, advised it, but they did not carry it out. The Government named officials whom they desired to have appointed-no doubt for good and sufficient reasons-who were not able to take the Civil Service examinations. The Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1911, contains this estimate :
To provide for Miss Kate M. Fraser in third division, subdivision B, $500.
Why permit a special item referring to Kate? Why not name the position to which Kate was to be appointed instead of naming Kate in the Estimates? Then there is another item No. 399:
To provide for the appointment of the following officers, now in the Outside Service in Victoria, B.C., to the Inside Service at Ottawa at the following salaries; from April 1, 1910:
W. B. McLaughlin, second division, subdivision A	$2,000
H. G. Dalby, third division, subdivision A. 1,000
Why was it necessary to name these gentlemen? It would not have been necessary at all unless the Civil Service Act stood in the way of their being given appointments which they are given by this estimate.


William Pugsley: The Civil Service Act distinctly'' provides for bringing in officials from the outside service.


William Thomas White: If the Civil Service Act is complied with. But in this case the Civil Service Act was not complied with, .and that is the reason it was necessary to name them in the Estimates.
I am not finding fault with the naming of these officers in the Estimates. What I say is that what was done in these cases is what is done in this present- case, and what has been done in scores of cases since the Civil Service Act came into effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman is wrong. If he will take the Estimates under the late Government, he will find that wherever there is a ease-and it was very exceptional-when the terms of the Civil Service Act were not complied with, the words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act" "were inserted.


William Thomas White: I have no doubt that by reason of a certain predilection or bias that he has in favour of the late Administration, file hon. gentleman is confi-

dent in bis present view. But I want to tell him he is wrong. Appointments were made continually by means of the Estimates where the provisions of the Civil Service Act-for some good reason, no doubt -could not be complied with. There is no doubt about it; it has been done repeatedly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman is
absolutely wrong.


William Thomas White: Well, I think we shall have to agree to disagree, because I know I am absolutely right. Now, my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) states that instead of $800 a year a salary of $1,600 a year has been fixed, and calls attention to the fact that the Clerk of the House -stated that the grade of the position is B of the second division. Now, my hon. friend will observe that in the same paragraph of the letter in which that statement appears, the Clerk stated that the Speaker desires to appoint Mr. Sherwood to this office at a sal-aty of $1,600, and desires to have this done by direct appointment under the Appropriation Act. The Clerk of the House made a mistake as to the grade, because the subdivision of the second division which carries a salary of $1,600 is A *and not B. The Estimate, as it- is now before the committee, is correct-it refers to second division, subdivision A.


William Pugsley: If Mr. Sherwood had
been appointed in subdivision B he could have had a salary of $1,600. But, placing him in subdivision A of the second division means that his salary increased automatically to $2,100.


John Howard Sinclair: The Minister of Finance has not dealt with my point at all. I suppose the reason is that he could not blame the same -fault on the late Government.


William Thomas White: What was the
hon. gentleman's point?


John Howard Sinclair: It was that over 200 so-called experts have been -appointed under section 21 of the Act, since 1911. You see by the facts of the appointments that many of the men appointed under section 21, as "experts," were unable to get in legally, because they were too old.
They could not pass their examinations; they were over age. In these cases section 21' was resorted to in violation of the law, because that section was intended to apply only to cases in which experts were required by the Government. In those cases exam-
MAY 17, 191fi
inations were dispensed witli because the men to be appointed were eminent professors, eminent engineers, or persons well qualified to do the work required by the Government.


George Eulas Foster: There may be
great experts and there may be lesser experts, but whether the man in question be a greater expert or a lesser expert he cannot be appointed unless he gets a certificate from the Civil Service Commission that as regards that office he is to be looked upon as an expert.


John Howard Sinclair: There has to be action on the part of the Government as well.


George Eulas Foster: The Civil Service Board has to give a certificate that as regards the office in question he has expert qualifications which enable him to be appointed.


John Howard Sinclair: It may be that the board is subservient to the Government; I do not know about that.


George Eulas Foster: I would not say that. I think that the Civil Service Board has been, on the whole, a fair board; I do not think it is prejudiced in favour of the Government. As a matter of fact, if I have one complaint more frequently put to me than another it is that the Civil Service Board is rather against the Government than in favour of it.


William Pugsley: They were against the
late Government.


Mr. GRAHAM:: They are against all Governments.


George Eulas Foster: That is not a
bad attitude.


John Howard Sinclair: I remember when the
Civil Service Act was passed in 1908 that my hon. friend gave very valuable assistance. After due deliberation he agreed that 35 years of age should be the maximum age of persons appointed to positions in the Inside Service. But if he examines the appointments made by his Administration he will find that in scores of cases section 21 has been resorted to in order to get men into the service who are much over 35 years of age. I think the fixing of that maximum age was a good provision, because if men were appointed over that age they would be pensioned later and these pensions would increase the cost of the service. I do not mention this for any political purpose or in order unnecessarily
to condemn the Government. I simply want my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to look into it and if that abuse is going on to use his influence to prevent its recurrence during the coming year.


George Perry Graham: It is a fact that from
the very outset of the operations of the Civil Service Act those having charge of appointments in the House of Commons staff have objected to recognizing it. The ground was taken, if I remember correctly, that while the Act was all right for the rest of the staff, they did not care to have it applied to the staff of the House of Commons. I think Mr. Sherwood is a good man; anything that I have entrusted to his care has been well performed. The situation is this: the Speaker of the House of Commons has recommended Mr. Sherwood in violation of the Civil Service Act. Had the Civil Service Act been complied with, some other appointment would have been made-we may as well face the facts. However, Parliament approves of this course and the Speaker is upheld. I hope that sometime when I have a recommendation to make, Parliament will be soft-hearted as it has been in the present instance, and approve of some appointments that I may suggest in violation of the Civil Service Act.


George Eulas Foster: It will all depend on its merits.


George Perry Graham: It will depend more
largely, I think, on the man who makes the recommendation. Speaking of the Civil Service Commission, last year the acting Minister of Railways lead off in lambasting not only the law but the men who were enforcing it. I think that other members of the Government iiave become infected with the same microbe. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember the scene in the House of Commons and what took place before and after. As a matter of fact, some members of the Government did not like the Civil Service Commission, and for that reason they did not intend to obey the law. They ought to have the courage to repeal the law if they do not intend to obey it or even approximately to obey it. The Act does impose some hardships. This case is but a mild one compared with one that I could mention. When I was minister I could not get a messenger because he could not pass the Civil Service examination. He was a trustworthy young man; I think he could have done long division, although 1 am not so sure about short division. Any-

way he would have made a good messenger, but the Civil Service Commission absolutely declined to grant a certificate, and I went no further. There is another case. A young man who had not quite reached the age required of those presenting themselves for examination had enlisted and he wanted to write on his Civil Service examination before going into camp. He did not want his certificate until he became of proper age. The Civil Service Commission, however, would not let him write. Legally, of course, they were right, because the law says that an applicant must have reached the age of eighteen years. It struck me that this was a hardship, particularly as conditions exist now that never existed before. If the young man had been going on a pleasure trip or had been going into business, I could easily see the absolute necessity of complying with the law. But he has enlisted, and because he lacks a few months or weeks of the age required, he was not allowed to write. I am not sure that the Act should not be amended or made a little flexible under exceptional conditions such as that.


Robert Rogers: How would it do to make the commissioners a little flexible?


George Perry Graham: They have no power to
go beyond the Act unless they violate the law. They are not like the Government, because the Government can introduce an Act in violation of the law, but the commissioners cannot. Many universities have in cases of this kind given their students the advantage of unusual privileges in the matter of taking examinations. For instance, in connection with the Boer war I know several cases where young men who were taking part in the war were allowed to take their examinations under special conditions. I would suggest to the Government that they either repeal the Civil Service Act or sail a little closer to it. If the staff of the House of Commons is not to come under it-and it does not come under it very much-the law had better be amended to provide that that staff shall not come under it. In the next place, I think that some amendment ought to be made to give the commissioners power to act in such cases as I have mentioned. It is absolutely ridiculous that w e should have a law on the statute-book by which a young man who wants to pass the Civil Service examination before he goes to fight for his country is not allowed to do so, simply because he is a few weeks under age, even though

he does not want a certificate until he does attain the proper age.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is a matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the Government in connection with the shipping of goods from any part of Canada to British Columbia via the Panama canal. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Government on several occasions by the people of British Columbia, more particularly by the business interests of Vancouver, Prince Bupert and Victoria. All that these people are asking for is that the Minister of Customs appoint a customs officer to assist in the bonding of goods going from any part of Canada to British Columbia via the Panama canal. It appears that, under the present regulations, it is almost impossible to handle the trade unless an officer of the Canadian customs is located at New York for the purpose of seeing to the transhipping of the goods to the steamers that will go via the canal. This matter was first taken up by the business interests of British Columbia, and I think I could not do better than to read to the minister the resolutions passed there. On the 4th of November, 1914, at a meeting held at Vancouver of men representing financial interests and investments in British Columbia, on behalf of principals and clients in Canada, Great Britain, France and other countries, a resolution to the following effect was passed:
Appreciating the facts that-
The development of the resources of this province, especially the coast cities,
The exportation of products of this and adjoining provinces,
The importation of raw materials for factories now established and to be established here,
As well as the importation of goods necessary to be brought here for consumption, are largely dependent upon our water facilities ;
Realizing the great possibilities for the people of this province, to be derived as a result of the Panama canal route,
Realizing that these possibilities can only be converted into realities by placing ourselves in a position to utilize the water facilities offered, Are resolved that we put forth the most vigorous effort to encourage shipping to come to this coast, particularly at this time when the Dominion Government are nearing completion of the dock and grain elevator at this port, and the prospect so bright for moving the prairie grain through the coast ports in the near future, We further resolve that we heartily endorse the request of the British Columbia Boards of Trade to the Government at Ottawa, for the appointment of a customs offic-r at New York, firmly believing that the opening of this new channel of trade will bring to British Columbia unlimited benefits.

This is a question affecting not British Columbia alone, but more particularly Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. The people at the coast ask that they should be allowed to import their goods by the cheapest possible route, and if that is not done the loss will fall not upon the people of British Columbia alone, but on the manufacturer's of the eastern provinces as well. We must all recognize that Canada is a great stretch of country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and that many classes of goods manufactured in Ontario and Quebec could not possibly be shipped to Vancouver by rail. Canned goods of all descriptions and heavy hardware and many otheT classes of goods cannot possibly be shipped by rail to British Columbia. Unless they can be taken by water from eastern Canada to Vancouver, their use on the Pacific coast of Canada will be impossible.
The result is a direct loss to the 4 p.m. people of the eastern provinces, as well as to the people of British Columbia. Not only is this route via the Panama canal necessary for the goods that are manufactured here and consumed in British Columbia, but it will put our merchants in the coast cities in a very much better position than they are now for exporting to China and Japan and many other foreign countries. At all events, the people of British Columbia, the merchants, manufacturers and financial institutions, and everybody interested in that province, are demanding the right to bring in goods by water freight instead, of by railway freight, especially classes of goods that cannot stand the 3,000 mile railway haul. I ask the Minister of Customs on what ground the people of this part of Canada should dictate to the people of British Columbia as to how they shall bring in their goods. If the people of British Columbia can get goods in by water freight at from 30 per cent to 50 per cent less than they can get them in over the railways, why should we interfere with their doing that? 1 wonder what the people of Ontario and the Prairie Provinces would think if this Government undertook to say that they would not be allowed to use water carriage on the Great Lakes because we have built railroads that can carry this freight and we have got to keep the traffic in the hands of the railroads because we have put a lot of money into their construction. The people of the Bast and of the prairies would not stand that for one moment. It would be too absurd. Well, it is not more absurd 256
than the aotion of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs who, for the last couple of years, has deliberately and emphatically denied to the merchants of British Columbia the privilege of bringing in their freight by water instead of by land. All that is necessary to accomplish this is to have a Canadian customs officer in the port of New York; and one of the steamship companies, British company at that, which intends to put on a line of steamers from New York to Vancouver via the Panama canal, has undertaken to pay the salary of a Canadian customs officer; so that this plan will not cost this Government anything, while it will accomplish a great deal to help out the merchants at the coast, and also the manufacturers in the eastern provinces. My friend the Minister of Customs has stated in the correspondence that has taken place on this matter that a country cannot send custotms officials into foreign countries. But let me point out to my hon. friend the minister that a great deal of transcontinental trade carried over the Canadian Pacific railway has been American through freight, and in order'to enable the Canadian Pacific railway to carry the freight, the American Customs Department have placed American customs officers in Vancouver for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of that freight. What has been the result? The Canadian railways have reaped a rich harvest by carrying American goods over the Canadian Pacific Railway line, and that has been brought about by the Americans doing exactly what the people of Vancouver and Victoria are asking the Minister of Customs to do, and what he has so far persistently refused to do. To my mind the reasons that have been given in the past have not been sufficient reasons. At first it was 'Stated that the railways were against this proposition. Well, I am not sure that the railways are against the proposition. The railroads are not going to lose anything in connection with this proposition for the simple reason that they are not now getting the freight. Take a carload of canned goods put up in the province of Ontario. You have to ship that cargo of goods over one of the transcontinental railways and land it in Vancouver. One man attempts to bring in a carload of goods in that way. Another man buys a carload of the same class of goods manufactured in the. United States, ships them to New York, gets a rate by the Panama canal so low in com-



parison with the railway rate that he is enabled to pay the duty on the American manufactured goods and to land them in the city of Vancouver at a very considerably lower rate than it would take him to Land the same class of goods manufactured in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend, the Minister of Customs, in his endeavour to prevent goods manufactured in Canada from going by water to the people of Vancouver, is cutting the Canadian manufacturer out of his own market, and he is not benefiting the railways in any degree, because the railways cannot get the freight as the people of Vancouver can buy American goods cheaper.


William Pugsley: Do I understand my
lion, friend to say that the Minister of Customs would refuse to allow goods which are being shipped say from Montreal, Quebec, or St. John or Halifax to Vancouver, to pass through American waters to the Panama canal to be landed in Vancouver or Victoria?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes. What I understand from the correspondence I have here and from the statements made by members of the Boards of Trade of Vancouver and other cities on the coast is that the Minister of Customs has given instructions to the collectors of customs in these coast cities that they are not to take entry of any goods shipped in that way, that is, goods which have passed over a short haul on American railroads to get to New York.


William Pugsley: When they are on the
vessel all the way does the Minister refuse?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection to that.


William Pugsley: I would be surprised if there was.


John Dowsley Reid: In the case of a vessel loaded at St. John and going through the Panama canal and discharging its cargo at Vancouver-there is no objection.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is no objection to that; the objection is that there is no service either from Montreal or from Quebec in summer or from St. John or from Halifax in winter to Vancouver by the Panama canal, and that in order to take advantage of the water rate by the Panama canal you have to ship goods at the present time from New York. It is pointed out that it is very much further from Montreal or from St. John to Vancouver, taking the summer and winter ports, the difference being some

1,400 miles, than from New York. It is very much further from the manufacturing establishments of Ontario and Quebec to the Canadian ports by rail in many cases than it is to New York. In the meantime we have no steamship company that will undertake to make a trip from Montreal or St. John, summer and winter, to Vancouver by the Panama canal. Therefore, there is no method by which the Canadian manufacturer can ship his goods by water from a Canadian port at the present time. No doubt he may be able to do so later, but in the meantime if he wants to take advantage of the low water rate by the Panama route he has to ship from New York. The difficulty, they claim, is that you cannot send your goods to New York and have them transhipped in bond without a Canadian customs officer being there to look after the shipping. All they ask is that a Canadian customs officer be placed there. The Maple Leaf Steamship Company of Great Britain has offered to pay the salary of a customs official, if appointed, in order to get this trade. They would make regular sailings; the merchants of British Columbia would get their goods cheaper, and they would get them from Canadian manufacturers, whereas in the meantime they have to buy American made goods in order to get them cheaper. At one time it was thought that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was opposed to this proposition, but I notice from the correspondence that that body is not against it. The railway companies "are not opposed to it and, so far as I can find out, the only pefson that stands in the way of the wishes of the people of British Columbia is the hon. the Minister of Customs. It is a little thing to ask for. The carrying of freight does not belong to the railway companies any more than to the steamship companies. We have spent, and are spending tens of millions of dollars in providing dockage and harbour facilities in those British Columbia cities, while at the same time my hon. friend is refusing to allow the people of British Columbia to take advantage of a condition that would be to the betterment of British Columbia and the people of eastern Canada.
I desire to give the British Columbia view of the matter in order to make the situation clear, and I shall quote from an article published in The Sun of Vancouver, B.C., on Wednesday, February 9, 1916:
Many moons have waxed and waned since this port was offered a service by the Maple Leaf line from New York to Vancouver, sailing out-

bound from here to the United Kingdom and Prance. It was just such a service as Vancouver was absolutely in need of. It would have provided cheap water transportation for Canadian goods to be used in this province, besides furnishing tonnage for our exports.
As a condition of securing this valuable service it was necessary that the ships of the line should call at New York rather than at Halifax or any Canadian port. The distance from Vancouver to Halifax is 1,450 miles greater than from Vancouver to New York.


William Pugsley: Who says that?


John Gillanders Turriff: The Vancouver Sun.


William Pugsley: It is all wrong.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have a statement here from the Board of Trade of Vancouver, dated September 10, 1915, and this is what it states:
Vancouver to New York, 6,000 miles; Vancouver to Montreal, 7,450 miles.
So that the difference from Vancouver to Montreal is 1.450 miles. The other statement apparently is not correct.


William Pugsley: We can do all the business from St. John and Halifax.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I say.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is what those people say, but there are no steamers sailing, and there is nothing in view. Meantime the people of British Columbia suffer, and they ask this Government to appoint an official.
All they have to do is to name an official and it will not cost them a dollar. Let him be stationed in New York in the meantime and the moment you have a service, from St. John in the winter and Montreal in the summer, to Vancouver, then withdraw your man from there and see that the freight goes from Canadian ports to Canadian ports. But, in the meantime, are the manufacturers of Ontario to be punished because there are no facilities to ship by water either from Montreal or St. John to Vancouver? That is the position.
I am not asking, when you are able to ship from Montreal or St. John that you should then help trade to go by way of New York, but in the meantime, if you cannot get a service from St. John or Montreal to Vancouver, why not take advantage of the water route? It is not as if you were hurting anybody. You are not hurting the railways, which do not get the freight in any case, and you are giving an advantage to the people of British Columbia, who, irrespective of every other consideration, are a unit in demanding that they should have-the privilege of taking 2581
advantage of the cheap freight rates. Is there any argument, any reason, against it? The reasons which have been put up by the Government are two in number. The first is that it would throw the trade largely into the hands of another country. While it is true that, we are not getting this trade, we would have this trade carried by a British line of steamers, not an American line. But rather than allow a line of British steamers to carry this trade, apparently, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs absolutely refuses to pay the slightest heed to the demands of his own friends from British Columbia that he should simply name a customs officer, have him sent down there and allow these goods to be carried by a British steamship company, lhat is all the people of British Columbia are asking.


William Pugsley: Why not have them come to St. John? We would treat them well.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend from St. John is quite right in asking: why not have them come to St. John? But my hon. friend should address that inquiry not to me, as I have no power in this matter, but to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs.


William Pugsley: The Panama canal has only been opened recently.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Panama canal has only been opened recently but the people of British Columbia are waiting to take advantage of that canal and they have been prohibited from doing so by the Minister of Customs. The second reason that the Government offer is the following:
We have spent immense sums of money in building railways across Canada and something is due to the Government and these railway facilities.
All I can say is that the railway companies are not going to get any of this trade simply because the class of freight I am speaking of is not able to stand a 3,000 mile rail haul. The consumers and exporters in Vancouver can buy American made-goods, pay the duty .on them and land them in Vancouver at a considerably cheaper rate than they can buy Canadian goods and ship them over the railways without paying any duty whatever. As long as that condition continues, you will have a dissatisfaction in British Columbia th'at cannot be avoided, and you will still have a widening of a certain amount of feeling that exists between the East and the West which the legislation of this Government, and more par*-

ticularly this particular item, is hardening every month of the year and every year as the years go round. It may have bad effects in the future. If the people of British Columbia become accustomed < to trading across the line, it is always more or less difficult to get the trade back again, even although you may have a steamship line from Montreal or St. John to Vancouver. Would it not be better that in the meantime Canadian manufactured goods should go to the customers of the manufacturers in British Columbia via the Panama canal on British ships, even if they had to be shipped a couple of hundred miles on American railways to get them into New York in order to take advantage of the British line that sails from New York to Vancouver? There is the proposition. Would it not be better to encourage Canadian manufacturers by having their goods carried to the people of British Columbia, even if the steamers do call at New York instead of Montreal or St. John in the meantime, or until we can make the necessary arrangements to have a line of steamships from St. John to Vancouver? Now, I want to continue this article from the Sun:
The distance from Vancouver to Halifax is 1,450 miles greater than from Vancouver to New York.
That should be that the distance from Vancouver to Montreal is 1,450 miles greater than from Vancouver to New York.
1.	To the eastern Canadian manufacturers- By their thus being able to ship their products ''in bond1' to British Columbia-thence to Russia, Japan, China, New Zealand and Australia-at the minimum rates, in competition with the manufactured goods from Europe or the United States.
2.	To the manufacturers and producers of British Columbia, as it will provide lowest cost of transportation "inwards" for raw materials, as Well as lowest rates for export of products "outwards."
3.	To the consumers of British Columbia, and to those of western Canada up by rail through British Columbia, in getting a fairer ratio of prices for all commodities.
4.	To the ports of Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and Prince Rupert, by encouraging shipping, especially from Britain, to call at New York for Canadian (goods' for British Columbia, the Orient, and vice versa.
The only thing which prevents us from profiting by the offer of the Maple Leaf Line is a letter from the Minister of Customs to the Customs Department at tips port prohibiting the admission of Canadian goods arriving by sea if they have passed by the short haul over United States rails to such ports as Boston and New York.
You see, if that is a correct statement, the Minister of Customs is prohibiting the

entry of such goods into the ports of British Columbia.
It is not necessary to amend a statute or repeal an order in council. It has never been pretended that the action of the Minister of Customs was dictated by the Government as a matter of policy. Beyond their apparent reluctance to order a withdrawal of the letter, there is nothing to show that British Columbia's unfortunate position is due to anything but the personal act of the Hon. J. D. Reid, dictated by the manufacturers of Ontario or eastern railway interests, and both these interests, we submit, have acted on a narrow and mistaken view as to the results which would follow from allowing British Columbia to enjoy the use of the great advantages supplied by nature.
From the correspondence that I have received I believe that neither the railways nor the Manufacturers' Association are particularly opposed to this.


Mr. NESBITT:: That man is off about
the manufacturers being opposed to it because they want to get their goods in the cheapest way they can.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
John Dowsley Reid: This matter has been before me for some little time, as has been stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and it has given me great concern. I personally am anxious to do all I can for the province of British Columbia or any other part of the Dominion. I must say that my hon. friend treats this question very lightly. All we have to do, he says, is to put an officer
in New York and the whole matter is settled. He tells us that American officers are at Vancouver for the purpose of seeing that American goods are sent through from there to the United States. That may be true. But let me explain the bonding privileges between Canada' and the United States. The bonding privileges allow a car that is loaded with goods and sealed at Vancouver to be shipped through to its destination and the seal broken by the officers of the same country. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend, the fish caught Sn American waters up at Alaska, and brought down to Vancouver, have to be transported as quickly as possible. The American officers see the fish loaded on to the cars, the American seal is put on the car, and when the car gets to New York the seal is broken by an American officer; so the car is both sealed and unsealed by American officers. Similarly, if a manufacturer ineastern Canada wants .to route through the-United States some goods he is shipping to British Columbia or some place in the-West, the car is sealed by a Canadian; officer before it leaves Canada; it them passes through the United States, comes-in,to Canada again, and the seal is broken at the car's destination by a Canadian officor. My hon. friend can see that there is therefore no possible chance of these goods being exchanged or getting out of the possession of Canadian Customs officers.
Mr. 1URRIFF: My hon. friend would not suggest that it would be impossible for a Canadian Customs officer in New York to see the goods transferred from the car to the steamship without being changed.


John Dowsley Reid: I was coming to that. The hon. member says that the Maple Leaf line is willing to pay for an officer, and he says that all these goods that are going to New York will be carried by a British line of steamers. The Maple Leaf Line is owned by the United States Steel Corporation, which is one of the largest corporations in the United States; and which, I believe from information I have received, is the one that is raising this agitation and is trying to prove to the people of British Columbia that they would gain great advantage if their line of steamers were to carry this freight from eastern Canada to-British Columbia. They have also used the argument that the goods would always be carried on British steamers. Now, we cannot control the port of New York or any

other American port. Would the hon. member advise us to put a customs officer in New York to see to it that goods shipped to a British Columbia port or elsewhere should not be carried by American steamers leaving for those ports, but must be carried on British steamers? Would not that be likely to cause trouble with the United States? Our relations are most friendly, and for us to absolutely refuse to allow our products to go out of an American port on an American vessel would be very likely to raise trouble.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They do not want you to confine yourself to British boats. But would it be possible to establish a customs office and have the shipping that way?


John Dowsley Reid: I was just coming to the
question of putting it on another vessel. I have stated that the bonding privileges must always apply to a Canadian or British vessel, for you could not ship in a foreign vessel and keep control. We, as British subjects, would have no control over that vessel.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then, you cannot ship
in bond via New York to Vancouver?


John Dowsley Reid: It is a' very difficult matter
to arrange. I have found so many difficulties in it that I have not been able to carry out the wishes of those who have raised this agitation. Another question has come up. This House has always been of the opinion that, if possible, we should carry our goods through our own country.


John Gillanders Turriff: We all agree with that.


John Dowsley Reid: When some of the people
from British Columbia were here to interview me on this matter, they led me to believe that the freights via New York were very much lower than they would be overland to Vancouver-that is, from such ports as Montreal, Toronto, or Hamilton.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: By rail?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. They said that the rate from New York to Vancouver would be, I think, 50c. per 100 lb. I asked the Chairman of the Railway Commission to instruct his officials to make out a statement showing the rates by rail on a long list of articles commonly shipped between eastern Canada and Vancouver. Then I had the officials put alongside these rates the rates from such places as Montreal, Toronto, and Hamilton, to New York, with the 50c. peT

100 lb. added as the freight to Vancouver. To these rates must be added insurance and wharfage charges, I find that there is very little difference between the charge on a full carload, shipped from eastern Canada by rail to Vancouver, and the same quantity shipped to New York and thence by vessel to Vancouver. Of course, all that I am saying now refers to rates under normal conditions, not rates charged under war conditions. The difference of these rates under normal conditions would be so small that I do not believe there is a member of the House who would ever discuss the matter if he had before nim the statement which I have had prepared. I also had a statement made out showing the local freights on smaller lots such as a ton or 500 lb. Of course, on these small lots and with local rates, the rates were very much higher by rail, and it would pay better to send by New York. But I do not consider it quite fair to make comparison with the local rates in this way. As to goods going in carload lots, there is very little ground of complaint when the whole matter is looked into. Besides, the only points to which these lower rates via New York would apply, would be Victoria and Vancouver. In inland places, like Kamloops for instance, the same would not apply.


John Gillanders Turriff: But the minister will
find that the rail rate from Montreal to Kamloops, which is a couple of hundred miles east of Vancouver, is very much higher than the rate to Vancouver.


John Dowsley Reid: I was just about to say that. I suppose that it is on account of the water competition at coast points. There are two other reasons why I have had to give this matter most serious consideration before disposing of it.
We have built up in this country a great railway system between eastern and western Canada. The province of British Columbia has incurred large liabilities in connection with railways that have been built in that province. The Dominion Government itself is trying to develop the territory betwen here and British Columbia as well as to develop the Canadian Railway systems. The hon. member for Assiniboia advocates that instead of sending freight to British Columbia by our railway system we should send it to New York and thence by steamer through the Panama canal to Vancouver and Victoria. I think we

should consider carefully any proposed action which would tend to injure our railway system. Two years ago an agitation was started in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba for the reduction of treight_ratee. It was shown on that occasion that if reduction were granted the railways would not be able to pay the expenses of operation, and that great injury would result to the West. No member of this House has been more strongly in favour of the development of our own great harbours than I have. I have been a party to assisting Vancouver and Victoria in their harbour development. I have also done what I could in the matter of the development of the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax. If there is to be connection :by water through the Panama canal between eastern and western Canada, I believe that a line of steamships should be established leaving Montreal and Quebec in the summer and St. John and Halifax in the winter. I have asked persons with whom I have discussed this matter if some arrangement could be made by which the Maple Leaf line in the summer should come to Montreal and Quebec and in the winter to St. John and Halifax in order that our goods carried between the East and the West should go through our own Canadian ports. It is suggested that we put an officer in New York until the rwar is over or until we can arrange for the operation of this line. My experience, 'however, has been such as to lead me to believe that if you establish
a route	*by	putting an	officer at	a port	of	this- kind,	the	routewill remain	for all time	to	come.
If we should do that in this case, when we should come to arrange for the operation of a line of steamers leaving Montreal and Quebec in the summer and St. John and Halifax in the winter, we would be handicapped by that arrangement which we had made. It does not seem to me that the present is the proper time to bring this matter up. It is true that it is about two years since this agitation started. But it is nearly two years since war was declared between Great Britain and Germany and since that time it has been practically impossible to get vessels to carry the traffic between Canada and the Mother Country. I understand that at the present time the Maple Leaf Line have no sailings via the Panama canal; and my information is that you cannot count on any line of steamers doing this work at least until the war is over. Even
if steamers could be obtained to carry freight between New York, Seattle and Vancouver by the Panama canal, rates are so high owing to war conditions that there would be no- advantage in shipping by that route. I have given the reasons why I believe that this matter should remain in abeyance at least until the war is over. Having regard to the existing conditions, to the railway situation, to the intention of the Government to hold an investigation into railway matters with a view of reorganizing our railway system and to the policy of the Government in the matter of the development of our harbours-Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, St. John, Vancouver and Victoria-I feel that the committee will agree that the matter should rest until, a later date.


Mr. G. H. BOTVIN (Shefford):: Under the permission which was given to the members by the Minister of Customs last night to bring up any subject when the House went into Supply to-day, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and of the committee the case of an elector of the county of Missisquoi, one Albert Ernest Lagrange of Frelighsburg. On June 23, 1913, Mr. Lagrange, who is a cattle buyer, purchased from different farmers throughout his locality a car-load of hogs, which he loaded for shipment to Montreal. It was later ascertained by a very vigilant officer of the Department of Customs, Mr. Frank Fyles, of Abercorn, that there were in this carload three or four hogs which had been imported from the United States and on which no duty had been paid. These hogs were imported not by Mr. Lagrange, but by the party from whom he had purchased them. The entire car-load was held up and seized and in order to release the car from seizure, Mr. Lagrange followed it to St. Johns, the port of entry, and there placed in the hands of the collector of customs his cheque for $1,600, the full value of the carload of hogs. The hogs were released the next day and sent to Montreal. After having been sent to Montreal and disposed of, steps were taken to ascertain where the different hogs were purchased and it was discovered that four of these hogs had been smuggled in from the United States by a farmer called Peter Larose, of Frelighsburg. He was a tenant farmer and had no property except a team of horses, a very valuable wagon, and a set of harness. The outfit which he used to smuggle in the hogs was seized by an officer of the
/

department. Mr. Larose, however, happened to be a friend of the party in power, and' had voted for the defeated Conservative candidate in Missisquoi county. That defeated Conservative candidate came to the Tescue. After he had had an interview with some official in the Department of Customs at Ottawa this team of horses, the harness and wagon, which were worth $250 to $300, were released upon the payment of $50 to the department by Peter Larose. In the eyes of the department he had paid the penalty for having smuggled the hogs into Canada, This occurred in 1913, and we are now in the year of grace 1916, and the $1,000 deposited by this man LaGrange is still in the hands of the department, and the department absolutely refuses to refund this money to him. I have looked through the reports of the Auditor General and of the department, and I can find no entry showing to what purpose this money has been applied. I will go further. About a year after it had been proven that this man 'had had nothing to do with the smuggling in of the hogs which happened to be in his carload, he went to a Conservative member who occupies a seat on the other side of this House and gave him a synopsis of his case. I prefer not to mention this member's name publicly, but I can give it privately to the minister if he so desires. This Conservative member told the man he would have no difficulty whatever in getting the money, and he asked him to make a deposit of $25, which the Conservative member still has while the department still has the $1,600.
This matter was brought to my attention on April 24 of the present year, and naturally I took the step that any hon. member of Parliament would have taken in connection with the matter. I did not bother the minister, but went direct to the department and saw Mr. McDougald, the Commissioner of Customs. He reported that this matter had been pending for three years, and that no decision had yet been given by the minister. The matter was still pending when I saw the Commission-5 p m. er of Customs on April 28, 1916.
I asked him then if there was any reason why this deposit should be forfeited and he told me that he did not know as the matter was still in the hands of the minister, who was taking a very long time to make up his mind. I asked him to bring the matter to the attention of the minister at once and he promised to do so, and on May 1, 1916, he wrote me as follows:

Ottawa, May 1, 1916.
Geo. H. Boivin, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Be Seizure No. 18860/89-A. E. LaGrange. Dear Sir,-Referring to your inquiry as to the above seizure, I am to state that the deposit of $1,600 is held as forfeited.
1 have the honour to he,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) John McDougald,
Commissioner.


John Dowsley Reid: He got off cheap; he oould have been prosecuted as well.


Georges Henri Boivin: Remember that the charge was for smuggling in three or four hogs, that these hogs were in a oarload which was shipped to Montreal by am indirect route at a great loss to this man, that it was discovered that these hogs had been imported by somebody else, that the party who smuggled them in paid the penalty exacted by the department-and, after all this, the deposit is still held by the department. I am bringing this matter up in order to ascertain from the minister what I could not ascertain from the Commissioner of Customs, and that is, why the full value of the whole cargo of hogs was confiscated by the department when only three or four hogs had been smuggled into Canada by another party?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman must
understand that hundreds of cases of this kind come before me, and each case is dealt with on its merits. In some cases we exact merely the value of the article seized, in other cases we impose a penalty as well, and in other cases we have prosecuted. In this particular case a seizure was made by our officers. I do not know whether my hon. friend knows this man, but my information is that he has been buying American hogs for many years all along the line, and shipping them to Montreal. This had a double effect. In the first place, the farmers living along the line where he was buying had to compete with American 'hogs that were smuggled in, and this man knew he was doing the farmers the greatest possible injury by bringing in American hogs and breaking the price on this side. The hon. member knows that drovers, when they are buying hogs or cattle, go right into a man's place and see the stock; they know whether that man has had those hogs before. The reason I made the man pay the full value of the carload was that I was of the opinion that lie knew well

enough those hogs had been smuggled in by this poor man; perhaps he wanted_ to benefit' by the lower price and got the poor man to smuggle them in. I had certain other information, and I do not believe the hon. member could get that man to make an affidavit that he did not know that those hogs had1 been smuggled in. According to my information he has been getting Ameri-^ can hogs in for years, thereby doing great' injury to our own Canadian farmers and to the treasury of Canada. Furthermore, although he knew that the Department of Agriculture had prohibited American hogs from coming into Canada, he had been bringing them in for years and taking chances of spreading hog cholera and other diseases amongst our Canadian stock. The hon. gentleman may think that the penalty was severe, but I can tell him that the man would not make an affidavit that this was the only case of smuggling in of hogs that he knew of. I think	he got	off very lightly.
I maintain that he got off very easily, and if he ever does the same again while I am minister, I want the hon. member to tell him that I will not only impose the penalty of a fine, but prosecute him as far as the law will allow.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. minister seems to forget altogether that it was the other man who smuggled the hogs and was punished for doing so.


John Dowsley Reid: I will explain that. This man was a poor man who had nothing in the world but a team of horses.


Georges Henri Boivin: He is a tenant farmer.


John Dowsley Reid: He was probably sent over by the other man to smuggle the hogs in. The hon. member says I should have treated this poor man as I treated the other man who is a wealthy man and has been smuggling in hogs for years and bringing disease into the country. He wants me to treat this poor unfortunate man who has nothing in the world but a team of horses the same as the other man who is wealthy, but I will not do that. The penalty I imposed on the man with the team of horses was a fine of $50, and to him that $50 was five times more of a penalty than it would be to a man who had a carload of hogs. I say that this poor tenant farmer was led into the difficulty by the other man, and I think that / the warning which the latter got was not only good for him but for all the people
in that district who may have been induced by him to do the same thing. I do not want, nor does this Government or any other government want to take the last dollar from a poor man. We want to give him a chance and a fair warning. With regard to the man who paid the $1,500, I want to say that if ever he gets into a scrape again he will not get so easily off.


Georges Henri Boivin: I quite agree that a man who' is caught smuggling ought to pay the penalty. .1 think that everybody in this House agrees with that view, but I do not think that a man should be punished because the minister has heard through a third or fourth party that he may possibly have smuggled in years gone by. That is not the question before the House now, and it is not the question which should have been considered by the hon. minister, and the minister knows it. I will go further and say that if this man had been a good political supporter of the defeated Conservative candidate as Peter Larose is, he would have been treated differently. This man proved to the satisfaction of the department that every hog in that car had been purchased from a bona fide Canadian farmer who had got for it the bona fide Canadian price. Peter Larose was not merely a teamster who had nothing in the world 'but a team of horses and a wagon. He was a tenant farmer, residing upon the farm of Miss Chamberlain, at Frelighsburg, and the cheque which was given to him for the hogs was made payable to the order of the owner of the farm. It is impossible for the minister to say that one single hog in that car was smuggled with the knowledge of the man who put up the $1,600. The minister says that in years gone by this man had smuggled hogs from the United States. All I can say is that, if the minister has on that part of the line collectors of customs who will allow any man to smuggle in hogs for four years, and go unpunished, they should be dismissed, and officials should be appointed in their place who would do their duty and punish the smugglers. This man is willing to go before any court in the country and to pay any fine that may be imposed on him by any court in the country if he is found guilty, but having made in good faith a deposit with the collector of customs at St. Johns, which the collector promised would be returned to him in full if he established where the hogs came from, and having lost the interest

on the money for four years without receiving any communication from the minister and without being told of its confiscation, he objects to receiving a curt letter informing him that the deposit' is to be held, but without giving any reason for the minister's action. One thing the minister could at least do. This mail gave a Conservative member of Parliament $25 to use his influence on his behalf, and I would ask the minister to use his influence with the Conservative member of Parliament to have the money returned to Mr. La Grange. If the minister has any proof to offer against him, he should prosecute him, but I do object, and I think every fair-minded member in this House should object to the Minister of Customs constituting himself judge and jury in every case that comes before him, especially when he has no evidence before him but hearsay evidence that the man may have smuggled two or three years previously.



Frank Oliver: I have taken
some interest in the dijscussiton of (the Militia Estimates, and when they weTe under consideration on the last occasion it was arranged with the Prime Minister that an item should be left standing so that I might have the privilege of discussing a certain matter. I will not delay the House to any great length; I merely wish to express in a formal manner the opinion which I hold very strongly, and which I know is held by others, that the time has come when there should be a more liberal allowance to the dependents of soldiers who are serving. When the war broke out it was arranged that a separation allowance amounting I think to twenty dollars a month should be given to the families of soldiers who had enlisted. That is supplemented in some cases by assigned pay. It was agreed that the separation allowance and the assigned pay were not adequate support for the dependents under the existing conditions of the country, and so the Patriotic Fund was organized for the purpose of collecting money from the public at large to supplement the separation allowance and the assigned pay and so bring the measure of support available to the dependents of soldiers up to a point which, in the words of the Patriotic Fund circular, would provide a decent living.
Last year I took the view which I propose to express at the present time, namely,

that while the Patriotic Fund organization is most desirable and most necessary in order to deal with the special cases that continually arise in regard to dependents left by soldiers who have gone to the front, it is not right or reasonable that these dependents should have to depend upon public subscriptions for any part of that amount which is recognized to be a necessary allowance for their support. When the war broke out, of course, everything was done hurriedly, and it can easily be understood that every condition could not be adjusted at that particular time. But time has gone on, it is a year and a half now since the war broke out, conditions have developed that possibly were not expected to develop at the time and it is found that the Patriotic Fund is called upon to pay a fixed amount, forming part of the necessary allowance for the family and dependents of a soldier, over and above the extraordinary circumstances which frequently arise and which naturally would be dealt with by such an organization as the Patriotic Fund. I find that in eastern Canada there is a stated allowance from the Patriotic Fund to the dependents of a soldier of $5. In the western provinces the amount is very much larger. I maintain that when, by experience, it has been demonstrated that a soldier's family requires an amount over and above the separation allowance and the assigned pay, that man's separation allowance should be increased to that amount and the Patriotic Fund should not be called upon to meet that requirement. Until conditions had developed and become adjusted, the Patriotic Fund was created for the purpose of filling the gap between the Government provision and the requirements of dependents, but now that these requirements have come to be recognized as established, I see every reason why the Government's separation allowance should be increased so as to relieve the Patriotic Fund from that permanent liability, so to speak, which is such a tremendous call upon the patriotism and benevolence of the people of the country.
It has been said by the gentleman who so ably manages the Patriotic Fund that this fund is necessary to intervene between the requirements of depenedents and the arrangements of the Government because conditions differ in different provinces, and because the Government could not make an arrangement whereby the separa- [DOT] tion allowance would be different in one

province from what it is in another. That argument was perfectly good at the outbreak of hostilities when conditions were new, but now that conditions have become settled and adjusted, it is absolutely established that in British Columbia the family of a soldier require a certain fixed amount to give them a decent living, while in Prince Edward Island a certain les3 amount is required. The facts are now thoroughly understood from one end of the Dominion to the other, and I maintain that the time has arrived when the Patriotic Fund should be relieved from that burden which it now carries and which is properly a part of the burden to be carried by the nation at large. I recall having heard the gentleman who is at the head of the Patriotic Fund suggest, as another reason for the existence of this fund, that it gave an opportunity to those who were not able to render personal service to do service by the contribution of their wealth, their earnings or their savings as the case might be. That is. a perfectly good position to take providing it is not pushed too far. But I submit that when the people of a patriotic, liberal and benevolent disposition are called upon to supply a fixed requirement that properly rests upon the nation at large, it is not a fair proposition and that requirement should not be continued. As long as the burden was light it mattered comparatively little which way it was carried. Now, the burden has become very great upon .the people who are liberal minded and who have responded, I may 6ay, magnificently to the demands that have been made upon them up to the present time. These demands are still increasing, and must necessarily increase. It is not fair that, because certain of our citizens are liberal minded, patriotic and benevolent, that section of the community should carry this burden on their shoulders when it is a burden that properly rests upon the shoulders of every citizen of the country and should be shared in equally by those citizens according to their tax-paying power.


William Thomas White: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the Patriotic Fund should come to an end?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Thomas White: I gather that
from what my hon. friend has said.'
Mr. OLIVER < No.


William Thomas White: He suggests that the burden be placed upon the public?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Thomas White: If I understand him correctly he asks that the burden, as carried by the Patriotic Fund, should cease.


Frank Oliver: No, that part of it, that is a fixed and stated amount, should be borne by the state and not by private subscription. When it becomes a fixed fact, that in the province of Ontario, we will say, instead of a dependent wife being able to get along with $20 separation allowance and $15 assigned pay, she requires in addition $5 from the Patriotic Fund, the state should assume the burden of providing that $5 and the Patriotic Fund should not be called upon to meet that requirement. The idea that is present in my mind as to the proper function of the Patriotic Fund is to take care of extraordinary conditions which always arise and which no Government could possibly take care of. That is the proper purpose of it, as I would understand it. But it certainly is not proper that this fund, depending on public subscriptions, and levied on a part of the people, should be depended upon to meet those requirements which are stated and fixed requirements, thoroughly well understood, and which certainly should be borne by the state as a whole, by which means every citizen has a share in the burden and responsibility.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Would you increase the separation allowance?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Under the Patriotic Fund people do not receive the same amounts in different provinces.


Frank Oliver: No.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then how could the Government arrange that they could give people in one province a certain separation allowance and in another province another separation allowance? They could do that, could they?


Frank Oliver: Yes. After the declaration of war, when nothing was adjusted, when conditions had not settled down, there was possibly a very good reason for the use of this fund to the extent to which it is at present used, and that reason I have heard stated by the president of the fund, but that condition does not exist to-day. It is settled now that in British Columbia a

family requires a minimum amount, a part of which is noiw provided by the Patriotic Fund. There is no reason why the Patriotic Fund should be called upon to supplement the present allowance in order that the minimum amount may be allowed. There is no reason why the Government should not provide a proper amount.


John Douglas Hazen: I understand my hon.
friend to argue that the amount dependents of soldiers require for their wants and requirements, over and above the assigned pay, separation allowance and what they may get from the Patriotic Fund, should be supplied by the state. If that is done, what is left for the Patriotic Fund to do?


Frank Oliver: The .proper purpose of the Patriotic Fund is to take care of special circumstances that may arise, in which the requirements are over and above the ordinary. I need not say, after the discussions my hon. friend and I have had on recent occasions, that these special oases come up by the hundred, and there is every reason for a Patriotic Fund for the benefit of these dependents. Rut apart from that, it is thoroughly understood that a certain fixed requirement exists in British Columbia, for instance, and a certain fixed requirement in Ontario, and Prince Edward Island, and so on, and I say that public benevolence and patriotism should not be called' on to meet that requirement. It is a fixed requirement and should be met out of the public treasury. It is not fair, either to the soldier or his dependents, or the Service, or to the state, that the present condition of affairs (should continue. Let me point out in this connection that it is recognized in many places throughout the country that the money is not collected on a fair basis. A county council will say: We will contribute so much to the Patriotic Fund, and will then proceed to raise the. amount by taxation. This is done fo.y municipal and county councils throughout the Dominion; they meet their contributions to the Patriotic Fund by levying a tax. I maintain that the time has come when the state at large should leviy the necessary taxation to meet those requirements, instead of calling upon the benevolence and patriotism of the people. That is the view I desire to bring before the House, and desire to bring it forward very strongly for this reason. As the demands increase and they must increase -I fear that the next call for subscriptions

to the Patriotic Fund will not meet with the same generous response that has been met with in the past; and Certainly we cannot afford to allow the dependents of our soldiers to fail to receive that- contribution that was the expectation of the soldier when he enlisted. When the soldier enlisted he expected his family to receive certain assistance: separation allowance, assigned pay, and a certain fixed amount from the Patriotic Fund. While that was not a legal and a binding bargain I maintain that this country is bound in honour to see that every dollar of that money is paid, and that the allowance is kept up to what the soldier when he enlisted, understood his dependents would receive. ' I am sorry to say that during the past months, for reasons said to be good- and very likely good, because it was believed the Patriotic Fund was not able to stand the strain that was being put upon it-there have been certain readjustments and a certain scaling down of the allowance paid to the families of soldiers at the front. I need hardly say that a case of that kind leaves a very unfavourable impression; it is unfortunate that cases of that kind should ever occur, but they do occur, and it certainly is not for the good of the cause that they should occur. I maintain that the State should fully discharge its obligation in respect of the dependents of soldiers at the front and that the Patriotic Fund should take care of extraordinary conditions that may arise in regard to those dependents; in that respect, it has a responsibility, and that is the only responsibility the country at large should expect it to fulfil.
There is another matter that I feel to be so very important and so very serious that I cannot allow it to go by without noticing it. I have had occasion when the Estimates of the Department of Militia have been up to consider the arming of the troops both as to rifles and machine guns. The Prime Minister said that a report had been made in regard to the Ross rifle, with which the Canadian troops are armed. I asked if that report could be made public, and he said no. The only conclusion I can reach is this: That if the report had been favourable it could and would have been made public. But from the fact that it is not considered sound policy to make it public, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the report could not have been considered favourable. I appreciate very deeply the responsibility I take, but I ap-

preciate also the responsibility that rests upon a representative of the Canadian people in this House-a responsibility that demands that no effort shall be left undone to secure to the highest possible degree the efficiency of our troops, and particularly the efficiency of the -weapons with which they are armed.
The Ottawa Citizen of this morning publishes what purports to be extracts from a letter from Gen. Alderson, who is spoken of as Commander-inJChief of the Canadian forces at the front, and the letter is said to be in reply to a communication from Ottawa on the subject.


Robert Rogers: Who is it addressed to, and what is the date of it?


Frank Oliver: I could not say. The paper does not give the date. This responsible journal, published in the capital of Canada, publishes what purports to be extracts from a letter which it tacitly represents to be ail official letter from General Alderson, recently commanding the Canadian forces in France. I cannot imagine any Government allowing such statements to appear in the public press for one hour without taking steps to contradict them, if they are susceptible of contradiction.
I read an extract from what purports to be a letter from General Alderson. The suggestion of the newspaper in which it appears is that it is an official letter:
I may say that "very soon after we got out here with the First Division," says General Alderson, "I found that the men were picking up the Lee-Enfields whenever they could and throwing away the Rosses. I issued an order that this was not to be allowed, and prior to the second battle of Ypres that order was carried out. The experience of the battle showed that the Ross jammed so badly that I was obliged to let this order die a natural death. When the division was re-armed with the Lee-Enfield the men cheered loudly on hearing the news, and it was found that there were already more than 3,000 of the rifles in the division.
I hold no brief for the Lee-Enfield, and I did, and still do as regards the 2nd and 3rd Divisions, discourage any crying down of the Ross, although I know, as does every one else, that the Lee-Enfield is out and opt the best active service rifle.
I believe the Ross to be a closer shooting rifle and I think, and I often say so, that with teams of equal shots on the range and using the rifles as single loaders the Ross would win.
General Alderson then refers to a statement that, with three certain marks of ammunition, which he names, the Lee-Enfield "cannot be relied upon to Are fifteen rounds."
"This is absolute invention," he declares. "I attach a copy of a report on the test of ammunition we had when Carson and Max Aitken were last here together. From this you will see that the Lee-Enfield fired from 100 to 125
rounds, as rapidly as possible, with all three marks of ammunition named, while the Ross jammed from the 25th to the 50th round.
" This report, which as you will see was signed by both Carson and Aitken, does not state, as it should, that the Lee-Enfield, although handled by men not trained to it, fired (owing to it being much easier to charge the magazines) its 100 rounds in about one-third less time than the Ross. Nor does the report state, as was the case, that the hands of the men using the Ross were cut and bleeding owing to the difficulty they had in knocking back the bolts.
"None of thpse present, and there were many commanding and other officers there, could have failed to notice these important points."
General Alderson then refers to a statement by a writer of a certain letter that the classes of ammunition in question have "again in some mysterious way" found their way to the Canadian trenches. "That, too, is against the Ross," General Alderson continues. "Moreover, it emphasises what we have been told officially, viz., that while we are stationary it will be possible to keep this ammunition away from the units armed with the Ross, but that when we get on the move it may not be possible."


William Pugsley: What ammunition is
that?


Frank Oliver: I could not say. It is ammunition that is complained about in some, way. I am sorry that the Prime Minister was not in his place when I brought this matter up, but the item was under discussion ano I was compelled to deal with it now or not at all. I am glad to see the-right hon. gentleman now in his place. I have stated that I appreciate the very serious character of this statement, but it appears in a newspaper published in the capital, and I cannot conceive that such a report would be allowed to have publicity for an hour without being specifically contradicted if it could be contradicted.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend might have been better advised to submit the matter to some member of the Government, and perhaps to myself, before bringing it up in the House. The statement that has appeared in the press was brought to the attention of the Government this morning, and, after consultation with my colleagues, I have already taken certain action with regard to it. I desire to say, in the first place, that even if the Ross rifle were the best rifle in the world it would be possible to destroy its usefulness by making and circulating public statements oi that character about it; and it is far from a patriotic service to discredit the only rifle which we are capable of producing in Canada at present. No one is more convinced of the absolute necessity that our

men fighting in the trenches shall be armed with an efficient and effective weapon than the members of the Government, in common with all good .citizens. As I stated in a debate in this House during the present session, there has been criticism of the Koas rifle. There has also, I believe, been criticism of the Lee-Enfield rifle. I repeat what I have already stated on that subject, that probably each of these rifles may have some special advantages over the other.
So far as I am aware, no such letter as that which appeared in the Citizen of this morning has come to the attention of the Government. However, I shall make further inquiry before eight o'clock to ascertain the facts. Diligent inquiry as to the existence of such a letter will be made, and the subject is already under investigation. Even if such a letter were written, it is my judgment that its publication without any communication with the Government, without any inquiry as to the existing situation is not a patriotic service tc this country at this time. I am not alluding to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver); he has taken it from the public press, but his action does, of course, give it greater publicity than it otherwise would have had.
I desire, further, to announce this-within the past week a communication has been sent to the Commander-in-Chief ax the front, desiring him, on his own behalf, and for the information of the Government of Canada, to make a thorough test of the Ross rifle under precisely the same conditions as those under which that rifle is ordinarily used by our men at the front, and to make also a corresponding test and investigation of the Lee-Enfield rifle. I have no reason to believe that there will be any lack of effective action by Sir Douglas Haig in making that test and investigation^. When, it has been made, it will be for the Government and for the mili-. tary advisers of the Government to consider whether and to what extent it should be made public. It is desirable in view of all these allegations that such a test and investigation should be made; and I felt it my duty after careful consultation with the Minister of Militia and Defence during the past week to request that that course should be taken.
I repeat that we are making inquiry into the reasons which led to the publication of this alleged letter in the press and of the source from which it emanated. We shall take such action in regard thereto as may

seem proper and appropriate under the circumstances and in the interest of the people, especially in the interest of the gallant men tvho are using this rifle at the front.


Frank Oliver: I understand that the
Prime Minister will give some information to the committee at eight o'clock?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Will there be an opportunity then to say something in regard to it?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the hon. member for Edmonton should not be found fault with for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the committee. It must be borne.in mind that this letter purports to be a letter from the gentleman who has been commanding the Canadian forces at the front and who is, I understand, in charge of the Canadian expeditionary forces in Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: He is not ip
charge of them.


William Pugsley: He has been in charge
of the Canadian forces -.at the front.


Robert Laird Borden: He has been in charge of the Canadian forces at the front, and the post which has been suggested-I do not know whether he occupies it as yet -is that of Inspector General of the Canadian forces in Great Britain.


William Pugsley: We can hardly believe
that the Citizen would publish a letter of such great importance unless they were satisfied that it was a genuine letter from General Alderson. It bears on its face evidence of its being a reply to some one who had the right to communicate with General Alderson with regard to the Ross rifle. I would assume that it is in reply to a letter which has been sent to him by the Minister of Militia. It bears evidence of that on its face, because it is evidently written in reply to some one who has been defending the Ross rifle. Besides, the familiarity with which General Alderson refers to Mr. Carson and Sir Max Aitken shows that it is written to one with whom his relations have been intimate from a military standpoint. I suggest to my right hon. friend that he should, in connection with the inquiries which he makes, endeavour to ascertain whether a letter was written by the Minister of Militia to General Alderson, and whether or not this letter is in reply. This is a subject in which the House and 1
MAY 17, 101b
the people take a very deep interest, and it would be well that full information should be afforded in reference to the matter. It is desirable that any question with regard to the arms which are supplied to our boys at the front should be settled in satisfactory manner. Every one will agree that no equipment should be furnished to them except it be of the very highest character. There is one very singular remark which is made in the letter, in reference to ammunition. I would judge from the statement of General Alderson that in some inexplicable manner ammunition 'has been supplied to the soldiers which ought not to have been supplied to them. This is a matter which ought to be inquired into and with regard to which the House and the country are entitled to information. There is certainly no very great harm in bringing these matters before the committee for the purpose of having any mystery in regard to them cleared up, as compared with the injury which might result through defective ammunition or arms being supplied to Canadian soldiers at the front. I think the hon. member for Edmonton has performed a very important duty in bringing the matter to the attention of the committee.


Robert Rogers: I wish to suggest an amendment to the resolution now before the committee with a view to correcting a clerical error. I move that the word "Randolph" be substituted for the word "Robert" in the item providing for a compassionate allowance to the late Mr. Fanning. The name should be Randolph Fanning.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have been requested by the widow of the late Mr. Laplante to ask the Government whether something better could not have been done for her.
I think that Mrs. Laplante was deserving of a little more consideration on the part of the Government. Was the matter discussed with members of the family?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that.
Mr. CASGRA1N: We took pains to get information and to consider very carefully ' all the circumstances surrounding the condition in which Mrs. Laplante was left. A less amount was at first suggested, but after investigating the matter we came to the conclusion that $5,000 would be a reasonable amount to pay. I think that my hon. friend will come to the same conclusion


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking from hearsay. I was told that the family of Mr. Laplante lost in the fire some very valuable papers which, if edited as they were intended to be edited by him, would have given his family quite a revenue. That is the reason I bring this matter to the attention of the Government. Of course, if it has been thoroughly investigated I have nothing more to say.
Amendment of Mr. Rogers agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.


Robert Laird Borden: I find that the communication to Sir Douglas Haig, the Commander in Chief, to which I alluded was not sent as long ago as I thought. It was sent about three days ago. It stated that, in consequence of some criticism which had arisen, the Canadian Government were prepared to leave all questions as to the Ross rifle to the judgment of the Commander in Chief after he had made all necessary tests made under such conditions as are experienced at the front. That is the situation to-day.
Air. OLIVER ' Was that a cablegram?


Robert Laird Borden: That was a cablegram, yes. As to the letter which has been published in the press, I communicated with General Hughes, who told me that he had received no such letter, and that there is no official letter of that character. That is all the information I can give to the committee about it.


Frank Oliver: The letter is of such a
character, the statements contained in it are so serious, that I should think the Government would be very well warranted in pushing inquiry as to how such statements came to be published under the presumed authority under which they were published. We have a censorship in Canada, and if this letter is not a bona fide letter of General Alderson's, it certainly ought to come within the range of the activity of the censor.


Robert Laird Borden: Inquiry was
made by the Solicitor General, whom I asked to take up the subject with the censor. The censor informed him that he had no knowledge of the proposed publication or of the letter, and that the first intimation he had of it was the appearance of this alleged communication in the press

We do not propose to drop the matter without further inquiry.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without making any
disparaging statements, I may call attention to the fact that last year I read to the Minister of Militia a letter which was published in the Canadian Courier, signed by one of our boys at the front, in which he stated that the first thing they did when Ih^y left the camp in England for France was to discard the Eoss rifle.


Robert Laird Borden: And I might
say that possibly some incidents of that kind may have taken place to which not too much importance should be attached.
I believe that a good deal of the equipment which the First Canadian Division took over was left on Salisbury Plain when the troops went to the front.
A Board of Inquiry was called by the representatives of the Canadian Government on the other side for the purpose of determining whether that equipment was inefficient for use. As a result of that inquiry it was declared to be perfectly good equipment, although in some respects not precisely of the same character as that adopted in Great Britain. Thus the people nf this country got credit for that equipment which was taken over, after being declared perfectly efficient for the purpose for which it was designed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I questioned all the boys who came back from the front to our town about this, and they all agreed that the Ross rifle was perfectly all right.


Robert Rogers: The statements before the House are undoubtedly very serious. They have a deep meaning and must be of deep interest to a great .many people in the country. I rather regard the statements that have been made, such as that of the hon. member for Rouville of a moment ago, which I am sure 'he really did not intend [DOT] to make-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was simply recalling the fact that these attacks against the Ross rifle are not new. Last year, just for the .purpose of inquiry, I read to the Minister of Militia a letter published in the Canadian Courier, signed by one of the boys at the front, in which he stated, inter alia, in giving news about the departure for France and that sort of thing, that one of the first things they did was to discard the Ross rifle. I am not passing judgment on the Ross rifle. I am well aware that there are several competitors for the

supply of weapons in time of war, and it might be quite possible that it is the policy of certain people to play an unfair game as against the Ross rifle. I am not passing judgment, but I am saying that it is not at all a new accusation.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate what my
hon. friend has just said. It is certainly not a new accusation, and the letter that ,ha6 been quoted, if we are to understand it at all, is not new either, although it has been published without any date and without the address of the person to whom it was sent. But the letter seems to leave an impression that there is something very .seriously wrong, although a correct reading of the letter, with a knowledge of the circumstances, would not bear out that impression. We have already had information that when our men went over at first, in the using, of the different series of ammunition with which they were supplied, (a certain amount of jamming took place in the Ross rifle it is said and also in the Lee-Enfield rifle. That is information which I believe to be correct, and which we have bad; and if this letter was written of that-date, why then, of course, it is a thing of the past. The conditions complained of at that time have been remedied. The chamber of the Ross rifle has been enlarged in such a manner that the difficulties that were met with a year ago or more have been corrected. So far as I know, with any information it has been possible for me to obtain, there has been no difficulty and no jamming of the Ross rifle for many months past, especially since .the chambers were corrected to receive almost any series of ammunition that might be supplied. It is true that in the early days, before they had the war ammunitions running as correctly as they are to-day, certain difficulties arose, and it seems unfortunate that we should have this letter published without any date, with a view, evidently, of trying to create a very false impression and to create a feeling of unrest in the minds of the mothers, and the sisters and the wives of the bravest and the best of our sons, who are now doing duty on the firing line, fighting for us. It is most unfortunate that there should be published such a letter as that which appears in ,the Citizen newspaper of the city of Ottawa. I am not surprised that that paper would be guilty of publishing this letter, or anything else by which they could hope to create^excite-ment.'

I should like to read a letter or two from gentlemen who have a knowledge of the facts, in order that we may, if we possibly can, correct the false impression that has been created by the publication of this letter, because I say that, so far as I can ascertain, this letter is not an official letter. I know from the statement of my friend the Prime Minister that it has not been received by him, and I know from the Minister of Militia that it has not been addressed to him. Therefore, if such a letter is in existence, the individual, if he is an employee of the Government or if he is a member of the staff, or if he holds any other position in this country, who would be guilty of publishing this letter in the mysterious form in which it is published -the proper place for him would be in the tower of this building; and so far as I am concerned, I should be glad to be a party to placing him there.


William Pugsley: But the tower is down.


Robert Rogers: I will promise my hon. friend to provide a suitable tower for the individual who wrote that letter if we can locate him, and we will take good care of him, too. Allow me to read the following letter dated London, 14th April, 1916:
Sir,-It will be of interest to you to know that Lieutenant Ross, 17th Battalion, in practice this afternoon fired 145 rounds in 7 minutes. I believe a speed of 160 rounds is attainable. Best rate claimed by Hythe Staff with Enfield is, 121 rounds.
In one minute test Ross rifles averaged 21 rounds (nearly) against 17 (nearly) for Enfield, Expect to see Ross record improved, but not Enfield.
An interesting test was made with eight firers. Four men trained with Enfields were given Ross rifles. Four Ross men were given Enfields. As might have been expected Ross men did not do well with Enfield, but the remarkable thing was that all Enfield men without training, exceeded or equalled best previous records with Enfield. Detailed records will be sent you shortly.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.) Roy B. Gibson. Major-General Sir Sam Hughes.
I read this report from Capt. C. H. Ackerman to the Minister of Militia:
Kingston, Ontario, 18th January, 1916. From,-Captain C. H. Ackerman,
2nd Battalion Canadians,
To,-Major-General Sir Sam Hughes,
Minister of Miltia and Defence, Ottawa, Ont.
Report on Ross rifle.
Sir,-I have the honour to report on my experiences in the trenches with the Ross rifle.
The Ross rifle used by the First Canadian division in France was exchanged for the Lee-
Enfield rifle during the second week in June by the Second Battalion to which I was attached. I myself, used this rifle in the trenches and I felt I did very much more effective work than I could have done with a Lee-Enfield, owing to the improved rear aperture sight of the Ross and the protected block foresight which is covered with a hood and permits of a more uniform light which is essential to good shooting. The rear aperture sight is a decided improvement on the open back sight because the full sighting power of the eye is concentrated on one point through this aperture and this power is, when the rifle is properly sighted, directly in line with the block foresight and the target; this, I consider the one outstanding advantage over the Lee-Enfield rifle. (If it is not conducive to bettor shooting than the Enfield, why did the National Association object to its use at Bisley in 1913).
In the second battle of Ypres, at St. Julien and Langemarck, when we were first called uppn to put the rifle to a severe active service test, we had trouble extracting the shell or in pulling the bolt back after a shot was fired, and I believe other battalions experienced the same difficulty. After our battalion came out to rest I had occasion to test, under orders, from my commanding officer, all the rifles in my company that had given trouble. In my test I discovered the Canadian ammunition to work perfectly and some series of British worked comparatively well, but the most of the British ammunition caused the bolt to stick after each shot was fired. Even without firing the same difficulty was experienced, so that proved conclusively that the various series of ammunition used were not uniform, shortly afterwards the rifles were all taken from the First Canadian division and the chambers were slightly enlarged .459" to .464" at the base, overcoming the difficulty of having the bolt drag during the extraction of the shell.
I, myself, left the trenches wounded in June and was unable to observe personally the results of the enlarging of the chamber, but have inquired since coming home and I find that difficulty has been overcome and now I consider the Ross rifle the most perfect of the four rifles that I had the opportunity of trying, viz., Mauser (German with no protection for foresight and with open back sight.) Lebel (French with same sighting apparatus) and Lee-Enfield (British with partially protected foresight).
I have heard it said that the aperture back sight of the Ross rifle was too frail, but in more than four months of trench warfare, I had trouble with no more than three sights in my platoon of 55 men. This trouble was caused by permitting the rifle to fall against some hard body with the leaf raised; this same trouble might easily.happen to an Enfield.
When our men first saw the Lee-Enfield what appealed to them most was the magazine which held two charges or ten pounds of ammunition. This, at first, appeared to be an advantage, but actually it resulted in a greater waste of ammunition than was experienced with the Ross. It must be remembered that in actual trench warfare, many hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition are fired from rifles and wasted, owing to the lack of a suitable target and when the difficulty of bringing in ammunition under fire is taken into consideration, the man with a ten round magazine is bound to fire off his whole magazine of ten in all probability waste all ten.
'Tis true that in case of a German attack on our trenches, a man has more confidence in a



rifle when he knows he has ten rounds ready to fire without unloading, hut in my own experience, I found that the responsibility of breaking up a German attack on our trenches very seldom rested on the fire of our rifles. It rested on the support of our artillery, machine guns, bombs and the usual defensive works in front of the trenches such as ditches, wire entanglements, etc.
The above report is a true statement r of my own experience with the Canadian service rifle and I feel that personally I would want no better rifle to go into action with again.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) C. H. Ackerman,
Captain,
2nd Battalion Canadians.
Here is another letter from J. C. Mac-dougall, Shorncliffe:
With reference to the minister's cable of the 14th instant regarding the jamming of the Lee-Enfield and Ross rifles when using bad ammunition.
No cases of jamming of either rifles have occurred here for months, and the confidence of the men in both weapons and ammunition has been established. Both rifles jammed in the past when using B.14 and G.14 and certain Marks of D.C. ammunition. The steps then taken were to withdraw the bad ammunition.
I desire to read, also, a report from a gentleman whose name will be received with respect, not only by the members of this House, but by the people of Canada at large, in respect to this important matter. I am troubling the House with the view of putting this on record so that there may be no feeling of unrest among the people of Canada, who have such a deep interest in the welfare of our soldiers at t'he front. This letter is dated Headquarters, Shorncliffe, 26th April, 1916, and is addressed to Sir Sam Hughes:
Re DEMONSTRATION OP RAPID FIRE Ross and Lee-Enfield Rifles.
I enclose you herewith a report (which has just reached me) of a demonstration of rapid fire with both the Ross and Lee-Enfield rifles which was carried out on the Hythe Ranges on the 8th April, 1916, together with statements showing results, and from which it will be seen that the Ross rifle is a superior small arm to the Lee-Enfield, capable of developing a higher rate of fire, whilst still maintaining its accuracy.
With kindest regards,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) S. B. STEELE,
Major-General.
The report which General Steele transmits for the'information of the department, and for the information of the people of Canada, is as follows:

Musketry Office,
Headquarters,
Canadian Training Division, Shorncliffe,
11th April, 1916.
From: Lieut.-Colonel E. Frismall,
Att'd. G.S. (Musketry).
To:	The General Officer Commanding,
Canadian Training Division.
Sir,


DEMONSTRATION OF RAPID FIRE.
[Stage Direction]
I have the honour to report:-
A demonstration of rapid fire with both Ross and S.M. Lee-Enfield rifles was carried out on "A" Range, Hythe, at 2.30 p.m. 8th April, 1916. Officers present.
Major-General S. B. Steele, G.O.C. Troops, Shorncliffe.
Brig.-General Landry, G.O.C. 11th C.R.I.B.
Lieut.-Col. Ashton, O.C. 12th C.R.I.B.
Lieut.-Col. Cowan, O.C. 13th C.R.I.B.
Lieut.-Col. Prismall, Musketry Staff Officer, and other officers from the Divisional and Brigade Staffs and Battalions of the Canadian Training Division.
Executive Officer, Lieut. A. Raker.
The demonstration was divided into two parts. In the first part a number of men fired as many rounds in one minute as they were able.
In the second part two firers, one with the Ross rifle and the other with the S.M. Lee-Enfield fired for seven consecutive minutes as many rounds as they were able.
The results, which are attached, show that a high rate of fire can be reached by trained firers. Constant practice in loading and handling the rifle, however, is necessary if a high standard of efficiency is to be reached and maintained.
The seven-minute continuous fire illustrated practically the limitations of rapid Are and the effect on both rifle and firer. The fatigue of the firers. the heating of the barrel and conse-' quent difficulty in aiming were apparent.
Both rifles worked well, extraction was good, and the bolts worked smoothly.	.
The ammunition used was D.A. 1915.
After this demonstration was concluded, a series of shots with defective ammunition (B. 14) was fired, and greater trouble was experienced in extraction with the Lee-Enfield than the Ross rifle.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) E. PRISMALL,
Lieut.-Colonel, Att'd. G.S. (Musketry) Can. Training Division.
Attached to this letter is a table showing t'he number of shots fired 'by each individual and giving the names of the men in the test. I will give it to Hansard, so that it will go out to the country and satisfy the people that we have the good fortune to possess a rifle that takes second place probably to none at the present time. It will reassure them that it is not the misfortune of our soldiers to suffer from the effects of a bad rifle. It is true that in the earlier stages of the war they did suffer from the effects of bad ammunition, but that

defect has been corrected. I repeat that it is most unfortunate that any 'uneasiness should 'be caused by the publication of the letter which has been referred to, and which is probably of old date and intended simply to create uneasiness and unrest. It is most unfortunate in t'he interests of the country, and in every other way, and it is only fair, and, indeed, the duty, of the
hon. members of this House to correct any such impression, and to assist in punishing, if possible, the individual, whoever he may be, who was guilty of committing such an offence as to publish a letter without the proper heading, without date, and containing information that is not correct. The following is the table of results of the test referred to by General Steele:
Conditions-Distance 200 yards ; targets, 2nd class figure, position, lying, firing over cover; 5 sighting shots allowed; each firer to fire at his best rate for 1 minute.
Average rounds fired per	man per minute	
22-2" hits	"	"	
21-3" score	"	"	
63-6Average rounds fired per	man per minute	
22-2" hits	"	"	
21-3" score	"	"	
63-6Corps.	Rank and Name.	S.M.I..E. Rounds. Fired.	Rifle. Hits.	B.	1.	M.	0.	Score11th	Res. Bn. Cpl. Orquhart	23	22	4	6	10	2	5630th	21	21	7	12	2	0	36th	" C.Q.M.S. Parker	20	20	8	9	1	2	39th	" Sgt. Caverley	19	11	2	0	7	2	2455th	" Pte. Morris	19	18	1	7	4	6	3917th	18	18	0	13	4	1	12th	" C.S.M. Smith	17	15	0	7	7	1	36Totals	137	125	22	54	35	14	334Average rounds	fired per man	per	minute	
I9.5" hits	"	"	
17-8" score "	"	
47.7
259i
Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) means in suggesting that the Government should have taken' some other course. We have sent a communication to the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, who has supreme command of the British and Canadian foroes at the front. We have told him that

we leave the matter in his judgment after making tests of both rifles under precisely the same conditions as those through which they must pass when in use at the front. That means, as I understand, and I have referred the matter to General Hughes, that means, among other things, that there should be the ordinary shooting test; further, that the rifle must be thrown into the mud or sand, and otherwise put through the very same conditions as those which would be experienced in the ordinary course at the front so that it will be possible to see whether or not, after passing through these conditions, it jams or whether anything goes wrong with it. After these tests have been made, and after the evidence and reports in regard to them have been placed in the hands of Sir Douglas Haig, the British Commander-in-Chief, the whole question is left to his judgment to come to a just conclusion and determination. If there is any better course I would be glad to have my hon. friend suggest it because I am only too anxious to do everything possible to ensure the possession, by our troops at the front, of the best rifle that is available. Up to the present, I have not heard any course suggested which seems to be more useful than the course which has thus been taken.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to say that 1
discussed the Ross rifle with my brother-in-law, Col. R. L. Labatt, who was in the battle of St. Festubeit, and he said that the Ross rifle was very satisfactory and as good as the Lee-Enfield. He informed me that some soldiers from the British Islands, who were using the Lee-Enfield, were only too glad to exchange it for the Ross rifle. I also discussed the matter with Captain Kidd, another officer of the 56th. He told me that the Ross rifle was very satisfactory. I also discussed the matter with several others who have returned and in every case they have said that they preferred the Ross rifle to the Lee-Enfield. On every occasion upon which I have discussed the Ross rifle with men who have returned from the front, they have praised the rifle.


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Chairman, I had no desire to take part in this discussion, but when the subject came up, I went to my room and got the memorandum of a conversation which I had with an officer who returned from the front two months ago. I had a long conversation with him about the equipment of our troops, of which con-

versation I made a few notes and I find this under the heading of " The Ross Rifle ":
There is no better weapon in Europe than this Ross rifle which is being brought to assimilate with the Lee-Enfield. The difference between the two, which has been the subject of much discussion in England, is in favour of the sights of the Lee-Enfield, but if the Ross had the same sights, or sights of a similar kind, having great durability, it is thought that it would be the best rifle on the ground.
That was this officer's opinion, given to me in a general interview concerning the condition of the equipment of our troops at the front. I noticed in the press some time ago a statement that there appeared through the lines of the Canadian troops, in either typewriting or printed form, a series of questions, most leading in their character, concerning the preferences of the troops as between the Eoss and Lee-Enfield rifles. The questions, a list of which I have seen, were entirely leading and designed to bring an answer favourable to the Lee-Enfield and antagonistic to the merits of the Ross rifle. It may be that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) had in his mind something that I think would be liable to generate in the mind of anybody, that this propaganda may be carried on by interested parties selling another rifle. As a Canadian it is cheering to me to know that the country sent about 50,000 rifles of Canadian manufacture to assist the troops in the field at a time when there were not enough rifles available from any source for service at the front. I think the country and the Government are to be congratulated upon the foresight that resulted in their being sent to our troops, even if the rifle were not the best on the ground, a serviceable rifle, which, after all, is spoken of highly by a great many people who understand it. I would like to call the attention of the Government particularly to another statement of this officer to whom I have already referred. He said that:
All changes that are being made in the borings of the Ross rifle and the sights could be, and should be, made in Canada.
I would commend the suggestion to the Government, as a matter for consideration, that if further borings or enlargements are to be made, the work should be done here so as to give employment to our own workmen in Canadian institutions.


William Pugsley: I think, in view of what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has stated, and the very satisfactory information which he gave with regard to the qualities of the Ross rifle, it is
fortunate that my hon. friend from Edmonton has brought the matter up, because this letter, or this alleged letter, will necessarily have very wide publicity throughout Canada, and very great unrest and anxiety will be caused by its publication. It is very desirable to have a public statement made in Parliament in regard to the matter. I quite approve of what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) says the Government propose to do, but it seems to me that this letter, or alleged letter, of General Alder-son's cannot be disregarded. I would respectfully suggest that it is the duty of the Government to ferret this matter to the bottom, find out whether this letter is a genuine letter that was sent by General Alderson, and, if so, the conditions under which it was sent. It is certainly a most serious matter for General Alderson to have written such a letter. Of course, it is a most serious matter for anybody to have . written a letter professing to have been written by General Alderson, it is a very serious matter for a newspaper to publish this alleged letter from General Alderson if it was not written by him, and it is a serious matter for General Alderson to have written a letter disparaging the Ross rifle, which is, as my hon. friend has stated, the only rifle of Canadian manufacture. It is a very serious matter for him * to have disparaged it, and the Government ought to find out by communication with General Alderson, or with somebody knowing General Alderson, whether he wrote that letter and what was his justification for having done so. I would think it would be quite possible to follow the matter up and get the requisite information on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: It would undoubtedly be a serious matter for General Alderson or any one else to write a letter of that character, and the only possible justification for writing it would be to bring about the remedying of conditions that he thought undesirable. But it would be equally a serious thing for any person to cause that letter to be published except under proper sanction. There are thousands of communications, I suppose, every week and every month, important in themselves, designed to improve conditions in the military or naval service or at the front, which it would be most undesirable to make public not only for the reason that they might cause public disquietude, but for the further reason that they would give information to the enemv which it

would be most unfortunate from our point of view for the enemy to have. I must confess my conviction that whoever has caused this letter, or alleged letter, to be published has taken a very grave responsibility. The Canadian Army Corps is, to my knowledge, holding at present a very important position-what one might call a post of honour-in the line in France and Relgium At such a juncture, when operations are impending which may possibly prove to be of the greatest magnitude, it is most dangerous to convey to the enemy, even if it were true, the information that the rifle with which the Canadian army, or a part of it, is armed is not a serviceable and efficient weapon. Indeed, I should not like to speak my full mind about such a course of conduct, but I do venture to say that, according to the view I entertain, it is about as grave a responsibility as any man could take upon himself. We shall certainly endeavour to find out whether that letter is authentic, and if it is not authentic, upon what authority it has been published as authentic. If it should prove that the letter is authentic, the inquiry must go still further: By whose authority, under what sanction, and for what reason was a letter made public which might be of service to the enemy and could not be of service to the people of Canada Why, especially, was it made public without inquiry and at a time when, if the Commander in Chief has acted upon our request, an investigation such as I have described to-night is already in progress? I can assure my hon. friend that the matter will not be allowed to drop.


Frank Oliver: I just wish to draw attention to one statement of fact, or alleged fact, contained in this letter, in order to strengthen the view I have expressed that a target or camp test- is not an efficient test of a rifle for field service.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the test we have suggested.


Frank Oliver: General Alderson is alleged to have stated that in the second battle of Ypres the Ross rifle jammed so badly he was obliged to let die a natural death the order that our soldiers were not to throw away the Ross Tides and take up the Lee-Enfield. He says: " When the division was re-armed with the Lee-Enfield the men cheered loudly on. hearing the news, and it was found that there were already more than 3,000 of the rides in the division." That is to say, according to this letter,

contrary to the General's orders, 3,000 men had thrown away their Ross rides and picked up the Lee-Endeld. Now the factor upon which more than anything else depends the lives of these men and their success in the deld is the efficiency of the ride in their hands, and under those circumstances I cannot imagine that 3,000 men- intelligent men, earnest men, men of our own-would throw away the more efficient ride and pick up the less efficient ride. This is either a statement of fact or it is not a statement of fact. If this letter was written by General Alderson, we are bound to assume that it is a statement of fact. If it is a statement of fact, I do not think there is anything further to be said. It is now, not what is to be said, but what is to be done. The Prime Minister has outlined the course he pi-oposes to take, and it is certainly the course to be taken. The only criticism that I would offer is that it is a course that should have been taken very long ago, because if the conditions alluded to in this letter as existing prior to the second battle of Ypres actually did exist, surely those conditions must have in some manner come to the attention of the Government, and in such a form as to have claimed their consideration. I cannot imagine that not to be the case; and, assuming it to be the case, action and not words was certainly what was required. It is a terrible responsibility to have any part in exposing this alleged condition, but allow me to say that the responsibility for the existence of such a condition is ten thousand times greater.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend, I think, must have forgotten what has been said in this House more than once, or he would not have made the observations which have fallen from him just now. The only difficulty with the Ross rifle that I ever heard of before I went to Great Britain last ^ear was with regard to jamming. So far as I can remember, I heard of no other difficulty during my visit. That jamming was not confined to the Ross rifle; it occurred in a very great measure-in almost equal measure, I think-with the Lee-En-field rifle; and if we had taken away from our men the Ross rifle and armed them with Lee-Enfields, jamming would still have occurred if the same ammunition had been used. Moreover, so far as we are aware, no Lee-Enfields would have been available. I cabled to Great Britain about five or six weeks ago in connection with further orders for the Ross rifle extending beyond April,

1917. I asked whether, if the war should not be over at that time and we should need further supplies,we could depend upon obtaining rifles from the British Government after April, 1917, to any, and if so, to what extent. We did not Teceive a reply that would justify us in depending upon them for one single rifle even after that date.
When i't was discovered that the Boss rifle, as well as the Lee-Enfield rifle, did jam with certain types of ammunition-'but not with others-it 'was thought desirable to enlarge the chamber of the Ross rifle. It was thought desirable by the British Government, as I am informed, to enlarge the chamber of the Lee>-EnfiekL This course was taken with regard to each rifle for precisely the same reason. I do not affirm that there was the, same amount of jamming in the Lee-Enfield as in the Boss. I do not know about that; I have heard contradictory statements with regard to it. The Minister of Militia directed that the enlargement made in the chamber of the Ross rifle should make that chamber slightly larger than the enlarged chamber of the Lee-Enfield, in order that we might be on the safe side. I am informed that the Boss rifles were all called in and the alteration in the chamber was made, and in the new Boss rifles afterwards produced the chamber was made of the enlarged size. My hon. friend suggests the Government should have taken some earlier action. I have not heard of any difficulty except with regard to the jamming. The Government took the advice of the best experts it could obtain, and took the same course with regard to the Boss rifle that was taken with the Lee-Enfield under the advice of the British military experts. We made our chamber, as I have said, slightly larger than that of the Lee-Enfield. Notwithstanding this, we have since heard occasional rumours of criticism upon the Boss rifle. We have tried to keep in touch with the conditions with regard to it. We have communicated many times with Sir George Perley. Sir George has been present at tests in which, he tells me, when good ammunition was used, he had seen one 'hundred rounds each of two kinds of good ammunition fired from the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield, without the slightest difficulty -without any back-firing or mishap. But he 'has seen inferior ammunition used with both rifles and difficulties experienced with both. If there is anything we should have done, beyond what is suggested, I should
be glad to have the views of my hon. friend with regard to it.
In view of later developments, we have .asked the Commander in Chief-this is not something we propose to do, as one hon. member has suggested, but something we have done-we have sent a communication to the Commander in Chief asking him to have tests made of the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield rifle under conditions precisely similar to those experienced at the front, so that we may know what the efficiency of each rifle is under the conditions which the soldiers encounter in actual warfare in the trenches, so far as those can be duplicated; dropping the rifles into sa,nd or into mud; embedding them in mud and pulling them out and then using them; dropping them into water; using them under every condition that can 'be imagined as likely to occur in active service. If there is any better test than this that can be devised I do not know what it is. I am perfectly willing to receive suggestions and, if reasonable, to act upon them.


Frank Oliver: Can the Prime Minister
say what is the occasion of the exchange of the Boss rifle for the Lee-Enfield in the First Canadian Division?


Robert Laird Borden: We have no information about it except that the exchange was made. We imagine and presume that General Alderson, finding that a number of the rifles had jammed, through the use of the ammunition to which I have alluded, thought it better to make an exchange, and the exchange was made. We had no voice in it and made no objection to it. But when, at a later date, the subject was brought up during the visit of the Minister of Militia to Great Britain, it was decided to take the course which has been mentioned-to enlarge the chamber of the Boss rifle.


Frank Oliver: What became of the Ross rifles "that were taken from the First Division?


Robert Laird Borden: I presume they were called in and the chamber enlarged.


Frank Oliver: What became of them
afterwards?


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not know.


Frank Oliver: Is the Second Division
armed with the same?


Robert Laird Borden: It is armed with the Ross rifle, as I understand it.


Frank Oliver: Those that were called in?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether they were armed with those that were called in or whether new rifles were sent over. But I understand that they are armed with the Ross rifle with the enlarged chamber.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, and particularly I do not wish to bring in here any discussion of the alleged imperfections of the Ross rifle. I have never given any opinion of my own with regard to this weapon, and have given no information as to what has come to my ears. I am merely desirous of bringing to the attention of the Government in this way which admits of no question, the alleged opinion of General Alderson, for the purpose of finding out whether this is the opinion of General Alderson or not. I am prepared to let the matter rest at that, with this exception-that I am compelled to repeat in a measure what I have said before: that at the time when the change was made of the rifles of the First Division, that is when the first division was disarmed of Ross rifles for the purpose of arming it with Lee-Erifields, it appears to me that, in view of the rumours that must have reached the ears of the Government at that time, that would have been the time when the action now taken should have been taken.


Robert Laird Borden: A great many
tests of the Lee-Enfield rifle and the Ross rifle have been made on different occasions within the past year.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I desire to say a word
before these Estimates go through. The Minister of Finance this year brought down Main Estimates amounting to $188,981,218. He told us that, owing to the war and the needs of the country, it was quite necessary that the country generally should economize, and that each individual in the country should do the same. We on this side innocently supposed that that included the Government. The Supplemenary Estimates for 1915-16, which were afterwards brought down amounted to $4,485,537. Then we had Supplementary Estimates for 1916-17, the total of which was $28,284,081. Add the $4,000,000 in the vote before us, and you have a total of $225,741,836, The hon. minister said that $25,000,000 of

the -Main Estimates would not be used. Deducting that amount you still have an estimated expenditure for this year of $200,000,000 in round figures. Then, we have a war vote of $250,000,000 which'will largely have to be borrowed., I think the hon. Minister of Finance was absolutely right when he said that the country and the individuals who make it up would have to economise this year, and probably for several years, owing to the heavy expenditure which the country was being called upon to make. I congratulated him at that time upon his giving that notice, because coming from the Minister of Finance it has some weight. But in spite of that we find the Government including in the Estimates certain amounts the expenditure of which is unnecessary. We are reminded of the old adage " Example is better than precept," which I think may well be applied to this case. We discussed the question of providing for the purchase of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix Tailway and the other railways mentioned in this item, and I shall not d'scuss them at any length to-night. The Lotbinifere and Megantio railway is in just as good a position now from a financial standpoint as it possibly can be, and there is no reasonable object in purchasing it. It has been there for some years, end it connects with the Intercolonial. The other piece of railway from Quebec to St. Joachim is, they say, a paying road. I have no desire to take that road from its present owners if it is a paying road; I would like to see them make some money out of it. The other piece of road that is proposed to be taken oveT, from Montmorency Falls to Naim Falls-


Rodolphe Lemieux: From St. Joachim.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot pronounce that. Anyway, a portion of this Quebec and Saguenay road is only partially finished. The excuse for taking it over is that 30,000 people have lived in that district for one hundred and fifty years and are looking for a railway. In my judgment they will not have heart trouble if they wait a couple of years longer until the war is over.


Robert Laird Borden: A couple of hundred?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well, in a couple of hundred years perhaps we shall have got over this war indebtedness. Another excuse offered is that it is to relieve certain gentlemen who have invested in this pro-

ject, which is not supposed to be a paying proposition. If the Government are going to turn philanthropist and come to the relief of people who have invested in things which have not been profitable, I would like them to commence with me, because, like many other persons I could mention,
I have invested in many things that did not pay. If the Government are going to proceed along this line they will have their hands full. These are the only two excuses that the Government have given for taking over this railway. This vote is for $4,000,000, but I firmly believe, with the hon. member for South Renfrew, that to put these roads in running order and equip them will cost $10,000,000 or $11,000,000; so that this is only the commencement. Therefore, as no reasonable reasons have been given for this expenditure, I beg to move that the item be struck out.


William Thomas White: The hon. member has referred to my statement in the Budget as to keeping down the expenditures of the Dominion. I think I have shown on many occasions since the Budget was brought down that it has been the object of the Dominion since the war broke out to keep its expenditures within as [DOT] reasonable bounds as possible. The figures themselves show that. Speaking from memory, the expenditures of the Dominion for the fiscal year immediately preceding the outbreak of war was in the neighbourhood of $180,000,000. This year we shall have to pay interest charges in connection with our increased public debt to the amount of about $25,000,000 in excess of interest Charges which were paid for the fiscal year preceding the outbreak of war. Notwithstanding that fact, the expenditure on ordinary and on capital ac-9 p.m. count of this Dominion for the present fiscal year will be less by $15,000,000 than it was for the fiscal year preceding'the outbreak of war. I say that this is an absolutely creditable record, if we can accomplish it. Practically no public works have 'been gone on with except those under contract.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Did not the hon. minister tell us, when he made his Budget speech, that the expenditure would not be over $155,000,000?


William Thomas White: I said that $160,000,000 would be our expenditure on ordinary and on capital account. If we keep within that Estimate, as I hope, we shall
be doing $20,000,000 better than we did for the fiscal year preceding the outbreak of the war. Since the main Estimates have been brought down we have been obliged to face the Canadian Transcontinental railway situation, which' has been discussed in the House. I need not say that we have not been looking for railways to which to give public moneys. A certain railway situation exists, and we have to meet that situation. The course that we have followed has been such as to meet the approval of the great majority of the members of this House and the people of the country so far as the Transcontinental railway situation is concerned. Therefore, what I understood to be the argument of my hon. friend that we had added some $23,000,000 to the main Estimates falls to the ground. I would point out, further, that that expenditure cannot be classed as either ordinary or capital expenditure; it is an investment. We borrow the money in New York at 5J per cent or thereabouts, and we lend the money out to a railway company at 6 per cent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My argument was not against the expenditures on the transcontinental railways. It was that, owing to that and the war expenditure, there was no necessity for us to enter upon this expenditure.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend was developing his argument, and I understood him to say that, in addition to the Main Estimates, we brought down $23,000,000 for the railways.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say that.


William Thomas White: I pointed out that that expenditure would be on investment account, and that the Dominion Government would lose nothing on that, provided the interest was paid. My hon. friend next comes to the item of $4,000,000 to provide for the acquisition of the lines of railway which he has mentioned, and to provide for expenditure on account of construction. That is undoubtedly expenditure upon capital account.
Now what is the position with regard to these railways to which my hon. friend has drawn attention? In the first place, the little railway which he mentioned, the Lotbiniere and Megantic, involves the expenditure of how much? About $330,000. That is certainly not a large amount in the Estimates of the Railways and Canals Department, a department which, almost every year, takes over some branch line.

So that, so far as that particular item is concerned, I think it can be put on one side. I understood it to be stated in the House that there were earnings in connection with that railway, and the probabilities are that it will not be any considerable charge upon the revenues of the Dominion. At all events, it is not a very large amount; and, as far as I can make out, it has been the policy of both this Government and the late Liberal Government to add to the Intercolonial those branch lines. I have heard discussions in this House time and time again since I have had the honour of occupying a seat here, in which thq view was put forward that the Government should, in the interest of the public, acquire most of the branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial. We now come to the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix and to the Quebec and Saguenay railway. For what is the Government taking over these roads?
1 Mr. NESBITT:	That is what I would
like to know.


William Thomas White: I have given this matter a good deal of consideration. One might ask himself why, in the first instance, men should embark upon the construction of such a railway. The names connected with the railway at its inception are the names of men of some eminence in the province of Quebec. They are men of standing in the community, and the fact is that they believed in the Quebec and Saguenay. They acquired a charter which was granted by the Provincial Government in 1905. The names of the parties who took up that project originally are names of some standing in the province of Quebec. The charter was a provincial charter, and the Government of Quebec must have been impressed with the desirability, in the public interest, of constructing that road, or the province of Quebec would not have . granted a subsidy, as they did grant a subsidy in lands and in money, for the construction of the road. That seems to me to be clear. We must assume that the Government of the province of Quebec knew what it was doing when it authorized a charter in the first place, and granted a subsidy in the second place. Further than that, the late Liberal Administration gave a subsidy for the construction of the Quebec and Saguenay. They also must have been convinced that it was required or desirable in the public interest, or they would not have taken the responsibility of

making a grant of public money for the construction of that line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are not all railways
entitled to subsidies?


William Thomas White: I do not think
they are. My hon. friend would never lay down the proposition that, because men desire to build a railway, they are, as	a matter of course to get a
subsidy. My hon. friend knows as well as	I	or any	gentleman	in this
House that the late Government did grant a subsidy to this line, and that they must have come to the conclusion that it was a j.'roper line to subsidize in the national interest or they would no; have taken the responsibility of doing so. Now, what can be said in favour of building a line o; railway along that north shore? My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) gave some reasons the other day which appeared to me to have great weight. It is an old settled district of the province of Quebec. Settlement has been there for 150 or 200 years. The only access, for certain portions of the year, to the city of Quebec is by stage coach, at least that was stated. While it might be extremely imprudent from the standpoint of private enterprise to 'build a road-although I do not pass upon that because I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation-at the same time it might be very desirable in the public interest that the Government should either build or assist in building a road which would give access to that district and give these people a means of getting out in the winter time, in fact at all seasons of the year, to Quebec. It is by no means a conclusive argument against either the Government of Quebec or the Government of Canada assisting in the construction of or building a road of that kind, that private enterprise might find it unprofitable, because a Government must consider the various sections of the country, and if it reaches the conclusion that. a certain line of railway should be built for the benefit of a particular district, it need not too closely scrutinize the question of whether or not that line will be immediately remunerative. That is my view. But I admit that a strong case must be presented before a Government takes any action of that kind. We have not been desirous of paying out public moneys, especially in times like these, except in cases which were regarded as urgent. What is the position?

Let us assume that the north shore should be served, that it is in the interests of the public that the 30,000 people in that district should have communication with the city of Quebec. There is the position this Government found. Some $5,000,000, as has been explained, had been expended by private enterprise on the Quebec and Saguenay, from the terminus of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix to Murray Bay. Some $5,000,000 has been spent and what is the condition of that road? ,For the last two years the proprietors have been unable to find the money to finish it. The road therefore has been deteriorating. The capital which has been invested in the road represents a larger sum than the road to-day represents, with the deterioration which has occurred. That depreciation or wastage is going on from year to year; washouts are occurring; the roadbed is being impaired. The way this matter has appealed to me is that if it is in the public interest of that section of the province of Quebec that that railway should be built -and that is the assumption upon which I am proceeding-then it is not economy to allow the road to continue as at present -with a deterioration of probably half a million dollars a year. My premise is that it is desirable in the public interest that that road should be completed and if that is -so, then I think, instead of allowing the deterioration which we know is going on to continue, it .would be the part of economy, if the Government is ultimately to complete the road, that it should do so and prevent the wastage. I lay that down as a common sense proposition, My hon. friend has raised the question, why do you buy the electric line between Quebec and St. Joachim?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: I leave it to my hon. friend from Rouville, who is a master of the French language, to say if my pronunciation of that name is not truly Par-


LSI 3. II.
Rodolphe Lemieux: It is very good. It would not 'be good French if it were Parisian. That Parisian French is good French is a mistaken idea, common among my friends from Toronto.


William Thomas White: Some of my hon. friend's colleagues think that they know French, but they do not. My hon. friend has asked about the electric line from Qubbec east. My hon. friend is a pretty
good business man, but will he tell me why the Government should have acquired the Quebec and Saguenay alone, a line .which begins about 30 miles east from Quebec?
Would he tell me why the Government should acquire the Quebec and Saguenay line, which begins about thirty miles east of the city of Quebec, unless we acquire also the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix line? A line thirty miles away from the terminus of the Transcontinental railway would not be of much use either as a feeder, or as a line to be operated in connection with it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am afraid that my hon. friend is quite right, and I said that we should not acquire it.


William Thomas White: That may be. I am positive that the interests of that portion of the province of Quebec Which lies to the north of the St. Lawrence river require it. My hon. friend, as a private individual, might not desire to put money into it, or to build such a railway.


George Perry Graham: If he did he would try to get it out again.


William Thomas White: Quite so, but if the public interest is such that that railway is required it is the duty of the Government not to allow that large amount of capital to go to waste. It is necessary, therefore, to acquire the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway in order that we may connect with the Quebec and Saguenay and have a continuous line from the city of Quebec to Nairn Falls.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend just commenced at the wrong end of his argument. He took it for granted that we should acquire the part that is not built.


William Thomas White: The point of my argument is that there was -a very large sum, some $5,000,000, invested in the Quebec and Saguenay railway, and if it is desirable that the Government should complete that road, as we submit it is, it is absolutely necessary that we should acquire the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway in order to have a continuous line. These are the considerations that have appealed to me in connection with this transaction. So far as the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix line is concerned, there are $2,500,000 of bonds issued some years ago, and bearing 5 per cent. The Government takes over that

line and assumes t'be obligation of the bonds. So far as the Quebec and Saguenay line is concerned, the Government is acquiring that railway on a basis of actual cost, not to exceed some $4,000,000, which, as a matter of fact, is much less than the actual construction cost. That is the situation, and it all comes back to the question whether "it is in the public interest-in the interest of that large section of the province of Quebec which lies to the north of the St. Lawrence, that the Government should come to the aid of this road, acquire it, and complete it in order that the district may be served; or whether, on the contrary, the road bed of the Quebec and Saguenay line should he allowed to deteriorate from year to year at a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and, ultimately, of all the capital invested.
It seems to me that that is the question. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition dealt with it very fairly. He had no objection to our acquiring the line. He knows the district down there, and my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) also knows the district. I doubt very much if either of those hon. gentlemen would stand up and say that it is not in the public interest that the road should be acquired in order that that district may have railway facilities. If you look at it from the standpoint of a railway promoter desirous of making a large amount of money out of the enterprise, that is one thing; but if you look at it from the standpoint of the people down there, who belong to one of the oldest settled districts in Canada, who are, I suppose, among the worthiest people in Canada, and who are debarred from getting to the city of Quebec for so many months in the year, I think these are considerations which would appeal to any public man. Take the National Transcontinental railway, built at a cost of $150,000,000, or $160,000,000, or $170,000,000. No one would stand up in this House and say that that would give a return on the investment. A return of four per cent on that investment would be some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 per year. No one will say that the Government is obtaining a return upon that railway. Private enterprise would not build a road of that kind, and yet it was built-I am not passing upon the merits-it was built, and hon. gentlemen opposite will defend the building of that road. They will not say that it is immediately profitable. They will say it was built for the purposes that

have been so often mentioned in this House.
I do not want to make any speciah argument on this question. It is a matter involving the expenditure of a large sum of money, and the considerations which have influenced me favourably are that it is in the public interest of that northern district, lying along the St. Lawrence, to have railway communication with the city of Quebec. We are acquiring these railways for the Dominion of Canada. We are not making loans; we are not giving guarantees; we are not subsidizing. We are buying these roads, and when they are bought they will belong to the Dominion of Canada. The price is to be fixed by the Exchequer Court, and it is not to exceed a certain amount, which is much less, in the case of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, than the amount that has been spent upon it. These are the considerations which have had weight with me in this transaction.


John Gillanders Turriff: In the past four years
we have heard in this House, week after week, month after month, session after session, hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches complaining of what the Grand Trunk Pacific railway cost, and of all the hon. members who complained none was louder or stronger than my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


William Thomas White: What is that?


John Gillanders Turriff: I say that of all the
members on the Government benches who have fulminated week after week, and month after month, in this House against the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, none was louder than my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. .


William Thomas White: I think there
were some.


John Gillanders Turriff: None was louder
in pointing out that the cost had been excessive, and that there was no justification for the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let me tell my hon. friend the Minister of Finance one or two things. Leaving out the question of interest, the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, the best built railway on the continent of America, was less than $85,000 per mile. With a grade of 4-10 of one per cent one way, and 6-10 of one per cent the other way, with heavy rails, telegraph lines, station houses, everything complete, and in

first-class shape, it cost less than $85,000 per mile. Now my hon. friend the Minister of Finance comes forward and. from his place in this House justifies the purchase of a right of way. It is only a right of way, on which 87 per cent of the grading has been done, and a great deal of that has been washed out. He defends the purchase of that road at a cost of $98,000 per mile.


John Dowsley Reid: That statement is not in
accordance with the factsi and the hon. member should not make it.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Acting Minister of Railways may say that that Statement is not correct, but, taking the figures given by my hon. friend from Charlevoix, $4,500,000 worth of bonds was issued on that road and $1,500,000 in addition. If you figure that out you will find that the Government is taking over a road which cost, it is claimed, $98,000 per mile, and it is not taking it at its full value.
They are tying up the judge of the Exchequer Court hand and foot so that he cannot take the value of the road, but he must take the cost as shown by the present owners who are selling to the Government, subject to the fact that it is not to be more than $2,500,000 bonds, plus $4,465,000, less all subsidies paid; whereas you have a completed road, the finest on the continent, at a cost of $85,000 a mile, and the Government now, to help out political friends, are willing that < the Canadian people should pay $98,000 a mile for a right of way only, not a tie, not a bit of telegraph wife, not a telegraph post, not a station house, not a rail, not a bridge, not anything. I heard the statement made by some hon. gentleman in the House yesterday that this was just a lumber road in the first place. Now they put it over on the country, and they propose to put it in such a shape that the judge of the Exchequer Court has to take the cost of the road as shown by the owners. The owners claim that they have put into the road the proceeds of the sale of $5,600,000 worth of bonds and $1,500,000 of Canadian money, but they have nothing to offer for all that, not even a rust streak, but some grading. Hon. gentlemen opposite come forward and load on to the people of Canada, not a completed road, but a road which, when completed, will cost $10,000,000. The Minister of Finance, in spite of all the difficulties that he has pointed out during this session in the way of financing the debt of Canada in the future, now deliberately adds $500,000 to
the fixed charges of Canada. I hope, after this transaction, we will never hear another word from hon. gentlemen opposite about the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That cost may have been excessive, that cost may have been too heavy, but we certainly got a first-class road completed for $85,000 a mile, and here we have an expenditure of $98,000 per mile when even the grading has not been done.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I would like to make a few remarks about this matter. If I understand it correctly, the Government propose to take over 136 miles of railway at a cost of about $50,000 a mile, a part of which is completed and a part not completed. What I object to strongly is the departure of principle as to the acquisition of branch railways. If you are going to adopt a principle with regard to the taking over of branch railways, you ought to apply the same principle to the taking over of branch railways along the line of the Intercolonial. I want to recall to the committee how a branch line was taken over some few years ago. They did not set about to value the railway on the basis of what it cost and then deduct from that cost the subsidies paid and depreciation, but they put valuators on the railway and they purchased 125 miles between Fredericton and Loggieville at a rate of $6,000 per mile, equipped. The railway was purchased from the Gibson Manufacturing Company at the viery low price of $6,000 per mile. A railway 125 miles in length was acquired for an outlay of $750,000, including equipment, cars and everything in connection with the operation of the road. If the principle that now applies had applied to the purchase of the Canada Eastern at that time I venture to say that it would have cost twice as much as it did. If you are going to adopt a principle regarding the purchase of branch lines, then I want you to apply it to the branch lines you purchase in the future. There are branch lines along the Intercolonial that it is most urgent in the public interest the Government should take over. The districts that they traverse are not properly served, and the mercantile interests are retarded because there are not proper railway facilities. If you are starting out now on a new principle of taking over branch railways, valuating them at the cost price, less depreciation and bonuses paid, you should apply the same principle in the purchase of other branch lines. I oannojt say

that I am against the taking over of this road in the public interest. I believe that there is a good deal in what t'he minister has said that if the company is not strong enough to complete the undertaking, then strong men must come in and rescue it in the public interest. But, the same principle ought to apply to other branch lines.
Mr. LElvilEUX: I must say a word in connection with the vote I am about to give. If I were seeking for popularity, it would be quite easy to give a vote this evening, because I would vote for the interests of Charlevoix county and the city of Quebec. But there are other considerations, and I think the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has not given the same attention to this question that he gives to other business. He seems to forget that this country is loaded with a colossal debt, and that we will have to find money for the interest charges. He forgets that the people of the country, individually and collectively, in municipalities, cities and towns, have to bleed themselves white in order to do their share towards helping the great cause we have at heart. I quite believe my hon. friend the Minister of Finance when he say-s that the uncompleted section of the Quebec and Saguenay should be aided. I think that the promoters of the line should be aided materially and substantially to enable them to complete it. The people have been waiting for years for connection with the city and district of Quebec, and now material assistance should be given toward the completion of the line. But, Mr. Chairman, what my hon. friend has not explained to the committee, and what he will not be able to explain, is the fact that instead of aiding the only road which requires assistance, he is a party to a scheme which involves the Government in the taking over of three railways. The members of the committee this evening are not aware that the Minister of Finance, and the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, are not, with this amount of money, buying one continuous railway system. That ought to throw some light on this scheme. Does my hon. friend believe, in his heart of hearts, that at the present moment he is asking Parliament to devote a sum of money to the acquisition of a continuous railway system?


William Thomas White: The Lotbiniere and Megantic is on the other side of the river.
Mr. LEMIEUX':	The Lotbiniere and
Megantic has no connection whatever with this. It starts from Lyster in the county of Megantic and runs to St. Jean des Chaillons in the county of Lotbiniere. It is a little bit of railway that looks after the lumbering needs of the district.


William Thomas White: How much has been paid for that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Government is
paying $330,000. Now' this railway is paying its own way; the people are not clamouring for 'the Government to acquire the road. Are there any petitions from the people of this district asking the Government to take over this road? I make bold to say there is not one such petition on the files of the Department of Railways and Canals. Why then should the Government saddle the people of this Dominion with this [DOT] unnecessary obligation? The other railway starts from Quebec and runs to St. Joachim in the county of Montmorency. This is a tramway, and it is also paying its way. Nobody has ever clamoured for the Government to take over this road. The other railway which the Government intends to take over is the Quebec and Saguenay, which runs from St. Joachim to Murray Bay. And I quite agree that that section of the country should be generously aided by the Government. But why is the Government taking over three roads at a cost of $6,000,000 when only one of them needs assistance? With substantial assistance from the Government the Saguenay road could be completed and its trains run right into the city of Quebec, if running rights were secured over the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway. This item should be reduced by at least $2,000,000; the balance of the vote would allow the Quebec and Saguenay road to be completed and fully equipped. I ask the Minister of Finance what reason in the world is there, at this present juncture, when the people all over the country are being bled white in taxes for the war and contributions to the Red Cross, the Blue Cross, the French, and Servian and Belgian Relief Funds, why the people of this country should be saddled with this $6,000,000, when the only one of these three roads which is not completed is the Quebec and Saguenay, and when that could be completed for $2,000,000?


Robert Laird Borden: Under the conditions to which my hon. friend has alluded,

why did he ask us last evening to pay out, in addition to this $6,000,000, a couple of million dollars to the gentlemen who had invested in this road in the first instance?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is a different proposition entirely. My argument was this, and as the Finance Minister was not here last night I may as well repeat it. The hon. member for Charlevoix stated last night that the Quebec and Saguenay had sold its bonds partly on the French market and partly on the Canadian market, and that $1,000,000 was absorbed by a group of financiers in Montreal and Quebec, and $4,600,000 by investors in France.


Sir RODOLPHE FORGET:: The $4,600,-
000 of bonds produced only $3,800,000. The Canadian money has no mortgage whatever; it comes after the French bonds.


Rodolphe Lemieux: French investors subscribed the greater proportion. Now the road has failed.


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: No, it hasn't.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The French investors
were lured into investing in this enterprise by prospectuses which were circulated broadcast in France, and which contained the name of an ex-colleague of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The French investors were told that the road would extend not merely as far as Murray Bay, or even St. Catherines Bay, but as far as Cape St. Charles on the Labrador coast. The road was represented as being nearly half a transcontinental railway. It was further represented that there would be a surplus of over $300,000 the first year. The prospectus stated that the present Canadian Government was granting the road a mail subsidy of $50,000 per anum-which . was untrue. Afterwards, I admit, the promoters modified the prospectus and stated that the mail (subsidy would not be $50,000. Later on, too, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, who was then Postmaster General, withdrew his name from the company. But before he resigned the company had obtained the millions + hat have been referred to by my hon. friend the Postmaster General tonight. French investors put bheir good money into this road in good faith, and I say that their claims should be considered if the claims of these other people are to be considered. If, as the Acting Minister of Railways says, the bondholders of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix are to get a hundred cents on the dollar for
their bonds, why should net the French bondholders be given the same treatment?
Is it because they are on the other side of the ocean?
Surely the fact that they are our allies is no reason why we should treat them as enemies. I am told: But the French bondholders have sold their bonds. Yes, but, as I explained to the House yesterday, they sold their bonds because of the failure of a company to carry out the rosy scheme which was represented to the bond holders as being actual and possible.	'


Joseph David Rodolphe Forget: By whom?


Rodolphe Lemieux: And also they were told that they would lose everything if they did not sell their bonds at the price offered them. So much was this felt by them that a vigilance committee was appointed which received the offers which were made. My hon. friend from Charlevoix (Sir Rodolphe Forget) asked by whom the offers were made to sell the bonds? They were made by the Canadian group. I do not give the names of that group; I do not know them, but I suspect who they are. My hon. friend from Charlevoix knows more who they are, because he belongs to the financial world in Montreal, and I do not. The French bondholders had to sell their bonds at forty cents, thirty cents, twenty-five cents, on the dollar. If you give the Canadians one hundred cents on the dollar for these bonds, the French bondholders should be given that value.


William Thomas White: Why does the hon. member say that it is proposed to pay one hundred cents on the dollar for the bonds of the Quebec and Saguenay?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) said that yesterday.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say so. When the hon. gentleman is through I will explain what I did say.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, let the hon. gentleman explain.


John Dowsley Reid: The statements made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in regard to this matter are not in accordance with the facts. I said that, under the arrangement made the judge will take up these several roads with a view to ascertaining what actual money has actually gone into them.
First, let us suppose, he will take up the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix

and will ascertain what has been actually and 'legitimately expended on that road. In the same way, he will take the Quebec .and Saguenay, and also the Lotbiniere and Megantic. Then the three amounts will be added together. Assume that $2,500,000, an amount equal to the bonds of the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix, is found to have been expended on that road. Then, assume that an amount equal to $4,039,000 as a maximum is found to have 'been expended on the Quebec and Saguenay. In either case the amount may be less. Then, assume that it is shown that $330,000 has been expended on the Lotbiniere and Megantic. Now, what is the hon. member asking us to do? He has no objection, he tells us, to a loan of $2,000,000 to the Quebec and Saguenay, in order to complete the road. He knows that there ie $4,680,000 of bonds on that railway to-day; the French investors only paid $3,822,000 foT those bonds. He knows also that the contractors have a claim for over $1,000,000 on the road. Besides, there i6 $500,000 to be paid for right of way and other claims. This makes a total of over $6,000,000. Yet the hon. gentleman comes here and tells, us that, instead of getting the whole road for $4,039,000, we should loan the company $2,000,000 and come in behind this $6,000,000 which now stands against the road. If I am not representing his position correctly, I hope he will tell me. We say that instead of loaning $2,000,000, leaving to stand against the road $4,680,000, of bonds with interest, it is much better to pay a maximum amount of $4,039,000 and own the road free of incumbrance.


George Perry Graham: But you are not going to get a road.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman's leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated in the House that this road is a necessity.


George Perry Graham: But you are not going to get a road for this money.


John Dowsley Reid: We will get a clear title to the road for $4,039,000.


George Perry Graham: Only to what is there.


John Dowsley Reid: We will get a clear title to a road eighty-seven per cent of which has been completed.


George Perry Graham: No.


John Dowsley Reid: The engineers say that the road has been completed to the extent of eighty-seven per cent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are no rails, no
ties.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member had the papers before him yesterday. Among them was the report of Mr. Beckwith, an engineer of the Intercolonial, which, I think, stated that there were 470,000 ties. We are not only getting the road in its present condition, but we are getting an equipment with the Quebec, Charlevoix and Montmorency road. Tiie engineer said that eighty-seven per cent of the road is completed. I discussed this matter with the contractor who had this work at the time the work stopped.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many miles of rail have been laid on the Quebec and Saguenay?


John Dowsley Reid: There are 9 miles in operation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the end of the line.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. Supposing there were
no rails on it at all, the contractor who had the work told me at the time that he was willing to complete that road and put it in operation for $700,000. This contractor received nearly all of the $5,000,000 that have been expended up to date. Therefore, for any member to say that the road is not completed to the extent that it really is completed is most unfair. If we pay $4,039,000 for the Quebec and Saguenay instead of accepting the proposal of the hon. member for Rouville, we will save exactly $4,000,000. The hon. gentleman wants us to loan $2,000,000 behind the $6,000,000 that is now against the road. The hon. member claims that this road is only a tramway. I cannot for the life of me see why the member for Rouville wants to belittle that piece of road from Quebec to St. Joachim. From all the information I have that road is as well built as any part of the Transcontinental. It has 80 pound rails, is double tracked and is equipped with an blectric system. There is a good equipment and there are valuable terminals in the city of Quebec. Any hon. member knows that to have the Quebec and Saguenay commence nowhere and end nowhere, not going into the city of Quebec, would be an unreasonable proposition. Furthermore, when it is extended into Quebec we shall be increasing the terminal facilities in connection with the Transcontinental railway. This proposal will be of very material benefit to the city of Quebec, and to that part of the province extending down to Murray Bay. To Murray Bay people

come from one end of the Dominion to the other-yes, from all over the United States. The only way they have been able to get there has been by crossing by ferry from the south shore, or by taking the Richelieu and Ontario steamer. I think that the hon. member is unfair to his native province when he does not help that province as I think he ought to. The hon. gentleman was one of the members of the Government who did their best to have this road proceeded with. He advocated the subsidy; he was -in favour of tying the people of this Dominion up to that great enterprise. After taking that attitude, I do not think the people will justify his making a proposal which would involve the expenditure of $6,000,000 instead of $4,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has
stated what is true. I advocated the construction of that road; I helped to secure subsidies for it, both provincial and federal.
I am still willing, in the interests of the county of Charlevoix, to vote for a substantial amount in order to complete that line. But that does not justify the Government in buying three roads when only one should be aided. That is what I object to. It would be quite easy for me to vote with the Government in favour of this item. It would certainly be welcomed by the members of the Government and probably by the people in the county of Charlevoix; but I care not. I am here to do my duty. The people of Charlevoix would rather see that road completed than be .taxed as they will be taxed, in addition to the taxa-
10 p.m. tion that they are carrying now, in order to acquire two other roads which have nothing to do with this one. That is my reason, Mr. Chairman, fbr supporting the motion made by the hon. member for South Oxford.


Mr. NICKLE:: On an occasion like this
I hardly think that I would be warranted in voting for the resolution to strike out this amount without giving some explanation of my vote and my conduct. I think' it is singularly unfortunate-I do not want to preach to the committee-that legislation of the important character that has been introduced during the past two or three weeks should be brought down in the dying hours of the session.
I do not know what position other members of the House who occupy the humble position that I do, (find themselves in, but I find myself absolutely unable to get a
comprehensive grasp of the questions that are brought before me for consideration and determination when they are launched on me as important questions have been during the last two or three weeks. I practically find myself in the same position that I sometimes found myself in when I was a child. If I 'had a nauseous dose to take, the wisest way was to take it at a gulp, or refuse to take it at all-and to-night I refuse to take the gulp. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the scheme. It is complex; it is ten o'clock in the evening of the last day of the session, and there is much important business yet to be considered. But this I do want to say: in a time when the Empire is at war, when every dollar that Canada can raise is required for the legitimate purposes of,the war-and as to this I have been deeply impressed by the speeches that the Minister of Finance has delivered in this House and elsewhere-I cannot bring myself to add anything to the burdens of the people of this country. If these were ordinary times I might not feel so strongly on the question, but being influenced by the judgment of the Minister of Finance-and I have great respect for his judgment-and realizing that a commission is about to be appointed to consider the whole railway problem in Canada, I cannot see my way clear to voting for the continuance of this amount in the Estimates.
Motion (Mr. E. W. Nesbitt) negatived on division: Yeas, 12; nays, 29.


Frank Oliver: May I be privileged to
explain, on behalf of the mover of the motion (Mr. Nesbitt), that he found it necessary to leave in order to catch his train, and therefore was absent when the vote was taken. He was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett).


Robert Laird Borden: Before the committee rises I should like to give some information in reply to a question asked by the hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) with regard to recruiting in Montreal. This information consists of a report from General Hodgins, the adjutant general, to which is attached a report from Lieut.-Colonel Potter, the acting-director general of the medical services. These reports are somewhat lengthy, and perhaps the committee will agree with the assent of the hon. member for Maisonneuve.



whom I have consulted, that they should be incorporated in Hansard without being read, in order that they may appear in Hansard for the information of the hon. gentleman. The reports are as follows:
Criticism by Mr. Verville, M. P. of the medical examination of recruits at Montreal and elsewhere,' Hansard, pages 4219 et seq. 16th May, 1916.	.
The following reply is submitted herewith to the criticisms marginally noted:
1.	Telegram from Brigadier General Wilson, officer commanding military district No. 4 received to-day. " Examination being carried out by Medical Board in accordance with instructions from headquarters. Not more than three hundred discharged in this district in the last six weeks.- Certain civilian practitioners in outlying districts have recently been discovered passing men in defiance of definite instructions. Many of these men acknowledged that they had not been even stripped. The cases of rejection are not for minor defects but for hernia, potts' disease of the spine, hip joint disease, flat feet, under age and over age. Rejections for defective eye sight have been in accordance with regulations, and the test has been carried out at a distance of twenty feet only ".
2.	A full memorandum (attached hereto) prepared by Colonel Potter, the Acting Director General of Medical Services, setting forth the whole system with regard to physical examination of recruits.
3.	Recent editoral * (attached hereto) from the London Times clearly demonstrating the value and necessity of carrying out a very careful weeding-out process before submitting them to the thorough training for and the hardships of active service in the field.
This matter has received special care not only at headquarters, but in Military District No. 4 (Montreal) as well as in all other military districts, and it is confidently submitted that the criticism is not justified, and that what has been and is being done is in the best interests, both of those desirous of serving efficently end of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
W . E. Hodgins,
Major General Adjutant-General.
Physical Examination of Recruits.
Particular attention has been paid to the Issuing of instructions regarding the physical examination of recruits. The assistant directors of Medical Service of the various military districts have, from time to time, sent out such instructions as appeared necessary to correct any particlar point which appeared not to be receiving sufficient attention.
The regulations for the Canadian Medical Service have been used as a guide. The standards of physical fitness were amended with regard to the condition of the teeth, and such are now practically disregarded, as the Dental Service immediately give any necessary attention. Standards of vision have been slightly modified and are now in accordance withe the standards in use by the British service.
Medical examiners of recruits have, from time to time, made mistakes at the original examination, with the result that, with later medical Inspections, it was found that men were unfit, and had to be discharged, as they obviously

were not physically fit for the hardships of overseas service.
Very recently, the whole matter of physical fitness of recruits was again given attention and instructions, with more particulars given, prepared. The examination of recruits, to be carried out successfully, requires a special training, and it can be understood how a good general practitioner might overlook points which, from a military standpoint, are considered as impairing efficiency, but which, in civil life, are not considered to be causative of physical unfitness. Men suffering from disabilities which, apparently, do not impair, in their civil occupations, often have disabilities which, when under the hardships of active service, are very likely to render them invalids, and, if such men are sent overseas, they only have to be returned to Canada and perhaps become the subjects for consideration in the matter of pension or' other claims.
In the larger centres, as for example

Montreal, the Standing Medical' Board carry out the inspections, as far as possible, of recruits, and thus a greater degree of efficiency is obtained. The instructions sent out in Military District No. 4, in which Montreal is situated, show that very careful attention has been given to the matter of the physical fitness of recruits. Reference is made to a second physical examina.-tion being carried out at some time subsequent to the primary physical examination whin the man is recruited. This, obviously, would not be necessary, unless there were good reasons for such action being taken, and, with the large numbers of men enlisted, there is bound to be a weeding-out process at some stage before they proceed overseas. It is obviously much more economical and in the interests of the public to discharge a man found medically unfit than to carry him overseas and have him return as an invalid at considerable expense to the public.
Medical examiners of recruits are widely scattered throughout Canada, and many of them, prior to the outbreak of the war, had but little experience in this particular line of work, and it is hardly to be expected that a certain number-of mistakes will not be made.
In the case of any man physically unfit for overseas, lie may be utilized on home service in Canada, provided his disability does not impair his efficiency for the duty on which he is to be employed and it is certified that his disability is not likely to suffer from such employment. In each case, a decision will have to be made upon the merits of the case. Once the standard of physical fitness is lowered from that required in the cases of men sent overseas, it becomes an extremely difficult matter to lay down general rules.
I may say that this matter is receiving special consideration with a view to giving the men who are unfit for overseas service every opportunity to replace those who are physically fit for duty in Canada, in order that the men may have an opportunity to serve overseas.
Following your instructions, I rang up Lt.-Colonel Patch, the Assistant Director of Medical Services, Military District No. 4, and asked if he had anything special to report as distinguishing the Montreal situation from that in other parts of Canada. He reported that every care is being taken to avoid the sending of men, medically unfit, overseas, and that, before troops are sent to camps, or otherwise, either as whole units or as drafts, a very careful medical inspection is carried out. Recently, the number was large, and he considered that

this was probably due to the regular medical inspections of the men not being carried out as strictly as should be expected.
Inquiry was made as to the nature of the disabilities for which discharge was carried out. He informed that, in every case, the disability which rendered the man physically unfit was a serious one, and that they were not being discharged for minor disabilities. Disabilities which tend to materially impair the efficiency of a man as a soldier were given special attention.
In the cases of all men discharged in Military District No. 4, they appear before a Medical Board. It would appear that whatever action is being taken by th' medical officers is with the best interests of the service in view.
J. J. POTTER, Colonel, A.D.G.M.S.
Editorial from the London Times.
Medical Tests for Recruits.
We fear that there are still very serious defects in the method of medical examination for recruits, similar to those on which we remarked when Lord Derby's scheme was begun. The problem is two-sided. On the one hand there are men who are determined to join the Army, and do everything on their own account to " dodge " the doctor. A less praiseworthy influence is also at work, in that certain people are anxious at this moment to get on paper as many voluntary recruits as they can, irrespective of their quality. Whatever the motive, the results of admitting men who are physically unfit are certain to be lamentable. Modern warfare is all against the weak in body, however great may be their soul. The test of the trenches-with their wet or frost; their constant strain on the nerves; their demand for the unceasing and infinitely laborious labour of the spade-all this is almost sure to detect latent weakness. Then the man who has gone in under the false pretence of physical efficiency is apt to let his comrades down. This may seem a brutal way of putting it, but it is the truth. There is, too, the cost of medical attendance for men who break down in this way, not to speak of the dangers that may arise from the discovery that an unduly large percentage of unfit men is being brought into the Army by the new recruiting methods. Far less should those who are responsible for the admission of recruits allow any other motive than zeal in preventing the recruiting of unfit men to govern their supervision of the tests applied.
Progress reported.	-


TRANSFER OF MR. HORTON TO SENATE STAFF.
Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I have the honour to
recommend, upon the request of the Senate, the transfer, under the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, of Mr. Albert -Horton, editor of Debates of the House of Commons, to the staff of the Senate, where he has been appointed to a similar position; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House doth concur in their request.
260i
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved that the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker with reference to the transfer of Mr. Albert Horton, editor of Debates of the House of Commons, to the staff of the Senate be approved; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


George Perry Graham: Is it promotion?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: No, there is no promotion.


George Perry Graham: Can we afford to lose
him? He is a good man. Should we allow the Senate to steal one of our best officials if they are not giving him any more money?


Robert Rogers: How can we prevent them? They are the bosses.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure of that. They are the bosses of everything but the cash.


Robert Laird Borden: Really I am not very familiar with the matter. It was mentioned to me for the first time by the Clerk this evening.


George Perry Graham: Does he want to go?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the Senate desires to obtain his services, and Mr. Horton is quite willing to go.


George Perry Graham: He is not the first man who has been willing to go from this House to the Senate, and I suppose he will not be the last.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 66, in aid of provincial legislation, prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: I desire to say that it is only after a great deal of hesitation indeed that I have decided-I would rather say to submit to than to accept all of the amendments which have been made by the Senate to this Bill. The amendments consist in striking out the penalty of suspension of a license proposed to be imposed upon manufacturers violating this law for the first and second offences, leaving the penalty of forfeiture for the third offence to stand. It is not in that regard that I have my greatest hesitation in

accepting the amendments. There has been struck out of the Bill clause 5. That is a provision which enabled prosecutions for violations of this Act to he instituted as well at the place to which the liquor had been sent as at the place whence it had been sent. The striking out of this provision, I think, will very materially and in a most serious manner prejudice the effective enforcement of the Act-. I feel this so strongly that, were it not that I have good reason to believe that if, this House refused to concur in the amendments and sent the Bill back, we might run the risk of losing the measure entirely, I would not make the motion which I am about to make. I may say that in making the motion to concur in these amendments I do it with the hope of having an early opportunity, of which I shall be glad to avail myself, of submitting again to this House for its adoption and for transmission to the other House, the disposition which that House has seen proper to strike out of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time.

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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair:
William Thomas White: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ended 31st March, 1916, the sum of $4,485,537.26 be granted out, of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Thomas White: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1917, the sum of $115,077,465.72 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 104, for grant-

ing to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1916, and the 31st March,. 1917.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

John Douglas Hazen: I would like to call the
attention of the House to Order No. 26, Public Bills and Orders, Bill No. 21, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was introduced by the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair). This Bill at my suggestion was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries. After hearing the evidence and statements from officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department and others interested in marine matters, that committee made a report recommending the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. I may say that the Department of Marine and Fisheries agrees with the report of that committee, and under those circumstances I beg to move that public Bills and Orders be now taken up in order that Bill No. 21 may be referred to the Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on Bill No. 21-Mr. Sinclair-to amend the Canada Shipping Act, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 1-definition of coasting voyages extended:
John Douglas Hazen: There are some amendments.


George Perry Graham: What are they?


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendments are
verbal.


John Howard Sinclair: The meaning is not
changed in the slightest degree. The wording was a little involved owing to the fact that the old statute was followed, and the law clerk advised that these changes should be made in order to make- it clearer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Robert Rogers: This practically -cleans the Order Paper. When the House met at two o'clock the right hon. leader of the Opposi-

tion mentioned the question about the Public Printing. We promised that the subject would be discussed before adjournment to-night. We have yet for discussion this matter of printing, and the question of pensions; and I am sure that the hon. members of the House would not like to separate without having a few parting words from our friends from the Maritime Provinces about fish. We meet at two o'clock to-morrow, and prorogation has been arranged for four-thirty o'clock. If we can discuss the three questions between two o'clock and four-thirty we could now adjourn.


George Perry Graham: If we postpone the discussion until two o'clock we will have to get through by four-thirty, .so it has its bright side. If we start now we do not know when we will get through. The leader of the Opposition is interested in the printing question,- and he is not here to-night. I imagine that the discussion of pensions will not take long, as there is to be no legislation.


Robert Rogers: We might have as the order of the discussion pensions first, then printing, and then fish. '
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.10 o'clock p.m.
Thursday, May 18, 1916.