1917-07-10

[Stage Direction]
*	OF THE


[Stage Direction]
7-8 GEORGE V, 1917

[Stage Direction]
Vol. I-Pages . .	1-1124 Vol. IV-Pages . . 3187-4242
II "	.	.	1125-2138	V "	.	. 4243-5270III "	.	. 2139-3186	VI "	.	.	5271-6094


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACHE

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 10, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon.   S@: I desire to make a statement upon a matter of public importance. It has been officially drawn to the attention of the Government that the use of the expression "conscription of wealth" in the debates ini Parliament and by public and other bodies outside of Parliament and by the press in its news reports has caused a certain uneasiness among those whose savings constitute a vital factor in the business and industrial life of the Dominion and are so essential to the credit and prosperity upon which our efforts in the continued prosecution of the war must largely depend. I desire to say on behalf of the Government that there need exist no apprehension on the part of the public that any action of a detrimental character will at any time be taken with respect to the savings of the Canadian public. On the contrary it will be the policy of the Government in the future as in the past to encourage in every way possible the exercise of the thrift and economy resulting in national savings which have enabled Canada to maintain her credit and improve her economic position during the war. Any taxation to which it may be necessary for the Government to resort from time to time will be in accordance with legitimate and established forms of taxation sanctioned by the tradition and experience of British self-governing communities. This statement, therefore, must not be understood as precluding legislation providing for income taxation upon those whose incomes are such as to make it just and equitable that they should contribute a share of the war expenditure of the Dominion.


Hon. GEORGE GRAHAM:: In the remarks which I made during the discussion which took place in the House, I did not use the term "conscription of wealth." The resolution which I introduced was in these words:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that steps should be taken forthwith by the Government to provide that accumulated wealth should contribute immediately and effectively to the cost of the war.
The observations that I made were, I think, perfectly in harmony with the wording of this resolution and with the remarks just made by the Minister of Finance.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Hear, hear. MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.



CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service-Sir Robert Borden. (Resumed from Monday, July 9. Mr. Rainville in the Chair.)
On section 11-exemptions:
(1)	At any time before a date to he fixed in the proclamation mentioned in section four, an application may be made, by or in respect of any man in the class or subclass called out by such proclamation to a local tribunal established in the province in which such man ordinarily resides, for a certificate of exemption on any of the following grounds:-
(a)	That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged;
(b)	That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special qualifications ;
(c)	That it is expedient in the national interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained;
(d)	That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position ;
(e)	111 health or infirmity;
(f)	That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles
[Stage Direction]
ai88
[Stage Direction]
of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs ; and if any of the grounds of such application be established, a certificate of exemption shall be granted to such man.
(2)	(a) A certificate may be conditional as to time or otherwise and if granted solely on conscientious grounds shall state that such exemption is from combatant service only.
(b)	A certificate granted on the ground of the continuance of education or training or on the ground of exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position, shall be a conditional certificate only.
(c)	No certificate shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing in or entering into employment under any specified place or established.
(d)	A certificate may transfer a man to the class next in numerioal order.
(e)	When a conditional certificate is granted the conditions shall be stated on the certificate.
(f)	It shall be the duty of any man holding a conditional certificate within three days after the conditions stated therein cease to exist or after his exemption terminates, to give notice in writing of such fact to the Registrar of the province in which he ordinarily resides; and if he fails without reasonable excuse to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars.
(3)	(a) Subject to such conditions as to application and notice as may be provided by regulations, and subject also to paragraph (b) of this subsection, a certificate may, during the currency thereof, be renewed, varied or withdrawn at any time by the local tribunal issuing the same.
(b)	Where a decision of a local or appeal tribunal has been varied on appeal to an appeal tribunal or to the Central Appeal Judge, a certificate granted upon such variation shall thereafter; subject to such conditions as to application and notice as may be provided by regulations, be renewed, varied or withdrawn, but only during the currency thereof and only by the appeal tribunal or judge who granted the certificate.
(4)	Any person who, for the purpose of taining a certificate or a condition in a certificate for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining the renewal, variation or withdrawal of a certificate, makes any false statement or representation, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months with or without hard labour.
(5)	(a) Any man who, having applied to any local tribunal for the issue to him of a certificate, applies without the leave of the Minister to any other local tribunal for a certificate, and any person who, knowing or having reason to believe that an application for a certificate has been made or is being made by or in respect of a man to a local tribunal, makes or aids or abets in the making or establishing of an application without such leave by or in respect of such man to another local tribunal, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars.
(b) All applications and all proceedings taken on application for certificates made with-

out the leave of the Minister by or in respect of a man before a local tribunal other than the local tribunal before which the first application by or in respect of such man was made, shall be null and void.
(c)	Nothwithstanding anything in this section contained, the Governor in Council may by regulations abolish any local tribunal, and transfer its duties and powers to any other local tribunal.
(6)	Any person who alters or tampers with a certificate or, for the purpose of evading this Act, falsely represents himself to be a person to whom a certificate has been granted, or, if granted a certificate, allows, for like purpose, any other person to have possession thereof, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
(7)	When a certificate is lost, destroyed or defaced, the tribunal by whom it was granted shall, upon the application of the man to whom it was granted and upon payment of a fee of fifty cents, issue to him a duplicate of such certificate.
Mr. PROULX:: It has been suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side that conscription would not affect the farming community; that it was the intention of the Government to leave the farmers at home in order that they might produce food and agricultural products. Nothing, however, in these subsections exempts the farmers as a class. Considering the usefulness of their occupation, I think that they might well be exempted from military service. It would satisfy a great many people in the country if it was made plain in the Bill that the farmers would,not be conscripted.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 
Edmond Proulx: I think that some limit should be imposed as to the number of men required on a farm. My hon. friend cited the case of a father and two sons on a farm of 100 acres, and the father being left to do all the work as the sons had enlisted. We might state in the Bill that not more than three persons should be allowed to 100 acres. Three men, I think, would be sufficient for that acreage. In England so many agriculturalists were allowed to enlist in the early days of the war, and farm labour became so scarce that 27,000 men had to be recalled from the trenches to cultivate the farms. There is danger of something similar happening here unless we provide against it. We should take steps to ensure that our production will be sufficient to support our own population and to help supply the Allies with foodstuffs. There are not many farms in Canada where you will find more than two- sons [DOT]and the father working the farm. I think the Bill should allow a certain number of men to each farm.


Mr. RAENVILLE:: My attention has been drawn to this very question. The purpose of the 'Government in introducing this Bill is that the nation's efforts should be directed toward winning the war. Some men will be called on to fight, and others will be engaged in sustaining the productivity of the Dominion. The preamble states that in view of the large number of men who have already left agricultural and industrial pursuits in Canada to enlist, and in view of the necessity of sustaining the productivity of the Dominion, it 'has been found necessary to introduce this legislation. If the Government are sincere in stating that their intention is to retain men who are useful in agricultural and industrial pursuits, I do not see why this section should
203J
not be made to read accordingly. The preamble, it is true, sets out the Government's intention, but I do- not see why it should not be expressly stated1 in this section- that agriculture and other necessary industries of the country shall be maintained.
I	therefore beg to move:
That in line 32 of subsection (a) of section
II	the words "agricultural, industrial or" be inserted after the word "in" and before the word "other."
The subsection would then read:
That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in agricultural, industrial or other work in which he is habitually engaged.
That would be expressly stating the Government's intention as set out in the preamble. I would impress upon the House that the intention of this Bill is not to conscript the whole man-power of the country, but only 100,000 men, and if there aTe any industries that should be protected, they are agriculture 'and the other industries necessary to the .winning of the war. I think every one will admit that agriculture is one of the first .industries that should be taken care of. The inserting of these words would not mean that a man so engaged would necessarily be exempted, but it would ensure that the production of the country would not suffer by reason of this Bill. The amendment is .absolutely in accord with- the Government's .intention.


Mr. J. GIRARD (Chicoutimi-Saguenay) (translation):: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave
to second the amendment offered by my hon. friend from Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rain-ville), to the exemption clause.
I think that, if the amendment offered by my hon. friend is not going to be applied to the exemption provisions, to which he wishes to apply it, it would be desirable to make the interpretation of the section clearer and to add to subsection, A after the words " in which he is habitually engaged " the following words: " The men engaged in agricultural and industrial pursuits and in the fisheries." I do not intend to embarrass the Government with this amendment, but in the preamble, the Government seems to be aiming at protecting the agricultural and industrial classes. The intention of the Government in that respect is open to doubt. I have received several letters and I think this subsection should be made plainer, so as to make perfectly clear what the real purpose of the Government is.

As remarked by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres, the intention of the Bill is not to conscript the whole man-power of the country, but only 100,000 men, and it matters little once those 100,000 men are enlisted, whether such or such a class is exempted, as what is needed is production and farmers engaged in sustaining the productivity of the Dominion, to support our own population and help supply the Allies.


Mr. BOULAY (translation):: I fully agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from Chicoutimi-Saguenay (Mr. Girard). As far as possible, it is desirable to allay public anxiety and to ease the minds of many people who are anxious to know which are the classes that are going to be conscripted, and everybody knows that it is in the interest of the country that the agricultural class should be taken care of and exempted. I think that at this phase of the debate on this Bill, it would be desirable to insert a clause such as suggested by the hon. member for Chicoutimi-Saguenay to subsection A of the exemption section. By adding the words suggested by my hon. friend, the debate would be simplified and it would also meet the views of the Government which is acting in the general interest of the country. I may further say that it would meet the views of the people in general, and more particularly the Views of the farmers who do not expect to be disturbed in the work in which they are engaged and who should be left at home, unless we want to throw the whole industrial machine of the country out of gear. I believe that the Government should not hesitate to insert those words, or else, we might add after clause F another one which would be clause " G ", worded as follows:
That, it is expedient in the national interest that all the bona fide farmers and fishermen, instead of being employed in military service, should be maintained in the work in which they are habitually engaged.
If this would not be covered in paragraph
(a)	we could make another paragraph (g) and put it in there; so that it would be well understood which are the classes we want exempt. I think this would save quite a lot of discussion and would meet the views of the majority of the members of this House.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I do not know very well how the House could adopt the amendment offered by my hon. friend. The principle of the Bill, as I understand it, is that there should be no exemptions. If we start to exempt the farmers, fishermen, and so on, there is no telling where we may end.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the-lawyers.


George Henry Bradbury: Lawyers are pretty well exempt anyway.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I do not mean by this amendment that it is to he a special exemption. I just mean to advocate the principle of the law as it is to-day. The hon. member knows very well that to interpret the law we may use the preamble just as well as any other part of the Bill, and saying that the judge will be called upon to decide as to what are the most essential industries is just repeating what is in the preamble.


George Henry Bradbury: I agree with the idea and the argument of my hon. friend that the agricultural classes should not be disturbed, as far as possible. There is no intention in this Bill to disturb the agricultural class any more than any other class, but as was said by the Solicitor General a few minutes ago, take the case of a farmer working say 100 acres of land and having two or three eons to help him. If these two or three sons have volunteered for the front, the position of that farmer is different from the position of another farmer who may have two or three sons on the farm whom he can spare.


An hon. MEMBER:: Provided they are
wanted.


George Henry Bradbury: Provided they are
wanted. It is only fair these men should be selected. I think that is the principle of the Bill, and that is what every member of this House understands. I should object strenuously to support any Bill or any suggestion that would exempt any class of people in this country. This Bill must apply to everybody. The farmer has responded nobly already, and I am sure when the time comes to* make the selection required for this 100,000 men. the farmer will not be drawn on unfairly. But, where there are places, and we know there are hundreds, where farming districts have not done their duty, this Bill will compel them to do their duty. Other farmers have done more than their duty. I can cite you dozens of cases in my own constituency where men have gone who should not have gone, and who would not have gone if we had selective conscription. I think this Bill is a step in the right direction.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Would not the
farmers, as a class, resent the insertion of any such clause?


George Henry Bradbury: No doubt the farmers would take it as an insult if any such clause were inserted. The farmers are just as anxious as any other people to do their duty, and they have done it. I cannot very well understand what my hon. friend wants. To my' mind the interpretation of the Bill is very clear. The intention of the Government in submitting the measure to Parliament was that the selection should he made absolutely equitable and fair, and the provisions of this Bill covered this.


Mr. MARCIL:: Does the Solicitor General intend setting a standard by which those local tribunals are to proceed on his definition of the so-called national interest, qr is each tribunal to be allowed to decide in each individual case and have a standard of its own as to what is the national interest?


Arthur Meighen: In subsection 3 of section 5 there are regulations looking to the uniform application of the Act. There is a regulation which might cover generally the intentions of the tribunal as to what principles should guide them in determining what is in the national interest. That was done in Great Britain. I have before me a document published under the signature of the Right Hon. Walter H. Long for the guidance of tribunals, and the general principles by which they may well be governed. The English Act practically combined our first two exemptions in one. They followed that by an outline of the principles by which the local board of tribunals should be governed. I will read a portion of this document:-
12. The following observations as regards the different classes of cases may be of service :
Employment cases (section 2 (1)	(a))-
the question to be considered in these cases is not whether the man has a claim for exceptional treatment in his own interests, but whether it is or is not in the national interests that he should be retained in civil employment. "National interests" has to be construed broadly. It covers not only services which minister directly to the prosecution of the war, but also services which are esential to the country at the present time. Whether, for instance, in the maintenance of the food supply, or of the export trade, or in the performance of other services which it is desirable should be carried on in the interests of the community.
. In deciding cases of this class, local tribunals should take into account not only (a) whether the service is such as ministers to the national interests at the present time, but also (b) whether it is in the national interests that the particular man should continue in civil employment, and whether, even if the services which he renders are essential, they cannot be performed by available men not of military age or otherwise not fit for military service, or by women.
Then they proceed to a similar treatment of the cases covered by our second clause of exemptions. I might also read it:-
13. It is provided that exemption (which must in this case be conditional or temporary) may be granted to a man who is being educated or trained for any work, if it is expedient in the national interests that he should continue to be so educated or trained. It is not intended that the mere fact that the man is being educated or trained shall be a sufficient reason for exemption. It must be clearly shown that it is in the national interests that he should continue his education or training either because he will become so valuable for work ministering, directly or indirectly, to the national requirements in connection with the war that it would be unwise to take him away from his education or training, or because, quite apart from any services which he is likely to render during the course of the war, his education or training will hereafter render him so essential to the community that it would be unwise to interrupt his education or training.
The presumption will generally be that a man undergoing education or training who is young and free from the responsibilities of older men should do his duty for the country at the present time by undertaking military service,-
That is the prima facie presumption.
-and therefore it is for the Local Tribunal in each instance to make sure that the conditions in the particular case are sueh as to justify special treatment before exemption is granted.
They go on to outline what in their judgment shpuld cover cases of serious hardship which is our third class of exemption. Then they proceed to deal with cases of ill-health or infirmity. I do not say for a moment that the regulations that may be promulgated by the central appeal judge would be identical with those in England, but I read these tp indicate the general scope that may 'be covered by the regulations. I could not say whether there is any reason or not for deviating very widely from them. At the moment I do not know.


Mr. PARDEE:: By reason of the fact that there is uncertainty as tp who will and who will not he exempted under the provisions of this selective conscription measure, and more especially as there has been a great deal of talk about its effect upon agricultural production, a doubt has been brought to the minds of a great many people in the agricultural industry as to how far selective conscription would go with them. I quite agree with the principle of the Bill, and 1 believe that nobody should be exempted from conscription under the measure. On the other hand, my ppinion is that as far as possible the work of the agricultural community and the productiveness of this country ought not tp be, even

in the very least, impaired, for we have been told by members of the Government that production is almost as essential to-day to the winning of the war as some pther forms of military service. I would make a suggestion to the Solicitor General. We have just had from the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) a declaration of the policy of the Government with reference to the conscription of wealth. The Government has taken exception, very reasonably, to the broad term "conscription of wealth " being used to such an extent and so irresponsibly as to upset certain classes of our people in the Dominion by making them believe that their own savings would be conscripted. The statement that the minister has made will allay public anxiety along that line to a large extent and will ease the minds of a great many people. I am not asking the Solicitor General to make any specific declaration that agriculture should not -be conscripted-I do not want him to do that-but, could not he give some assurance that when the rules and regulations are drawn up for the purpose of carrying out this Bill agriculture will be looked upon from the point of view solely of the productive needs of the country and treated accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend will see that, inasmuch as these regulations are promulgated first by the central appeal judge, it vrould be improper on my part to even indicate what regulations that authority should recommend. At the same time, I can say that there seems no reason to doubt that the requirements of this Bill can be filled without taking such men from agricultural pursuits as would reduce agricultural production.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Say that again,


Arthur Meighen: Without taking such
men from agriculture as will reduce our agricultural production.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I suppose that
statement would apply to other productive pursuits such as fishing, lumbering and mining?


Arthur Meighen: I see no reason at all for believing that the production of this country cannot be fully maintained and the requirements of this Bill filled as well.


Edmond Proulx: The central appeal judge will be pretty well governed in making the regulations by what is said in Parliament. We pass the law; we are the representatives of the people and we should say who should be exempted from this conscription. If Par-

liament affirms the principle that agriculture is such an important industry and sp necessary in the carrying on of this war that those engaged in agricultural pursuits should fbe as lightly touched as possible by conscription, the central appeal judge will be pretty well governed in framing the regulations by the opinion of this Parliament. I approve pf the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville). 'In certain subsections and clauses different occupations are mentioned such as financial and other occupations whilst the agricultural occupation is mentioned only in the preamble pf the Bill. Agricultural occupation is as useful, if not more useful than, financial or professional occupation.


Arthur Meighen: Where are the other occupations mentioned?


Edmond Proulx: In subsection (d) of section 11:
(d)	That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position;


Arthur Meighen: That class mentioned in subsection (d) docs not relate to occupation, but to obligations. It may be that the peculiar obligations under which a man is, domestic, financial or business, are such that he should be accorded special treatment in the interests of the community.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: As to the individual man.


Arthur Meighen: That is, it would be a serious hardship and would likely inflict hardship on others if that particular individual, owing not to his occupation but to his obligations were taken.


Edmond Proulx: Farmers have large obligations. Many of them have large mortgages on their farms.


Arthur Meighen: Then they would come under that clause.


Mr. TURRIFF:: 
Mr. MORPHY:: I beg to suggest a change in the wording of subsection (a) of section
11.	That subsection reads:
(a) That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged ;
I think the phraseology is a little unfortunate. Instead of saying "i6 habitually engaged," it should read "has been for a certain period of time past habitually engaged." We might say at least one year prior to the passing of this Act, or at the time the war broke out. My idea is that exemptions under this Bill should: be to real diasses of the people. As the clause reads, hundreds of young men may 'rush to the farms who do not know anything about farming. They may have gone there during the last week, and under the phraseology here such young men could go to
the tribunal and say:	I am farming, I
am hired out and have been for a month- at exorbitant wages.' In that way a man might escape service. I think that, in the interest of the country, there should be added to that clause- >ne words "for at least one year prior to the passing of this Act."
Something should be added to indicate that he must be a real farmer, a real fisherman, a real something, and not a man who is attempting to avoid service by taking up one of these occupations. The same thing applies to clause (f) in relation to conscientious objectors. The clause reads:
That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs; and if any of the grounds of such application be established, a certificate of exemption shall be granted to such man.
I would change that section to read "that existed before the 4th of August, 1914," being the time of the declaration of war. I do not know whether any one kn-owe what orders have arisen in view of the possibilities of such an Act as this. The section as it reads now would apply to any coterie of persons who wotfld say: We belong to a certain branch of a sect well known and organized in Canada. I think there should be a time limit there.


George Henry Bradbury: If a man does not
want to defend the state he should not have citizenship, no matter who he is.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There are certain people who have conscientious objections to combatant service and are protected by the law. My objection is to having others slip in and say they -are exempted when they are not. In other words, a real conscientious objector should be exempted.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I think the
amendment before us is too broad, to start with, and it is very questionable whether it is required at all. I agree with 'the 'hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mir. Bradbury) and the ihom. gentleman from Assiniboda (Mr. Turriff) who both have had some experience in this matter. I do not think it is necessary that we should use the term suggested in regard to those engaged in agricultural or industrial pursuits, especially the latter, because it is altogether too broad. We use the term " industrial," and it covers .almost everything in the coun-

try. Then, while the clause, .as it would read after the proposed amendiment, would not, of itself, positively exempt any one, the trouble is it might be considered as exempting them, and might cause a great deal of dissatisfaction, when certain people found they were not exempted. Some people engaged in agriculture in some parts might be dispensed with. In the part of the oo-untiry in which the Solicitor General and I live, I presume there .are not very many who could be dispensed with, because the farms are large, and the country is so thoroughly drained of suitable farm help, that the danger is that we will not have enough men to attend to our harvest and threshing. But I think .that is not the case throughout .the whole of Canada. I think the suggestion of the hon. gentleman from Perth (Mr. Morphy) would work a very serious hardship in the western country. I think my hon. friend will find that the people in the West move .around a great deal more than they do in the East. W.e find hundreds of men engaged bona fide in farming, just as faithfully as any man in the country is engaged in that occupation, but they have only started this season. They have bought farms, and expect to raise thousands of bushels of grain. A man may be working alone, as many of them are. Heunay have thousands of bushels of grain growing mow, but if my hon. friend's suggestion were adopted, he would not be exempt at all; he could not possibly be exempt, >and the grain would have to go to waste, because if we take men from the farms in the western country, as my ihom. friend1 will understand very well, and compel them to. go. to the front, the crop will be almost sure to go to waste. There are no surplus men to be had there. Every farmer there is required to look after the farms. There may be odd men, such as the hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) suggests, who are trying to hold the farmers up. I have no objection to seeing those fellows being sent away, even if they are farm labourers. I think it would be safe for us to leave the clause as it stands. I desire to make a suggestion, but I am not sure how pertinent it is. We have referred occasionally to regulations made under the Militia Act, and to rules of court, made by judges of the supreme court of the different provinces.
It seems to me that there is considerable difference in th'e application of those regulations. The rules of court cover technical questions, which can be better dealt with by the judges of the supreme court than 
any one else, and the regulations under the Militia Act cover technical question^ which can be better dealt with by the Government, advised by their military officers. But I believe that this House is in a better position to deal with these exemptions than any one else, and I suggest to the Government that they should consider the advisability of making such regulations as apply to the exemptions a part of the Act.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@Halifax: make it a matter of statute.
Mr.	THOMSON: Whether we adopt
that suggestion or not, I should like to have the regulations, at least under this particular section, disposed of by this House. Make them part of the statute, if you like.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: 1 agree with some of the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). With regard to these exemption sections, we would like to know how the provision is going to work. The first exception, (a), refers to the man who is habitually engaged in a certain kind of work. The second exemption (b), refers to the man who has special qualifications, and the third exemption (c), deals with the man who is being educated or trained. The fourth (d), provides for the case of a man who has exceptional financial or business obligations. The fifth exemption (e), refers to health or infirmity, and the sixth exemption (f), deals with conscientious objections. The judge will be called upon to decide on these very cases, and the duty of the judge will be to find the 100,000 men who are to be sent to the front. When that point is reached, is that all? I say: No, it i-s not all. Some people are demanding the conscription of wealth; I would claim conscription for the promotion of agriculture and industry. Then another question is: who is going to direct the rejections or exemptions? Who is going to say that a man who is keeping a cigar store, for instance, would be more useful if he were placed on the farm? Then we have the case of the man on the farm who is doing nothing in the way of producing. Who is going to direct that he shall be exempted? Will it be the judge? It is impossible to think that a judge can deal with that. We will have to get some kind of machinery in the administration to deal with those exemptions, and get together the full strength of the nation, and direct it in the best interests of Canada and of the Em-

pire, in the way of producing food, stimulating industry, and developing our mines and fisheries. Although we have kept the National Service Commission out of this Bill, I was thinking thajt every exemption dealt with in this clause .of exemptions by the judge should be sent, with full information, on a card, to some authority, where it could be dealt with, because every one knows the National Service cards were filled up in a very unsatisfactory manner. The National Service Commission cannot accomplish anything with the cards, signed as they have been. Why not take this opportunity, with this big organization which will be established all over Canada-and maybe outside of Canada, for some people went away without reason- and get these cards, and all information obtained by the National Service Commission, and we may have the conscription of wealth, or agriculture or industry, whatever we may call it, and have machinery that will direct our people where they can go in order to render the best service to the country and to humanity. That is the first consideration and if we do not want to face a great shortage of food something of this kind must be done. And this shortage will not take place in Canada only. Everybody knows, considering what is taking place everywhere, that we may have to face a shortage of food all over the world. We may face shortage of every production in other countries, and we may have the manufacturers producing products that are not useful. If we1 insert a provision on the very first page of this Bill that agriculture and industry shall be* the first consideration to be dealt with by the Government then we can use the full strength of the nation. The first consideration should be, not the farmer himself, but that which is produced by the farmer. I am not claiming exemption for the farmer; I am claiming what may be called the conscription of agriculture for the benefit of the people of this Dominion. When I put it that way, I do not think that hon. gentlemen can attribute to my words any other sense than that in which I utter them. One gentleman has said that such a course would be an insult to the farmers. I do not see why. If it is admitted that we should conscript for the army; that we should conscript wealth, agriculture, industry; then I say that agriculture is the first to be taken care of. If a farmer should not be producing enough, it would be the duty of a judge to say; You are not producing what you should; you go
to the war, and we will put another man in your place. The result would be the production of what is necessary to feed the people. I do not consider that this would be an insult to the farmer, and I challenge those who contend that such is the intention of my amendment. My desire is that there shall be put on the farms all the hands available to work the lands properly and ensure a maximum amount of production throughout the country.


Charles Marcil: In the centre of Canada farming is a basic industry, and all over Canada agriculture is important, but there are parts of the country where mining or fishing are of the first importance. As I understand the explanation of the Solicitor General, no man can claim exemption because of his calling, but any man who cannot be replaced may be exempted because of the importance of the services which he renders here. This principle, I understand, is based upon the principle adopted in England. A man in any calling, therefore, may be exempted, and a man in any calling may be forced to go to the front.


Arthur Meighen: It would be hardly correct to use these words with regard to exceptions, but using them with regard to exemptions, my hon. friend's understanding is quite correct.


Mr. OLIVER:: The subclause that we are now discussing is an exemption provision; it is a provision to enable everybody to be exempted. There is no necessity for the following subclauses in the section, because this subclause covers everything and everybody. In section 2 provision is made far the compulsory service of everybody, and in section 11 provision is made for the exemption of everybody. This is supposed to be a deliberative body, responsible to the people for the result of legislation passed with the authority of the House. We are told that the purpose of this Bill is selective conscription, but after over an hour's discussion we have not a scintilla of information as to what the selection is going to be, or on what basis it is going to be made. Parliament is asked to endorse a Bill of that character, affecting the lives and the honour of 100,000 of its citizens. Is the Solicitor General serious when he tells us that there is to be no regulation by authority of Parliament of the conduct of tribunals under this section?


Arthur Meighen: I was quite serious
when I told the committee What I did tell it, but I did not say what my hon. friend

suggests. Any regulation recommended by the central appeal judge and approved by the Governor in Council is made under the authority of this Parliament and may look to uniformity in the application of this Act. They have been able in Great Britain to formulate such regulations; there is no reason why they should not !be able to do so here, having regard, of course, to the somewhat different conditions prevailing in Canada. I cannot answer the extreme assertions of the member for Edmonton that this clause provides for the exemption of everybody. A similar clause was in the British Act, but it did not provide for the exemption of everybody there. I know no reason to believe that we cannot have as intelligent tribunals in Canada as they have in England. But we cannot with too great particularity or solidity of rule define just what a tribunal must do in any individual case. Nor can we say in broad language to the tribunal: exempt a man if you think it is in the national interest, and send him to the front if you think that is in the national interest. One would be much too narrow; the other very much too broad; a line must be found between. The line is this: that we endeavour here to lay down principles that will guide the tribunal in determining what is in the national interest and what is not.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER: What is that principle?


Arthur Meighen: The principles are set out in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of section 11. These are almost identically the principles that have been found sufficient in England. After many months' trial of the statute there, various amendments were suggested to Parliament and various improvements proposed in connection with different features of the Act, but they left those principles as they defined them initially, because they had found them satisfactory. It is not, I think, asking the committee too much to suggest that we have at least some regard to the experience of Great Britain in that matter. We will get the advantage of their decisions wherever they will be of use to us. I do not think, however, that we can afford on the one hand, to be more exacting, or, on the other hand, to be broader and more indefinite.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the Solicitor General will tell us who amongst the citizens of Canada cannot be exempted under subsection (a)?


Arthur Meighen: It is not the part of the Solicitor General to perform here the duty 
of tribunals. The duty of the Solicitor General is to explain the principle of the Act, not to say what the tribunals should do in any individual case. But if my hon. friend were himself a member of the tribunal, I should not have the least hesitation in bringing before him many men whom he and I commonly know and to whom he would have no difficulty in applying those principles.


Frank Oliver: It is not a question, as
to how far my friend and I might agree in regard to the application of these principles; it is a question of the responsibility of this Parliament of Canada for knowing how those principles are to be applied. I asked what I thought was a very reasonable and simple question, but my hon. friend was not able, or not willing, to give me an answer, and for the very good reason that only one answer was possible, and that was that under the section as it reads any tribunal may exempt any citizen of Canada from military service. There is no doubt about that. Will any member of this committee point out what citizen of Canada may not bo exempted under this subsection from military service by a tribunal?


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Assuming that a man were


Frank Oliver: I have asked a plain question, and asking another question is not answering mine. I have asked a plain question, and if I cannot get an answer to it I shall have to be permitted -to continue my remarks.


Mr. NICKLE:: Take the case of a man engaged in ;a non-essential .and non-productive industry.


Frank Oliver: Who is to say that the
industry is non-essential and non-productive except the tribunal? And the tribunal can say whatever it .pleases.


William Folger Nickle: That is not the question
my hon. friend asked. He .asked any member of the committee to name any class of men who would not be exempt under this subsection. I say that under that subsection no man ishould be exempted who was engaged in a non-productive and non-essential industry, because it would not be in the national interests to exempt him.


Frank Oliver: The answer to that is that the tribunals are vested with the fullest possible discretion, and it is for them to say whether a given industry is a national necessity or not. If my hon. friend from Kings-

ton (Mr. Nickle) cannot give me a diiect answer to the question that I asked, it is probably not within the competence of any member of this House to do so. So the matter stands exactly as I have stated it, and certainly we are not dealing fairly by the people of Canada unless from our places and at this time we require from the Government some method of limitation or direction that will make it possible for us to .say to the people of Canada:	This is a
declaration of principle which will be given effect to under these circumstances and to this extent.______________________________


Arthur Meighen: I do not know but that a tribunal which flagrantly and dishonestly violated its duty could not exempt any person. I do not assume, however, that our tribunals are going to be dishonest, negligent or unfaithful; I presume they will be honest, diligent and faithful. Assuming that, then I know that in the application of the Act the men can be secured in Canada, and without injury, I believe, to the country. No judge of the land interpreting the law is not able and competent within the sphere of his own jurisdiction to remit the sentence of any criminal and release him; he is, however, liable to appeal, and so is this tribunal. All these appeals come before a final court, and it is for that final court to interpret this statute, just as it is for the final court in the land to interpret other statutes. That is a very brief statement of the principle of all enactments that are left in their working out to judicial or semi-judicial tribunals. I know of no other way of effecting the end desired, but I should be very glad of suggestions from the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to how he would work out selective drafts if he had charge of the matter himself.


Frank Oliver: What I would say is this. I am not in favour of the principle of selective draft as it seems to be understood by the framers of this Bill. I certainly think that the principle embodied in the Militia Act, and which has recently been adopted by the United States, is a very much more desirable principle, because it is based on fairness, while the principle here is based absolutely on unfairness, and we are leaving the administration of the Act entirely to the good-will and honesty of the tribunals. Now that is not our business. Our business is to see that legislation passing through our hands is safeguarded so that it will he as little dependent as possible on the good-will or
honesty of those charged with its administration. That is our share of the responsibility, and I should be glad to assist in discharging my share of the responsibility.
If my hon. friend cannot bring down to this House a system of selective draft that will guarantee fair play between man and man, and between section and section of this country, then he should not bring down this measure at all. But as he proposes this selective system it is up to him and his colleagues to' bring before the House some measure that will guarantee that fairness which it is our responsibility as members of this Hu use to see embodied in the provisions of this or any other compulsory service Bill.


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General
(Mr. Meighen), in the innocence of his heart, believes he has a system here which will -bring about, so far as any human system can, just what my hon. friend desires, namely, a fair system of selection. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I have asked in vain for a better system from my hon. friend. He -has referred very vaguely to the United States system. Will he explain to the House wherein the United States system differs for the better from this?


Frank Oliver: I cannot. I am not familiar with the United States system, but I know this: In the United 'States system there is .an enumeration of -the people. There is also a distribution of responsibility according to population, and after selection has been -made there is a balloting as between those who have been selected. That is a guarantee of fair play as between state and state, as between man and man, and as between occupation and occupation. But there is no provision of that character in this Bill. I do not ask my hon. friend, when he brings in -a Bill, to bring in such a Bill as was introduced in the United States, but I ask when he is 'bringing in a Bill based upon the selective system, that such a measure be introduced as will guarantee a fair selection; that is -all I.n&k.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend .states
that the United States' system differs from ours in two particulars. First, there is an allotment of a certain number of men from each state. If my hon. friend is anxious that that system be introduced into Canada would he be good enough to say so, and .state how he would make the allotment? In the second place, he thought that the balloting added to the fairness. Will he

,be good enough to explain how the introduction of a hit-and-miss selection by ballot is going to add to the fairness of selection?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is pushing his inquiries very closely, and if I am compelled to answer him I will say very frankly that the system of selection 'by ballot has been considered the fairest system since the foundation of the world and since people began to count.


Arthur Meighen: How does it apply unless there are more men available, after all useful and necessary occupations have been filled, than the number of men required? Does my hon. friend think there are more men available after all useful and necessary occupations have been filled, than are required here?


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to say that I do not. I think the condition of our country at the present time is such that we need all the men we have. But, very properly, we have made up our minds to send more men, and in doing that I say that we should be scrupulously exact in making our selection on principles of absolute fair play. But when I look into the Bill and make inquiries of the Solicitor General I find that there is no provision whatever in the Bill for fair play as between man and man, as between occupation and occupation, or as between section and section of our country. Now I say, unless it is possible to so embody the views of the Government in regard to selective conscription as to give that assurance to the people, they should not have brought in the system, or they should'bring in some other system under which it would be possible for us to guarantee fair play to those we represent. I am sorry to say, I am not able to do this under the provisions of this Bill, because I have not, as a matter of fact, the same faith in the fair dealing in any act of administration on the part of my hon. friend and his colleagues as I would have in what the Premier calls the blind system of choice by ballot.


Arthur Meighen: I have only to observe that I failed to get any statement from the member from Edmonton as to how he would divide the one hundred thousand men among the different provinces of Canada. Secondly, I was not convinced that under a state of affairs where we required all the men not necessary for the essential productions of the war, the introduction of a system of luck is going to add to 
the fairness in getting the men who are required. I simply laid these two sentences before the House. I do not think the matter admits of further discussion.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has stated that this provision is based upon the British law, and he says that in as much as the British law has worked well under corresponding circumstances, this law should work well here. I had the honour to read to the House some little time ago what appeared to me to be reliable information as to the working of the British law, and I may perhaps be pardoned if I re-read some part of this information. I think it will be agreed that if this information is even measurably correct, it not only bears out everything I have said in expressing doubts as to the possibility or the probability of fair play in the administration of this measure, but it absolutely assures that fair play is not to be expected under that administration.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. gentleman
is laying an indictment on a most important question before the House, and does not specify one thing. In broad general terms he sweeps the whole Act right out without specifying a single thing. Surely the indictment must be gone into and the evidence submitted to a grand jury like, this, or the complaint will not hold.


Frank Oliver: I like to hear the sound of my hon. friend's voice. The evidence I desire to bring before the House in regard to the administration of this unrestricted selective provision in England is contained in the correspondence of one Lacey Amy, which appeared in the Toronto Saturday Night of June 16. Mr. Amy says:
Tribunals all through the country continue to hand out exemptions to huntsmen, variety artists, store managers, clerks, luxury manufacturers, frankly declaring that their mission is "to protect local industry." One district alone granted 30,000 exemptions during the past fourteen weeks.


Mr. BURRELL:: Will my hon. friend permit me. I think this is rather a serious criticism, and the House is entitled to know the status of Mr. Amy. That is a very sweeping statement to make.


Frank Oliver: A very sweeping statement, Mr. Chairman, in regard to a very important question. I am not responsible for Mr. Amy. He is the regular correspondent of Toronto Saturday Night, and I presume is a reputable person. Saturday Night has a very wide circulation throughout the Do-

minion of Canada as a reputable paper, and I presume its correspondent in London is a reputable man. At any rate, on my responsibility as a member of this House, I placed those words on Hansard some two or three weeks ago, and it was within the province of the Government to verify or secure a contradiction of the statements made Iby Mr. Amy, in the interval which has elapsed. Apparently this has not been done; therefore, I must ask that Mr. Amy's indictment stand.
There is another side to this question, which is. perhaps, even more important than that which I have already mentioned. I wish to quote what Mr. Amy has to say in regard to it:-
The failure to comb out the eligibles in the munition factories is a bit of inside history that should be made public for the enlightenment of those who would use drastic measures.
It will be observed, we are proposing to pass a law heie which contemplates the exemption of employees in munition factories; you will notice, Mr. Amy is speaking about the failure to comb out eligibles in munition factories in England.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is the exemption of employees in munition factories to be found in the Act?


Frank Oliver: It is contained in subsection (a) when read in connection with the last clause on the first page of the preamble. It either means that, or the preamble has no purpose at all. Mr. Amy's statement is a somewhat lengthy explanation of a very serious situation, but I desire to place it before the House, because I consider it has a bearing on the situation in which we find ourselves in Canada, not in exactly the same connection, (but in another which I consider closely parallel:-
The political strength of labour in England is too well known to need elaboration here. Only the harsh necessities of war, backed by a coalition government, could have enforced the policy of dilution of labour early entered upon. Labour responded' willingly enough, especially as it did not carry with it at that time any policy of substitution. For with dilution came a guarantee not to conscript the members of the twenty-five unions concerned.
But unforeseen difficulties cropped up, and events approached a crisis in the fall of last year. The unions, in what they considered self-protection, had insisted that the new men should join the unions and receive the union wage. And gradually the new blood outnumbered the old; and as it was made up of youthful fellows, the majority of whom had entered the factories to escape khaki (and they admit it with shocking complacency) its principles, and methods slowly crept into the ascendency. And, of course, its main object
was to continue to draw five pounds a week) in clover instead of a shilling a day before the German guns.
Fully to appraise the menace of this condition, one should remember that these men were guaranteed exemption, that they control the unions which control the make-up of the dismissals for service. The attempt of the Government to overcome that obstacle by ruling that only the skilled should be exempt was frustrated by the unions demanding of the company managements that all employees be termed skilled-even the porters and workmen about the yards. A few were combed out here and there, but very few.
Finally the Government and the leaders of the unions devised a scheme. It was intended to nut an end to the domination of the new blood^-whose shirking did not commend itself to labour leadership, an essentially loyal body of men in the main-and to secure for the army the needed recruits. The Government announced the cancellation of all trade union cards and war service certificates. The plan was to re-issue them only to the skilled. It looked good. But the shirkers were wise. Working strictly in local bodies only, for the leaders would not sanction it, the stewards put it bluntly to their managers. I know of factories where the entire body of workers threatened to strike if a single man was taken by the Government. They knew that not one could be combed out without the consent of the manager; and local fealty had cemented the old and the new membership through previous wage troubles.
It is clear that the experience in England does not justify leaving the discretion and the authority as to the enforcement of the principle of compulsory military service under this Bill to the tribunals appointed and empowered as these tribunals are expected to he. It has not worked in England, and if it did not work in England it certainly will not work in this country, because there is a respect for constituted authority, for precedent and for right doing because it is right, in England, that, I am sorry to say, does not exist to the same extent in this country.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not believe that. That is a libel on this country.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps it is and again perhaps it is not. At any rate, I am standing here on my responsibility as a member of this Parliament to say that the rights of the people are not properly safeguarded under the provisions of this Bill. I am asking that they be safeguarded. If they cannot be safeguarded under the provisions of this Bill, the Government has no right to put through suoh a Bill, and they should bring forward some other Bill based on principles that would permit the safeguarding of the rights of the people, and which would give us an assurance that there would be equal justice between man and man,

between industry and industry and between section and section of this country.


Arthur Meighen: There is no doubt at all that in the working out of the British Act difficulties were encountered, and they did not succeed in obtaining all the results aimed at. I do not know of any Act in Britain or in Canada that ever did succeed in attaining all the results aimed at. But I cannot understand the state of mind of a member of this House who concludes that because somebody writes to the newspaper, even the Toronto Saturday Night, that there were imperfections in the working out of the British Act, the Act is valueless and worthless. If the hon. gentleman is to reach conclusions on the face of a letter in a newspaper written by some one he does not know, I am afraid he will be driven by his logic to very strange conclusions regarding himself. We can put in a nutshell the difference between my hon. friend's suggestion and our own. He refers to essential industries such as munition works, and he has in mind other essential industries such as agriculture. He alleges that in England, owing to the weakness perhaps of some of the tribunals in certain spots, there were exemptions of variety artists, pool room artists and the like of that. That may well be. If these things did happen they are being cured by appeals to the central tribunal. The same things may occur here, but they will be cured in like manner. But take the system proposed by my hon friend-here is a farmer with 200, or 160, acres of land all alone on that farm. Right beside him, in the neighbouring village, there is a pool room loafer and the question comes as to what is the best method of selecting one or the other to go to the front for military service. We have the tribunal named under the method proposed here. We place the pool room loafer and the farmer side by side and we leave it to the tribunal to decide which of the two ought to go and which ought to remain at home. Is there a common sense man in this country, is there a member of this House, who would doubt what the decision of the tribunal would be? The pool room loafer would go and the farmer would stay at home to work his farm. What would my hon. friend do? He would take these two men, stand them up side by side, take two straws and have some one there to see who gets the longer straw and who gets the shorter. If the pool room loafer draws the longer straw, he stays safely at home and the farmer goes to the front. That is what my hon.

friend says is absolutely fair and has been found to be the right method of getting men to go to the front.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I would like to interject for the benefit of Hansard that I did not suggest any such thing.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that no hon. member understood him to suggest anything else. He wants to follow the lot system. Let the hon. gentleman tell this House how he intends that system to work out. He wants us to divide these 100,000 men among the provinces of Canada. I would ask him again to say how he is going to divide them among the provinces and how many to each?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is giving me a great deal of personal attention and I shall be glad to give him the information he wants. The authorities were good enough to hand out the other day a statement as to the population of Canada, giving the number of people of Canadian birth, of British birth, and of foreign birth, and the different ages-the ages, I presumed, that are covered by the Bill. My suggestion in regard to the levy would be this: I would make up my mind how many of these classes I propose to call.


Arthur Meighen: What classes would my hon. friend call?


Frank Oliver: Whatever number of
classes I considered necessary.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to saying what classes he would call?


Frank Oliver: It is not necessary, it is not to the point but I have no objection. Incidentally, and without further consideration, I would say that I would begin at the youngest class and call successive classes until I had covered as many as I thought would be needed. Then, according to population as here laid down, if I were willing to take that estimate, I would credit to each province the number of men that it had enlisted and who had gone overseas or were available for overseas service. Then I would require of each of the several provinces the balance of the men necessary to make up the quota.


Arthur Meighen: On the basis of population?


Frank Oliver: On the basis of population; not all the population but the population which is available for service. I do not

see any other way in which it could be done that would be considered fair.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member make any distinction as to districts pi provinces, or would he take each province as a unit?


Frank Oliver: I certainly would not. I would treat Canada as a country.


Arthur Meighen: I will figure how that
would work out.


Frank Oliver: I am not saying that under circumstances as they are in Canada, on the mandate of a self-elected Parliament, I would undertake for one moment to enforce a compulsory service Bill. Do not let my hon. friend imagine that for a moment. While I believe in compulsory military service equally distributed over the whole country, I believe in it only if it has the support of the majority of the whole people of Canada. I would not propose to support it in defiance of or without having the support of the majority of the people. What I have laid before my hon. friend npw in answer to his insistent inquiry is the only kind of a compulsory service that I could feel myself warranted in supporting. If I could not support that I could not support any.


George Henry Bradbury: Has any other country a system like that?


Frank Oliver: I think every other country except Canada. The United States-


George Henry Bradbury: A ballot system?


Frank Oliver: Surely. In regard to the ballot, if I was bringing a Bill for compulsory military service before this House, I would select by authority of Parliament those who would be exempt from the operations of that Bill, and if we had more men than, we wanted, I would select by ballot those who should go. I would do what I have asked my hon. friend to do and what he refuses, that is to lay down the principles of exemption.


Arthur Meighen: But we do.


Frank Oliver: There is no use our disputing about that. My view is that he absolutely does not. He brings forward a section here.under which, and I have challenged the House to disprove my statement-every citizen of Canada may be exempted. I say that I would not bring such a Bill before this House.


Arthur Meighen: What principles of exemption would you propose to substitute for these principles?


Frank Oliver: It is not a question of
principles but of details. We are asking the minister for details and he will not give them.


Arthur Meighen: What would be his details?


Frank Oliver: It is not possible to go into all the details. My hon. friend has incubated this Bill for a number of weeks; he has had the benefit of all the lore that has been accumulated on the subject of compulsory military service Bills in all countries, and he has not been able-


Arthur Meighen: Give us one detail.


Frank Oliver: -or is not willing to come before this House with any details whatever that would guarantee fair play under the administration of that clause.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman explain how his ballot system would work?


Frank Oliver: I want to be a little explicit as to why I feel as deeply interested in this matter as I do. I have studied this population chart that has been distributed, and I have taken the figures given by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro) in regard to enlistments in Canada. I find that, when we consider the numbers of men who have gone from different sections of the country, there is a condition existing that was not taken into consideration in the figures which he gave, but is taken into consideration in the chart placed before this House. In the western provinces there is a large population of citizens of alien origin, some of them of alien enemy origin-many thousands of them. It is proposed by certain gentlemen on the Government side in this House that these people shall be disfranchised, I presume because they are not in all respects desirable citizens. It is obvious that you cannot expect from that section of the population the same enthusiasm in the matter of voluntary enlistment that we have from people of British or Canadian birth. As a matter of fact, we have not had that response from those people that we have had from people of Canadian or British birth, so that if we take the figures as contained in this chart and take that part of the population from which, as a matter of fact, we did draw the large proportion of our soldiers under voluntary enlistment, we find that the proportion of men who have gone from those western provinces, and particularly from the province of Alberta, under

voluntary enlistment, is so much greater than the proportion going from any other province, that we have a right to ask that in any conscription Bill that is placed before this House, there shall be consideration of that fact. There are in Canada of native and British-born, 1,295,000 people of the military age set out in this chart, that is between the ages of 20 and 45. Of that number we are told 418,000 have enlisted; that is 32 per cent. In Ontario of that .age and of those nationalities, there *are 472,000, of whom 168,000 have enlisted, or 36 per cent. In Quebec there are 327,000, of whom 44,000 have enlisted, or 13 per 'Cent. In Nova Scotia there are 84,000 men of whom 22,300 have enlisted, or 26 per cent. In New Brunswick there are
58,000	men, of whom 17,500 have enlisted, or 29 per cent. In Prince Edward Island there are 14,738 men, of whom 2,700 have enlisted, or 18 per cent. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan (that is one military district) there are 173,000 men, of whom 79,000 have enlisted, or 45 per cent. In Alberta there are 63,000 men, of whom 35,000 have enlisted, or 55 per cent. In British Columbia there are 90,000 men, of whom 39,000 have enlisted, or 43 per cent. I submit that, that being the condition of affairs, we are entitled to some guarantee in the administration of this Act that the sacrifices that have been made voluntarily in that country .shall be recognized, and that the interests of those provinces and people shall be protected, as they are npt protected under the wide-open provisions of this Bill.


Martin Burrell: I am affected in this matter much as the hon. gentleman is. Might I point out that we shall be protected to this extent, that the number of available men under the first three classes will be naturally infinitely smaller in his own province and in mine than in some other provinces.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Martin Burrell: In the Okanagan valley, in my own constituency, about 500 men have gone to the front, and there is hardly a man of the proper age in a medically fit condition left in the whole country, so that the protection would really come naturally.


Frank Oliver: That is what we want-we want the protection to come naturally. But when I read the Bill, and see the exemption provision, which says that it is expedient in the national interest that the man, instead of being employed in military service,
fMr. Oliver.]
should be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged, and when I listen, as I have listened during the past three days, to assertions and reiterations that the voluntary enlistment of men in this country was held up by the authority of the Government for the advantage of certain interests in eastern Canada, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not satisfied that we, the people of western Canada, are going to get a square deal under this Bill at the hands of this Government; and it is for that reason that I ask that there be some guarantee, if guarantee can be given, on the face of the Bill. We in the West have enlisted without suggesting a complaint of any kind whatever. We have asked for nothing but the privilege of service. We have given that service as no other part of Canada has done; and now, when the honour of voluntary enlistment is to be taken away, we are to be put under a compulsory law, which, on the face of it, and in the light of the statements made in this House within the last three days, is deliberately intended for the purpose of combing our men of the West and protecting the munition factories in the East. If that is not the reason, it is easy to find words in the English language to show that it is not the reason, and put them on the face of the Bill.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: It seems to me that to carry out the hon. 'gentleman's view we will either have to go into minute detail, not only as to the class of person to be exempt, but as to the actual persons themselves, because there are many members of exempted classes whose duty to enter military service is just as clear as that of members of other classes who are not exempt. In my opinion we must either leave a certain discretion to the judgment of the authorities, as we do in all other matters, or we have to give details, such as the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) could not give this afternoon. I think my hon. friend will find himself in very deep water, if he is going to give .sufficient detail to enable the judge to actually identify every, man according to those details. I point out to my hon. friend that the first three subsections of section 11 exempt a man on national grounds; the other three exempt him on private grounds. I also point out that, under the New Zealand Act, which, so far as selection is concerned, has worked very favourably, the exemptions are much less specific than the exemptions of the present Bill. The only exemptions under that Act are as follows:-

(c)	That by reason of his occupation his calling-up for military service is contrary to the public interest.
(d)	That by reason of his domestic circumstances or for any other reason his calling-up for military service would be a cause of undue hardship to himself or others.
Apart from the other two sections, those are the only two exemptions. One is in the public interest and the other covers the private interest. The sections are much less specific than the sections of the present Bill. The British Bill, which has been referred to by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), is about in the same terms as the measure (before us. It is practically framed upon the ground of national interest. My hon. friend will observe the words " national interest " are used in the first three subsections. You can practically put all these in one provision, and say that if in the national interest a man should not go, the tribunal should exempt him. The other class relates to private interests. In the United States Act, dealing with the class in question, the exemptions are:
Persons engaged in industries including agriculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment, or the effective operation of the military forces, or the maintenance of national interest during the emergency.
It all comes 'back again to the question of national interest, So that either we must go into such details that the Bill would *be unworkable or unjust, or lay down such general principles as have been placed in the Bill for the guidance of the judge, and leave him to make the selection. It seems to me we cannot make any other provisions. We cannot go to one extreme or the other. For my part, I would prefer to adopt what has 'been done in Great Britain, the United States and New Zealand.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to push this matter, but if the Government is intent upon following its policy, it has supporters behind it to enable it to carry out that policy; but I want to say that, in my humble judgment, there is no parity between the conditions in New Zealand and this country, or between those of the United States and this country. We have nothing on record to show that the Government of New Zealand, prior to the adoption of compulsory military service, was absolutely in league with certain industries of the country to prevent voluntary enlistment. That is the condition we have in Canada, and that is a condition that I, for one, consider [DOT]most serious, when we are looking at this
matter as we have to look at it. We must recognize that while in one breath we are told that this Bill is for the purpose of finding men who will maintain our honour and the strength of the Empire in the bloody trenches of Flanders, in the next breath we are told that the purpose of the Bill is to maintain the industries of Canada. I wanted the provision to be one way or the other. If we have to maintain the strength of our contingent in France, let us frame a Bill that will do that honestly *and fairly, hut let us not, under the pretence of supporting our men who are at the front to-day put through a Bill, the real purpose of which will 'be to protect the interest, the advantage, the pockets, of the [DOT]munition profiteers, in Hamilton or Toronto, or in Sydney, the men who, it is admitted, successfully used pressure on this Government to secure the letting up of voluntary enlistment in their neighbourhood.


William Folger Nickle: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman from Edmonton, in the argument he advances* totally overlooks the fact that to organize a democracy such as Canada for the successful prosecution, of the war, you must vest in some impartial tribunal or tribunals somewhere the right of deciding who shall go and who shall stay. I am quite ready to admit that long ago I got 'beyond the position of regarding what this province had done, or what that province had done, in reference to this war. It has been admitted that some of the provinces have done more than others. I think the hon. gentleman from Edmonton is right in saying that the province of Alberta has done singularly well. Other provinces perhaps have not borne their fair share of the sacrifice. But, surely, after almost three years of war, we have reached the decision that we as Canadians, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, can regard the fact that Canada is *at war and that the situation is serious.
The member for Edmonton says that this Bill is not fair as between man and man. I listened with great care to what he said in this committee and tried to gather what he meant when he said that the Bill was not fair as between man and man. If I correctly interpreted his words, he means this: No tribunal will be able to arrange any scheme of administration that wi'l make equality of sacrifice. I quite agree with my hon. friend in that; it is absolutely impossible, in a war like this, to secure equality of sacrifice. But is that any reason



why we should stop? If men are wanted at the front, and if there are men who can go without affecting the national interest even though the sacrifice on their part be great, I as a Canadian say, let them go. If other men are required for the production of food or the manufacture of munitions, though their task be less onerous and involved in less danger, let them stay at home and do the work they can best do if that work is essential to the maintenance of our national position and the strength of the Allies. Any man who has studied the progress of the war from its inception up to the present cannot help being impressed with the fact that our almost suffering defeat in the early days of the war was due to lack of munitions. Any man who has watched the strategy of the war during the last year and who has observed the successes at Albert Ridge, Messines Ridge and Vimy Ridge must recognize that it was preponderance of artillery that made possible the advance of the infantry. Why should we not look at the whole matter in a broad way? Some men will be called upon to give more than others. But there are greater sacrifices than those made by the men who go to the front. The great sacrifice is made by the man who stays at home realizing that he should go and could go but does not go; because that man sacrifices his individuality and his honour. What I say of that man I say of the fathers and mothers who are keeping their boys home: they are sacrificing their sons in keeping them back more than other men are sacrificing their sons in letting them go.
I do not think that the amendment that has been proposed adds anything to the Bill. On one side you have military service; on the other side you have national necessity. If the tribunals act fairly as between man and man, and if national service tabes preference over military service, then national service will prevail; but where military service takes priority over national service, military service will prevail. In other words, each case will be considered on its merits. We must assume that the tribunals will act fairly. No doubt there will be cases of individual hardship; oases where, perhaps, justice is not done as between man and man. To err, we know, is human. But we -must trust to somebody the responsibility of seeing that the Act is fairly enforced. I started out a wann friend of the voluntary system. I followed it during many months of effort to obtain recruits;
I was active in the district from which I
{Mr. Nickle.]
come in assisting in the attempt to get more men. But I was driven to the conclusion that the voluntary system was extravagant and wasteful, and that it had become inefficient. Reaching this conclusion after long experience and careful study of the situation, I came to the further conclusion that we must have conscription. If the maximum efficiency of Canada is to be attained, surely it can only be by the taking of those who are not wanted at home. The member for Edmonton challenged me to give instances of men who would not be excused on the ground of national necessity.


Frank Oliver: Who could not be?


William Folger Nickle: Who could not be? You might as well say there would be no criminals in Oanada if ia judge should exclude all persons on the ground that they were not guilty. But judicial functions are not performed in that way. The facts are laid before the -tribunals; the evidence is weighed pro and con. Wie assume that the men we place in responsible positions exercise wise discretion and reach their conclusions upon the evidence and the facts presented to them. The same principle that guides our courts of law will guide those tribunals, and if these principles are carried out, the men who can be spared will go and those who cannot be spared will stay at home to do the national work. My hon. friend challenged me to give instances. I know dozens of men iin my own riding-and it is a district that has not given ungenerously to this cause-who can be spared to go to the front and who are willing to go provided the sacrifice is equally borne throughout the country.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: They are willing to set
to one side all that has been done. They say: Although we have given liberally of our Ibest-more, perhaps than we are called upon to give-we are willing to start all over again. If you make this measure apply with equality from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we shall do our duty tp the utmost limit of our power.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has referred to the patriotism of those who say that they take no account pf what has been done; that they are prepared to go on an equality now. That is very generous on their part, considering what they have dpne as compared with what other people have done. What I say is that those who have given of their best in the past are willing to

keep on giving of their best under the voluntary system without quarrelling with their neighbours whether they have done their best or not. When we are being put under a conscriptive system; when the glory, if you like, of voluntarism is to be taken from us, then we demand a square deal; that is all we ask. Everything my hon. friend has said has pointed to the fact that there is an object in this Bill which is not the filling of the line in France and Flanders. It is a Bill with a double purpose; one to find the men for the fighting line, and the other to protect certain home industries. Let the Government bring forward such a Bill as was introduced in New Zealand, for the sole purpose of filling the fighting line, and we can forego details that we demand in regard to this measure. But when a Bill is brought before us which is intended for a double purpose, then those who have done as we have done and who will be called as we shall be called upon under the terms of this Bill, certainly have a Tight to know how much of this Bill is to be for France and how much of it is to be for Hamilton. The idea that we have gained from the explanation of this Bill is that the 'man who is necessary in 'Canada should stay in Canada. Is that right? Am I misinterpreting the expressions of the Solicitor General?


Arthur Meighen: That is fairly correct.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend says that is fairly correct. Do I interpret correctly the sentiments of the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) when I say that the principle of the Bill is that the man who is necessary in Canada should stay in Canada?


William Folger Nickle: Where it is in the greater national interest that the man should stay in Canada rather than go to the front, then he should stay in Canada.


Frank Oliver: And what does that mean? It means that the fit men shall stay and that the unfit men shall go. Are you going to beat the Hun with an army made up on such a principle as that? We have an efficient army at the front to-day, not because our unfit men went, but because our fit men [DOT]went. That is the sacrifice that Canada has made. She sent not of her worst, but of her best, and the consequence is that we have an army of which any country might bo proud. And we are going to maintain such an army as that by a conscriptive system the very basic principle of which is that the good man shall stay in 204J
Canada and that the man who is not good enough for Canada shall go to the firing line.
It is the same principle that was recognized in the decision of a city magistrate which I laid before the House some time ago. A man convicted of horse stealing was pardoned or granted ticket-of-leave to enlist in the Engineers for overseas service. I am told-it may not be true, but the Solicitor General will know whether it is or not-that the very jails of Canada were combed and promises given of pardon or ticket-of-leave if men would go to the firing line. If those are the principles under which this Conscription Bill is to be enforced, I do not think it will be of any credit to Canada, and I do not think we shall have any efficient reinforcement of the fighting line.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is as well to refer to the latter suggestion of the hon. member, which is exactly on the same basis as the letter he read to the House on Saturday from a man he did not know, and which had absolutely no truth in it. The only difficulty I find in answering my hon. friend is in piecing together from his remarks such connected and tangible sentences as possibly might be placed together as an argument to be refuted; I find great difficulty in doing that. When he says that he cannot have confidence in our tribunals I understand him, because I do not think he would have confidence in anything established while the present Government is in power. With any hon. gentleman who reasons in the haphazard manner of my hon. friend from Edmonton it is all a matter of luck whether he supports the Government or not-all a matter of luck what conclusion he happens to come to first. My hon. friend from Edmonton has come to the oppO'Site conclusion, and we will let it go at that. But because the principle of the Bill is as it was plainly stated to be, namely, that U man who it is decided can best serve the national interests, in France shall go to France, and the man stay at home who can best serve the national interests by working in Canada, he says the effect will' be to send the cripples to France and keep the strong men in Canada. There is no sense whatever in that argument.


Frank Oliver: Would my hon. friend be good enough to keep within a thousand miles of the facts when quoting me? My hon. friend surely knows that it is the spirit within the man that counts, and that that is more important than his bodily condition.


Arthur Meighen: That is very true, hut 1 *do not know what it has to do with the definition of the intent of this Act as stated *by the hon. member for Kingston, and accepted by the hon. member for Edmonton, from which he argued that the effect would he to send the cripples to France and keep the strong men in Canada.


Frank Oliver: Just cut out the cripples, please. Even if it did send a few cripples to France it would be doing no more than has already been done in hundreds of cases, according to the Bruce report.


Arthur Meighen: There may have been inaccurate medical examinations, even in the city of Edmonton. The hon. member argues that the New Zealand Act is entirely different. He says that their Act is quite fair.


Frank Oliver: I did not say that it was a fair Act. I said that the conditions in New Zealand were not on a parity with conditions in Canada, because we have no evidence that New Zealand was in league with .the manufacturing interests to discourage -*voluntary recruiting.


Arthur Meighen: He stated that the New Zealand Act laid down principles for exemption that were quite fair. What are the principles set out in the New Zealand Act for exemption?	*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before giving the exemptions would the Solicitor General explain the principle of their Act? I am not acquainted with it, and I do not think many hon. members are, and it might be well to have the explanation on Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: The New Zealand Act was passed on the 1st of August, 1916. It was not taken as an initial step in enlistment in that country, but after a long period of voluntary recruiting, just as in Canada. There is no division in their Act by sections; it proceeds on the very same principles as this Bill. It does not say to one province in New Zealand, as the hon. member for Edmonton would do: You have not sent as imany men as another province; consequently, you must raise men until your proper quota is reached. The principle of the New Zealand Act is the principle of this Act. It says to the slacker in one province as to the slacker in another province: Your place is in the fighting line, and to the fighting line you must go. The principle of this Act recognizes that there are those who ought to be in France in every province

in Canada, no matter how many have already gone from that province; that is absolutely true. I appeal to the hon. member for Edmonton and other hon. members from his province whether they have not said that in their own constituencies there are men who obviously ought to be in France. Would the hon. member for Edmonton put it into the mouth of those men to say: We are slackers, it is true, and our proper place is across the Atlantic fighting for this country, but because our neighbours who should have stayed at home and worked in Canada have gone to the front, therefore, we are exempt. That is the principle the hon. member wants embodied in this Bill. We say to the man who is a slacker-perhaps that is too strong a term to use of all, because many a man may have, to go who may not necessarily be a slacker-but to the man who approaches the slacker in any degree we say: No matter -whether you are in the province of Manitoba, or Nova Scotia or British Columbia or Quebec, you shall be assigned to the place where your services will be most valuable to this country; you shall go to France. We do not allow a man to escape his just duty to his country merely by the assertion: I am a citizen of Edmonton, or a constituent in the province of Alberta. That is the difference between our Act and the Act that would be framed by the hon. member for Edmonton.
The New Zealand is a much longer Act than ours, but I see no difference between the two in principle. It is over six weeks since I read their Act for such information as it could give me in the preparation of our own, and I can recall nothing in it that differs at all from the principle of our Act.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: When Sir Joseph Ward was here he told me that the New Zealand Act provided for a certain quota from each of the 22 districts into which New Zealand had been divided. He said there was rivalry between the different districts to make up their quota, and that the voluntary system was proceeding very satisfactorily even though they had a conscriptive law. That is quite different from the way the Solicitor General puts it.


Arthur Meighen: The Act is before me and I have made inquiries as to its contents, and my opinion is confirmed that it does not call for a fixed quota from any district; that was their plan under the voluntary system only. I do not know whether my hon. friend from St. John is in favour

of the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton.


William Pugsley: All that I proposed to state was what Sir Joseph 'Ward had told me.	-


Arthur Meighen: I did not think my hon. friend would say he was in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Edmonton is usually very sound in his views.


Arthur Meighen: But there are exceptions, my hon. friend will admit.


William Pugsley: Very rarely.


Charles Marcil: Is any number of men specifically mentioned in the New Zealand Act?


Arthur Meighen: I think not.


Charles Marcil: As there is to be no registration in Canada, how do the Government propose to ascertain the number of men available for the firing line? Will a census be taken in every municipality, or will the Government wait for the men to report? If the men do not report, what will happen to them? If 200,000 men report and only
100,000	are needed, how will the selections be made?


Arthur Meighen: We will find out how many men are available by the number of men who report. We do not anticipate that there will be failure to report. We have confidence that the people of Canada in every part of this country will obey the law and report, and from that reporting we shall know the number available for service from each class as it is called. My hon. friend asks what we shall do if too many report. In the first place, it is quite clear that there will not be too many. From the first class there will not be 100,000, probably not half of that, but after the first class has been called we shall be able to tell how many the second class will produce, and if there is any-possibility that it will provide too many the principle we shall follow will be to divide it into subclasses. Should there be only some very few over, I will not say what should'be done, but I will say what might be done. The men might be taken in order of age, the older ones being released, until the exact number required was obtained.


Charles Marcil: I put the question because I saw by the papers last week that the Minister of Inland Eevenue had been making a calculation which was published in an interview in the Quebec papers that 10 men from each of the 1,200 municipalities in the province of Quebec would produce 12,000 men. Montreal would give 10,000, according to its population, bringing it up to 22,000. Quebec would give 1,000, making 23,000, and 3,000 more would be found in the other smaller towns, bringing the quota up to 25,000. I do not know whether this was really said by the minister or not, or whether it w.as authorized, or is really the intention of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: I saw some report of
the suggestion. I simply observe that it differs very radically from the views of the member for Edmonton.


Charles Marcil: It would not convey the
Government policy?


Arthur Meighen: The Government policy is embodied in this Act. The New Zealand Act uses these words on the question of exemption:
[DOT]-is exempted lor that by reason of his occupation, his calling-up lor military service is contrary to the public interest.
(h) that by reason of his domestic circumstances or for any other reason, his calling-up for military service would be a cause of undue hardship to himself or others.
It will be seen the door is still wider open and that the principles are more indefinite in the New Zeealand Act than in this Act. We state the reasons, but we do not state that any reason would be sufficient.
- Sir WILFEID LAUBIEE: We have had a very interesting discussion, and it shows the weakness of this Act, which, perhaps, is inherent in it and cannot be cured. Section 2 provides that every man is liable to service. My hon. friend from. Edmonton submitted an -argument, which cannot 1)6 contradicted: that by paragraph (a) of section 11, while every man is liable to service every man can be exempted. - There is no possible exception. The weakness of this law is that you create a court to apply the law, and you establish no rules to guide the court-you establish no principle by which the court is to be governed. Subsection (b) of section II says:
(b) that it is expedient in the national interests that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he wishes to he engaged, and for which he has special qualifications.
Every man could come under this section. One hundred men or a thousand men might go before a court sitting in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in Manitoba, or elsewhere,

iand apply for exemption. They may all apply 'because they are engaged in some *useful occupation. One court will decide "yes, this man ought to go, and should not be exempted;" another court may say "he ought to be exempted." There is nothing *at all to guide the court except the arbitrary rule, or the common sense, or whatever you call it, of the judges. My hon-friend knows that it is very unsafe for courts of law to be left to their own arbitrary views. They should have some principle to guide them. My hon. friend suggested yesterday that the rules which would guide the court would be framed by the central judge. My hon. friend from Qu'-lAppelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) said to-day, and there is no possible answer to it, that it is not for the central judge to make any [DOT]rule. The central judge merely rules over the procedure for the application and carrying out of the Act, but he cannot make any rule which will be a guide, as a principle of law, of how the law is to be interpreted; that is something which should be done here. That is the weak part of this Act. I do not know that it can be remedied, [DOT]and I must say so frankly. It comes back tS what my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says, that he prefers the balloting system. If the balloting system is unsatisfactory, and it is unsatisfactory in many ways, it is satisfactory on this point -the balloting system cannot be accused of favouritism. Everybody comes up. He may Rave bad luck, or he may have good luck, Kut there is no possible favouritism. With the clause as it is now, you are sure to have recriminations, and sometimes these recriminations may be well-founded, because after all it depends on the sense of [DOT]one or of another as to how the Act is interpreted.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Edmonton has set forth a proposal, which is supported to a certain extent by the right bon. leader of the Opposition, and which, if it were carried to the extreme, would mean that Parliament sitting here, [DOT]or a committee of the House sitting here, should itself select the one hundred thousand men who are to go to the front under this provision. It is .perfectly apparent to all of us that any proposal of that kind is absolutely impracticable. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint some tribunal to determine who shall be called upon to go tie the front, and who shall remain at home ftiir the purpose of giving national service. There is only way of doing that, and that 
is by defining the principles in some such general terms, and by leaving the determination of the question to the tribunal. This is the *course we have .adopted. We have endeavoured to establish the tribunal in such a way that there can be no suspicion of unfairness or partiality, so- far as its personnel is concerned.


Charles Marcil: But, there might be incompetency among some of those local tribunals-inoompetency to grasp a situation, or_ to define national interest, as against military service.


Robert Laird Borden: There may possibly be inoompetency in a judge or in 1a magistrate occasionally, but it does not necessarily follow that this Parliament should undertake to adjudicate upon questions of civil rights arising between individuals in this country.


Charles Marcil: The ordinary judge has
a text of law which he follows. In this case, we do not seem to have any text by which those local tribunals are to be guided.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will remember that notwithstanding the fact that a judge has before him a text of law the records of the Appeal Courts in this country show that sometimes the judge does not arrive at the right conclusion upon that text.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It will be still worse when he has nothing to guide him.


Robert Laird Borden: He has something to guide him.


William Pugsley: Will my right hon. friend-


Robert Laird Borden: One at a time, please. I claim the right to finish my sentence, and I propose to do it after which my hon. friends may stand up one after another and bombard me with questions.
As far as principles can be settled and made applicable, they are settled and made applicable in this Bill. My right hon. friend says there may be a certain inherent difficulty in the framing of a measure of this character. I admit that, and we have endeavoured to meet that difficulty as best we could; moreover, we have met it in a more specific manner in this measure than it has been met in Great Britain or in New Zealand. What more can be asked? I venture to think that nothing more can reasonably be asked. We appoint a tribunal, we assure the fairness and impartiality of that tribunal as far as personnel is concerned, and we leave to the tribunal to determine
1LJ9B

as best it can, whether a man's service is more important to the nation in the occupation in which he is engaged than if he should be sent to the front for the performance of military service there. We have every desire to meet any reasonable suggestion from the members of the committee, but we really cannot reach the conclusion that any suggestion made so far would make the Bill fairer or more effective than it is in its present form.


George Perry Graham: Does that apply to all the suggestions made on every clause?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I was speaking of the suggestions made with respect to the matter now under discussion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I judge from the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that his impression of the provisions of the New Zealand National Service Bill somewhat differs from the view of the Solicitor General. The idea of the member for Edmonton as to the New Zealand Bill is rather the popular impression of it. I had always understood that that legislation provided for the division of New Zealand into zones, and that there was allocated to each zone a certain number of men who were to be produced periodically as required, and that if the number required was not forthcoming voluntarily the conscription law automatically applied and brought forth the deficiency in the quota in any one zone. I am not particularly interested in the matter, but obviously the New Zealand system will be referred to in the House and out of it, and it is as well that a precise statement in reference to that Act should be placed before the House. Therefore I hope that the Solicitor General will take advantage of the recess to inform himself carefully as to the New Zealand Act and give the House the advantage of the information.


Arthur Meighen: I still think that my hon. friend's impression of the New Zealand Military Service Act is wrong. The Act is now in the possession of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I read it a month or two ago. I think that what my hon. friend has reference to is that before the Compulsory Service Act came into force, they had certain Acts relating to voluntary enlistment under which divisions were made-as it were, the last dying gasps of the voluntary system. The Compulsory Service Act proceeds upon the principle that our Act proceeds upon, that is to get the men who ought to go wherever those men are, and it does not divide the country into districts. I will he very much surprised if my recollection is wrong.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend brings down that Act he might also bring down the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces Act, 1915.


Frank Oliver: If the minister has available a copy of the British and the American Acts they might be laid on the Table for our information.


Arthur Meighen: It is very difficult to get copies of the English Act although it is not so difficult to get the American Act; we will see that a copy of each is laid on the Table.


William Pugsley: Apparently my hon. friend the Solicitor General is in error. I find that by section 32, subsection 2 of the New Zealand Act it is provided that the Minister of Defence may divide New Zealand into such areas commonly called recruiting districts, as he thinks fit. Sir Joseph Ward was very clear in his expression to me. He said that there were 22 areas in New Zealand and that a certain quota had been allotted to each area. Before this section is disposed of, I would like to suggest to the Solicitor General that provision be made that all hearings of applications for exemption before the local tribunals, appeals to the appeal tribunals and possibly hearings before the central appeal judge, should be open to the public. I think that is absolutely essential in order to give the public confidence in the decision of these tribunals. This Bill provides that a man may not make applica-tiori on his own behalf but that application may be made by others. Under this measure the manager of a factory employing 5,000 men could make application for and on behalf of that large number of persons and the local tribunal might act upon that without the public having the slightest knowledge of what was going on. It is essential to the satisfactory administration of this law, that in reference to all applications the public should have an opportunity of being fully informed. They can only get that knowledge if the tribunr als are made public. I would hope that the Solicitor General would move an amendment to the Bill which would provide that all hearings shall be open to the public both for the taking of evidence and the presentation of argument. I think that is very desirable. I had thought of moving an amendment myself, but I would

hope that would not be necessary and that the Solicitor General would see the great desirability of having an amendment to that effect.
Then it has occurred to me to make another suggestion to my hon. friend and it is this: The idea of this proposed law is to in some way make everybody who is eligible for military service perform some service of a national character in case he is excused from going to the front. The Bill recognizes that there is a liability to serve, a liability on the part of a man to risk his life at the front, but it provides that he may be excused from the performance of that national duty if he will give his service to some other work which may be deemed to be equally in the national interest. It has occurred to me that if a man applies for exemption from service at the front he should be willing to serve the nation for the same compensation that a man gets who goes to the front. I have drafted an amendment, which is not quite in the form I should like to have it, but I venture to read it as a suggestion to the Solicitor General.
In making application for exemption on either of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), the application shall state the willingness of the man by, or on behalf of, whom the application is made, to continue in such work at a wage or salary fixed by the Governor in Council, or by persons designated by the Governor in Council, in the fixing of which regard shall he had to the rate of pay and separation allowance, if any, which would be allowed in respect to such man if he were placed on active service.
We have this anomaly to-day, that in munitions factories, as I have been told, girls with no experience are getting $25 to $30 a week, and young men without experience, who can simply handle a saw or an axe get $5 to $6 per day. A young man who goes to the front and risks his life gets $1.10 a day in addition to his separation allowance, if any, and also his hoard. I should think that if a man says: It is true that I am liable under this law; I am within the military age; I am bound to serve my country-I admit all that, but I want to give my service to the nation in another direction, he ought to state in his application that he is willing to accept the same compensation that he would h*ve received if he had gone to the front.


William Sora Middlebro: To whom would *he difference go?


William Pugsley: To the nation.


William Sora Middlebro: In what way?


William Pugsley: It should go to the nation. The munitions plants are all carried on for the nation, the Government would exercise a supervision over the wages, over the cost of manufacture, and the Empire and Canada would get the benefit of the saving.
Mr. MIDDLEBRCU You would have to reduce the contract price of the shell or the manufacturer would get the benefit.


William Pugsley: Clearly so. The Government could control that. In that way yon would be working out a plan of national service. It does seem to me that this is a matter which the Government ought to take hold of. One step in reducing the cost of manufacture would be to reduce wages, and if you should find in any munitions factory a thousand men who under this Act would be liable to go to the front, but who say that they prefer to serve in the munitions factory, then, as a condition of their being exempted from going to the front, they ought to he willing to serve for the soldier's rate of pay. If they serve for a lower rate of pay it will bring down wages all around, and the country will get the benefit. The cost pf munitions is simply enormous; it is out of all reason, I am told. Wages are two or three times what they ought to be. It makes no difference to the munition manufacturer what wages he pays; he adds the increased wages to the cost of the product, and the Canadian people and the people of the Empire are-paying the bill. I heard the Other day of the case of a young lady in Toronto-and I believe it is the fashion in Toronto for young women to work in munition factories; the idea has gone abroad that they are doing patriotic work- I am told that this young lady was placed upon the waiting list and was allowed .so much a day while waiting to be employed. When the time came for her employment she received about two or three times the [DOT] wages received by a soldier who has gone to the front. That is only an illustration of the large wages which are paid in these factories; unskilled workmen are getting three or four times as much as the boy gets who goes to the front and risks his life in the service of his country.
I would suggest these two amendments, one as to the hearings of all these tribunals being open to the public, and that hearings shall take place only after due public notice has been given; and the other that there should be a condition attached to the exempting of a man from military service, that condition being that he might be

placed in such service as the Government might desire to place him in in the national interest; that his compensation should be fixed by officials of the Government, and that in fixing that compensation due regard should be had to the compensation which the man would receive if he had responded to the call of his country and gone to the front instead of remaining here engaging in other work.


Arthur Meighen: I am pretty well in agreement with the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) as to the wisdom in general of having all the tribunals open to the public. As these tribunals are in the nature of law courts, they should be, as law courts in general, open to the public. Of course, every one knows at the hearing of any case it is within the power of the judge to clear the court room and make it a non-public sitting.


Wilfrid Laurier: For very substantial reasons.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Consequently my present impression is that it would be better to leave the Bill as it is, because the determination as to public sittings of the tribunals is a matter of procedure and of the constitution and practice of the court. Consequently it comes within the clause as to regulations which are to be framed by the Supreme Court judge, Known as the central appeal judge. I think that the central appeal judge would be better able to frame regulations as to public or non-pub-lie hearings in particular cases than this committee. There might be cases where it would be a gross injustice to an individual that the hearing should be in public; but in the main the hearings should certainly be public, and the principles that would apply should be practically the same as apply in courts of law.
The second amendment proposed is of a most radical and extraordinary character. If adopted in principle, much more if adopted in detail, it would mean a very radical and extraordinary change indeed in the whole commercial and industrial system of the country. I should be glad if the hon. member would supply me with a copy of the amendment at six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Bain in the Chair.
On section 11, Exemptions.


Edmond Proulx: Has the Solicitor General accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), that the local tribunals shall have power to exempt men of the agricultural class?


Arthur Meighen: I have made a note of the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman from Chambly and Vercheres. I cannot see, for the moment, that it will change the- legal effect of the Bill in any degree. The only reason why it might be reserved is that perhaps the amendment would make the object more clear.


Mr. NESBITT:: I think the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres would, perhaps, make it plainer, and, as it is included in the preamble, would certainly not do any harm, and would make clear the intention of the section. Therefore, I endorse his suggestion. I would not like to say that I agree with my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy), in his suggestion, because I think it is unnecessary. I think the Solicitor General, following the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), could very well take the opportunity, either in this Bill or in a concurrent Bill, to organize labour. Since the war started, we have wanted nothing greater than the organization of labour. We require that just as badly as we require an increase of taxation, which would exempt nobody, and would furnish more towards the expenses of the war as we go along. I hope the Minister of Finance is preparing a Bill, which he will introduce by the time this Bill is passed, which will impose a general and heavier taxation on the people, so that the people may pay a greater proportion of the expenses of the war, and so that less may be borrowed. There certainly will be a limit to our borrowing capacity before long, and it is not fair to the country that we should postpone until after the war, making provision for the enormous expenses of this.war. The country is more or less prosperous at the present time, and can well afford to pay more taxes. I do not refer to any special class, but I think that the people should in future pay more towards this war than they have in the past. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman from St. John, that the wages of the men throughout the country should be set on the same basis as the present pay to the soldiers, I am sorry to .say I cannot agree with him.


William Pugsley: I did not limit it to the present pay of the soldiers.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would create chaos in 'the labour (industry |of ;the country, which would be a very bad thing, and, furthermore, the mem could not live on the wages now being paid to the soldiers at the front; but I very strongly recommend that, either in this Bill or by some other means, the pay of the men going to the front should be materially increased. I see no reason on earth why this should not be done, and I am quite sure that it is not in proportion to the pay of other classes throughout the length and breadth of the country. If there is any one class in the world, at the present time, that should be well paid, it is the men who go to the front. It is not necessary for them to have more money while they are actually on the fighting line, buit the money could be saved for them so as to give them a start in life after they return. Now is the time to arrange that. We should not postpone it. I think the Government should take that into consideration at once, whether in connection with this Bill or not, I am not going to say, but provision should be made that the men who go to the fighting line should be more adequately compensated.


George Perry Graham: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that required by law?


George Perry Graham: I think it is.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, it is voluntary.


George Perry Graham: They are all doing it, anyway. They are getting the combined strength of the men and women of the United States, for the purpose of this war. That makes it evident that there should be another measure put through the House almost conjointly with this one, in reference to food control, which, though perhaps not just as essential, is only secondary in importance to this measure. The women take a very important part, as the food controller has ascertained and recognized. With a Bill to provide for the registration of all other powers, as well as this manpower Bill, we would be in a position to know, at every step, what we were doing.
The reason for that assertion of mine has been made evident here today by the remarks of the members for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), St. John (Mr. Pugsley), North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), and Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). In fact, all the speakers referred to the necessity of having men spared for agricultural purposes. If we had a full inventory of our powers we would know just what we had to start with. At present no one knows what raw material we have to work on, even in respect to this Bill. It is true that we have information based on some old census returns, hut we have no definite figures as to what our raw material is in the way of man-power.
The necessity for the Bill, which, as I have suggested, should be passed concurrently with this one, has also been made evident to-day. The man who cannot go to the front ought to do something else, and that something else ought to be found for him, or pointed out to him by statute. It will be idle for us to say to one man: you must go to the front, and then excuse another man and let him go home if there be some other place in which he can do better work. The ordinary principle of compulsory service could not, to my mind, be worked out in respect to farm labour. You can compel men to do almost anything within reason when they are under military control and gathered together in numbers under the authority of officers, but you cannot compel one or two men on a farm to do this

or to do that. You have to have some arrangement under which men would be willing to go on the farms. Some provision should be made for the distribution among the different industries of Canada-a provision which I do not find in this Bill-of the men who cannot go to the front. Many men who are physically unfit for military service are fit for some other form of service. We are taking no steps to place these men in a position to relieve men who are fit to go to the front, or to provide for a distribution of the man-power that is not called upon for military service. Such distribution should take place among various industries of Canada, which will be very much crippled if that course be not adopted. The member for St. John 'suggested that the men who cannot go to the front should be asked to serve in some other capacity at the same wage as that paid to the soldiers. Theoretically, that sounds all right, but I fear that it would not work out in practice. In order to ensure the success of this measure and of the Bill that I suggest should be passed concurrently with it, steps should first be taken to secure the co-operation and sympathy of organized labour. I fear that the step suggested by the member for St. John would make that an impossibility. I suppose that if his suggestion were adopted, we would have to have a Patriotic Fund, separation allowance, pension fund, or something equivalent to all these, for the men who did not go to the front and who engaged in other work at the same wage as that paid to the soldiers. Then, to place a man in an industrial establishment at, say, $2.50 a day when a man beside him would be earning $4 or $5, would so disarrange labour that the plan could not be successfully worked out. I am afraid that the carrying out of this proposal would not secure to the Government or to Parliament that cooperation of labour organization without which none of these Bill will be very successful. It is reasonable, though, to say that every man who does not go to the front ought to be asked to do something else for which he is fitted. I again say that the Government ought to place before the House with all possible speed proposals for the co-ordination and utilization of all forces not dealt with by this Bill, because this Bill cannot be as intelligently discussed by itself as it could be if we had a measure of the kind that I have suggested to discuss with it.


William Pugsley: I realized when I moved the amendment that certain difficulties
would attend the proper working out of the proposal. But it is not impossible to devise an amendment to this Bill which would tend to equalize , the wages paid to those who engage in some other branch of the national service and the wages paid to those who enter upon active service and go to the front. I quite agree with the member for North Oxford that it would not do to fix the wages of those who engage in some branch of the national service other than military service at what is now paid to the soldiers. The reason is that this country has treated its soldiers in a most shameful manner. Canada is not paying her soldiers that to which they are fairly entitled; everybody admits that. Some gentlemen answer by saying that the soldier does not go to the front with the idea of getting adequate wages. Pushing that argument to the extreme limit, you would say that the soldiers should not be paid anything.


Arthur Meighen: What sum would the
hon. gentleman suggest that we pay the soldier and the mechanic?


William Pugsley: young men are to-day deterred from enlisting, 'because if they remain at home they can get $4 or $5 a day and support their families in comfort, while if they go to the front they would get only one-third of what they could get at home.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman fix the same price of $3 a day for those who are exempted, to do farm work?


William Pugsley: Why not? That would be a matter for the officials to determine who would be employed by the Governor in Council. There would be many cases, of course, of young men working at home on their fathers' farms, and receiving no wages, for ordinarily the young man on his father's farm is not paid wages. But these are exceptional circumstances which could not very well be provided for. I do not submit this amendment as being perfect. It merely suggests the principle that should be applied in the case of those who ask for exemption. If that were done I think the applications for exemption would be very much fewer than would otherwise be the case. If the man applying for exemption knows that he would not receive any more compensation in any other branch of national service than he would receive if he went to the front, he would be very much more likely to go to the front.


Mr. EDWARDS:: My hon. friend would fix the pay of a private at $3 a day?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: What rate would he fix for lieutenants and captains?


William Pugsley: It would be very easy to determine the relative increase that - officers should receive. Those who have to do with the matter would necessarily fix the compensation. My idea in making this suggestion is to reduce the wages of those engaged in the manufacture of munitions to the rate which the soldier ought to get, or to raise the pay of the soldier to something approaching, if not equal to, the wages paid to those who remain at home. Whether that could be worked out or not I do not know. I shall, of course, be guided by the judgment of others, but it seems to me it could be worked out in a very large measure. I have another objection to this section. Paragraph (a) of subsection I, section 11, provides:
That It is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged.

Paragraph (to) provides:
That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special qualifications.
As I understand the section, once an exemption is granted under paragraph (a) or
(b)	that is the end. of the matter. It is not a conditional exemption.


Arthur Meighen: Certain exemptions
must toe conditional, and any exemption may be conditional.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Under what clause?


Arthur Meighen: Subsection 2 of section 11, which says:
(a) A certificate may be conditional as to time or otherwise, and if granted solely on conscientious grounds shall state that such exemption is from combatant service only.
So, any certificate may be conditional, and certain certificates must be conditional.


William Pugsley: It is expressly provided by paragraph (c) that it shall not be conditional upon his remaining in. the employment in respect of which he is granted exemption. He is not obliged, however, to remain in that establishment or in that place. If he moves, he could be called up again and could again apply for exemption.


Arthur Meighen: The certificate might be conditional on his remaining at a certain class of useful work, without specifying any place or establishment.


William Pugsley: Paragraph (to) provides:
A certificate granted on the ground of the continuance of education or training or on the ground of exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position, shall be a conditional certificate only.
Paragraph (c) provides:
No certificate shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing or entering into employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment.
Under that, the labourer could go from place to place, leaving the employment in respect of which he had been granted exemption and engaging in some other work, and it might be very difficult to trace him.


Arthur Meighen: It might be embodied in the certificate that he should report.


William Pugsley: That might be. I just wish to say one word with regard to the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Chamrly and Vereherea (Mr. Rain-

vilJe). As I understand it, he proposes that subsection (r. be amended by inserting between the words "in" and "other" the following:	"agricultural, Industrial
or." I think the Solicitor General will agree with me that that would rather limit the exemption which would be provided for. Where specific words are used just before the word "other," the courts are guided by those specific words. In this case "other work" would mean employment of a like character to that already specified. It seems to me that that would embarrass the tribunal very much, because it would be an indication of the opinion of Parliament that no exemption should be granted except to persons engaged in agricultural or industrial work c r work of a like character. Now there might be many employments which would be just as important in the national interest, but which would be entirely separate and distinct from agricultural or industrial work. Unless the banks, for instance, have a sufficient number of employees to carry on the work of banking, it would be very difficult to carry on industrial work. Without banking facilities the business of great manufacturing establishments could not be carried on, and so also with regard to agricultural production-potatoes, cattle, wheat, flour, and everything of that kind. Without brokers to handle the business connected with the proper carrying on of that class of work the business of the country might be enormously hampered, and the work of those who are engaged in production might be very seriously interfered with. Take the question of transportation. What advantage would it be to have industrial or agricultural products unless we had transportation facilities to carry those products to the markets of the world? For these reasons I rather think it undesirable to limit the subsection by the amendment proposed by my hon. friend. I have not given the matter very much consideration, but I think upon the whole it would be very much better to leave the paragraph as it is, and it would be for the tribunal to say whether the agricultural, industrial, banking, mercantile or transportation work in which the applicant was engaged was in the national interest, and whether the applicant should be granted exemption or not.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: The alleged inadequacy of the payment of our soldiers has been referred to so frequently in this
House that I think it ought to be thoroughly understood just what our soldiers receive. Take, for instance, the case of a married man with a family of two children who has enlisted in the province of New Brunswick. What is the total remuneration received by him and his family on account of his services overseas? In the first place, he gets $1.10 a day, which is $33 a month. His wife gets a separation allowance of $20 more. From the Patriotic Fund in New Brunswick she gets an average of $15 more.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But the Patriotic Fund is .purely voluntary, and should not be counted in what the men are supposed to get.


Herbert Brown Ames: That makes $68. The man's food is estimated at 60 cents a day, for 31 days a month, Which makes $18.60 more. His clothes, boots, cap, overcoat .and everything he requires vihile he is in service are furnished him, representing at least $10 a month more. Consequently, that man and his family receive directly and indirectly on account of the services he renders his country no less than $96.60 a month, which will figure out $3.10 a day. This is what the people of Canada as a whole pay the married soldier from New Brunswick who has a wife and two children. This is not inadequate by .any means.


William Pugsley: Wages are not over-high in New Brunswick. They are supposed to be fair. Take the ordinary 'chauffeur for instance, who has no. family. He gets an average of from $15 to $20 per week, which is higher wages than the boy who goes to the front and risks his life.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is $20 a week paid all the year around?


William Pugsley: Yes, all the year round. They do not get less than $15 a week, .and many of them get $18 or $20 a week.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Pugsley: I may say we have not much snow in the southern part of New Brunswick, and they run the automobiles all the year round.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mostly wind,


William Pugsley: Yes, we are favoured in that way too.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this case it is $3.12 a day, seven days in .the week, which is an average of about $22 a week.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have made the calculation as to what the soldier gets, a little differently from my hon. friend's calculations. I quite agree he gets $1.10 a day, which is $1 a day as pay and 10 cents a day field allowance. He gets his clothing and his food which we might put at another dollar, which is the outside. He also gets his separation allowance, if he is married. If he is not married he does not get any separation allowance. The Patriotic Fund should not be counted in it, because that is a purely voluntary contribution by the people, and it should not be necessary for a country like this kind, considering the financial condition of the people to count that as part of the soldier's pay. The people should not be called upon for voluntary subscriptions to the Patriotic Fund; the Government should pay that in the form of extra pay to the men. It is more or less of a charity, though it does come voluntarily, and it is remarkably well administered. I have nothing to say against .my hon. friend from Montreal St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) on that score, because he deserves great credit for the way in which this fund has been administered. At the same time that does not affect the principle. I hold the principle is wrong, and the Government should pay the men entirely. They should pay the men more than they do, and when it comes to the married men the separation allowance should be at least $30 in place of the $20 a month, to make up for the Patriotic Fund. The separation allowance does not take a man's children into account at all. They pay the same to the married man, whether he has children or not. If you limit it to $20 a month foT the mabried man, if he has children he should 'be paid in addition, in proportion to the number of children he has. That is for the separation allowance only. The pay of the ordinary man should be increased to $1.50 a day plus the 10 cents field allowance, at the lowest calculation, and estimating his board and clothing as being worth, say, $1 a day, that would put him on the same basis as other men throughout the length and breadth of the land.


Levi Thomson: I think the hon. member for St. .Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) is not quite fair in his statement of the case. He takes an exceptional case to prove the rule. The general rule is the men at the front are unmarried. We are proposing to send men to the front by compulsion and the plan of the Government will be that only unmarried men shall go, as far as pos-

sible. Why my hon. friend takes this exceptional case as a basis for a general conclusion I eannoit understand, if he intends to be fair, and I must assume he does intend to be fair. More than that, why should the man who is unmarried, and who is being sent to the front, receive less than the ordinary labourer at home receives? Is it a good reason to say that some other man at the front gets more than he does? I think the committee will have to acknowledge there is no justification in the world for paying men at the front less than ordinary labourers get at home.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman know what men are being paid at home?


Levi Thomson: I would not undertake to say, because I am not familiar with wages all over the country. If I were to talk of the wages I pay farm labourers at home, I could tell you very quickly. I pay $55 a month in summer and $30 a month in winter.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it possible to estimate in dollars and cents the value of the services our men are rendering at the front?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is no use ringing that in. Every one knows it.


Levi Thomson: There is no reason not to pay a man because he is serving his country. I do not think it is fair that a man who is risking his life every day in the service of his country should receive less than an unskilled labourer at home. There is a great deal we never can pay him for.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) let me ask him a question? What is the rate of pay of a British soldier, for instance?


Frank Oliver: I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for St. Antoine to the fact that in a recent bulletin of the Patriotic Fund the statement was made that although there were 105,000 families dependents of soldiers, only 60,000 received aid from the Patriotic Fund.


Charles Marcil: May I repeat my question to the hon. member for Frontenac, who does not wish to appreciate the real value of the services rendered by the soldiers in the trenches? How much pay does the British soldier get?


William Cameron Edwards: I understand the British soldier gets less than half what is paid to the Canadian soldier, and I understand the

French soldier gets a matter of a few cents a day. I think there has been more talk in this House this afternoon about the pay of the soldiers than there has been by all the soldiers over in France. There has been more kicking here about their pay than there has been by all the soldiers overseas. We all realize we cannot value the services of our soldiers in dollars and cents. How then are you going to set a figure on their pay unless you try to deal fairly with them and compare this country with other countries?
, Everybody is disposed to do the best he can for our soldiers at the front. There is no difference of opinion in regard to that on the part of the members of this House or in the country. It is all right now to get up and say that the soldier does not get enough hay. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) suggests $3 a day for a private. I doubt very much if he will find many members to agree with him. Another saye $1.50 would be about right; somebody else would get up and say $1.55, I suppose, and somebody else $1.60. The question of pay is not what has kept men from enlisting. The reason why men have not enlisted in greater numbers is that they have been encouraged to remain at home and they feel that they are justified in remaining at home. Look at the Militia Gazette and you will find that in the fall of 1914 a great many young men were gazetted as lieutenants. They got the title of lieutenant and they are still remaining in Canada. They find it more profitable to run automobile garages than to go overseas. I do not know why they took out their commissions. Others find it advisable to scoot over to the other side of the line and go to college there. It was not a question of dollars and cents or of pay with them. They did not go overseas because they thought it was safer to be here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend tries to
make it out a virtue on the part of these young men that they are not fighting for dollars and cents. We all know that there is no money which can recompense men who go out and risk their lives. But that is no reason why we should not pay these men a fair wage. The question has nothing to do with what Great Britain or France pay their men. We are entitled to pay our men a fair day's wage for the time they put in just as well as we are entitled to pay men fairly whom we employ in ordinary labour. We have to pay a man employed in an ordinary occupation more than we
pay a man at the front. We know that the men at the front are not complaining at all. They did not join for the purpose of being paid a certain amount and we give them credit for that, but that is no reason why we should not see that they are properly paid.
Mr. MoCOIG:	I agree with my hon.
friend from North Oxford as far as the pay proposition is concerned. The average single man who is working upon a farm in Ontario is receiving in the neighbourhood of,$500 or $600 a year and his board, The argument is presented that in a great many *cases he is only employed for a few months in the year, but in most cases the average farmer employs a man all the year round. If he employs a man for only six months he will have to pay him at a higher rate than $1.10 a day. The average man employed on the farm gets $2.50 a day and you can scarcely get them at that wage. During the remainder of the time these men are employed in the industries in the towns and cities. If we are going to compel men to go to the front we should not pay them less than we ought to pay them and we should not hesitate over a few cents per day. We should pay them the rate that we should be willing to accept ourselves if we were going and I do not think there is any one here who would be willing to go to the front for $1.10 a day. I feel satisfied that the Prime Minister will look at it in that way. If we conscript men and compel them to go, we should see that they are fairly paid for their services. We are proud to see them go, they are going to defend us and I venture to say that tnere are not many of us here who are very anxious to go.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman think the argument is any stronger in favour of the men who will have to respond to this law than it will be in favour of men who went under voluntary enlistment?


Mr. McCOIG:: I do not think there is any question that a man should be properly paid when it comes down to taking him away from an industry or employment in which he'is getting $2.50 or $3 a day, and telling him that he has to go to the front to defend us. Shall we send men to the front to defend us for $1.10 a day while we continue to prosper, make money and increase our bank accounts?


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that a conscripted man should be paid more than a volunteer?


Archibald Blake McCoig: I feel that we would be justified in increasing the pay of the men who have already gone to the front. They entered at a time when the cost of living was only half what they are required to pay for the maintenance of their families throughout this country now. Their families suffered last winter and there was nobody who was called upon for assistance more than the hon. gentleman (Sir Herbert Ames) was during that time. There is no reason why we should not deal fairly and generously with those men. With reference to the exemption of men employed in essential industries and in agriculture, I would be inclined to support the amendment which is before the committee unless we get some assurance from the Prime Minister that it is the intention of the Government to make these exemptions. If the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that the men in these important industries will be exempted I would be glad to take his promise, or obligation, in the matter and I would not be so anxious to vote for the amendment. At this particular season of the year, when the farmers are being called upon for increased production, they are hesitating as to whether they can continue to increase production to the extent that is required under the circumstances because they do not know whether they will have their sons to assist them in taking off another crop or whether they will be present to put another crop in. Some crops were not put in on account of the unfavourable spring and now they cannot get help. The same difficulty will be experienced when it comes time to take off the crops. Root crops have to be cultivated, hay has to be harvested and if, on account of the backward spring they did not get the crops in earlier, it means that they should have double the help that they have upon the farms. Men will be required for putting in the fall wheat and making preparations for the next season and under those circumstances it is important that the farmer should know whether this Government, or this Parliament, is going to exempt such producers or whether we are going to conscript them the same as men from other professions and occupations. The same argument would apply to all the industries which are essential to the carrying on of the war.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: My hon. friend (Mr. McCoig) must not be under the impression that I am asking that the farmers of the country should be exempt. I know that in the province of Quebec we have farmers

who do not deserve to be exempt because they do not produce the necessities of life. Their staying on the farm is of no service at all, but on the other hand the continuance of others on the farm is very necessary in the interests of the state.
My object in pointing that out was to emphasize the desirability of setting forth what kinds of work Parliament considered might be of more importance in particular cases even than military service. That is why the amendment was moved. It is not a question of protecting the farmer in himself, but of protecting the agricultural industry or other industries which are of vital importance to our country.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I believe that the general consensus of opinion among those already at the front is, not that the pay is insufficient at present, but that the scale of pensions should be made more adequate than it is at present. Any complaints I have heard at the front or in England have been along these lines. Our men are not complaining of the pay they receive. The French soldier receives five cents a day, the English soldier a shilling a day, less any allowance he may make to his relatives. The Canadian soldier gets in France approximately twenty cents a day for spending money, the balance being retained until he returns to England. It might be advisable to make the daily allowance in France elastic so that, particularly during the winter, the soldier could receive instead of thirty-five francs a month, fifty or sixty francs a month. But there is a strong feeling, especially during this time of high prices, that there should be a very material increase in the pensions, not only to the relatives of deceased soldiers but to soldiers who have been disabled.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would direct the attention of the Solicitor General to clause (d) of II which reads:
That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to
his exceptional financiall or business obligations or domestic position.
It would be better if that clause ended at "obligations" and a new clause were framed to deal with cases where domestic circumstances offer fair ground for an exemption. It might be better to say, ''financial, business, or domestic obligations." Or it might be preferable to follow the New Zealand Act in that respect and insert a new clause. Section 18, subsection

(b) of the New Zealand Military Service Act reads:	.
By reason of his domestic circumstances, or for any other reason his calling-up for military service will be a cause of undue hardship for himself or others.
That perhaps better expresses the idea sought' to be accomplished by Our clause (d). It is difficult to state exemptions in the Bill, and possibly the very best has been done by expressing in general terms the grounds of exemption. There might perhaps be one specific exemption, that which is contained in the 9 p.m. Militia Act; the only son of a widow, being her only support, is exempted from service. Doubtless in such cases the sole remaining son of a widow would be exempted under the Bill as it now appears. Subsection 3 of section 18 of the New Zealand Military Service Act deals with that point, and also with the point raised by Senator Power in the other Chamber, who introduced a Bill making special provision for the exemption of a son where a brother had been killed in overseas service. The New Zealand Act reads:
In the absence of regulations to the contrary, it shall he sufficient evidence of undue hardship on an appeal on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of subsection 1 hereof, that the appellant is the sole surviving son of his parents who is of military age, and that at least one of his brothers has served in some portion of His Majesty's forces in connection with the present war and has lost his life by reason of such service.
Subclause (e) of section 11 states that exemption may be granted on account of ill-health or infirmity. This exemption will^ have to be established by medical evidence. This will be one ground of exemption which will be availed of very frequently by a great many who are liable to service under this Act. It will be very essential to eliminate any suggestion of partiality on the part of medical officers appointed by the tribunal. Has the Solicitor General in mind any safeguards which can be thrown around the administration of this section so as to prevent any suspicion of partiality in its administration by medical officers? I observed in the press a few days ago a regulation by the Government of the United States upon this very point.
I think it was to the effect that where an exemption was granted by a medical officer a second examination, or report, was required from another medical officer, and that an exemption was not conclusive or final until there had been a second report
and examination by another and independent medical officer. Will the Solicitor General inform the committee whether he has given any special consideration to this clause, and whether he has any safeguards in mind which would assist in the fair administration of this particular part of section 11?


Arthur Meighen: Referring to the latter suggestion first, as to paragraph (e), subsection 1, ill health or infirmity, it must be remembered that the militia authorities, subsequent to the determination of the tribunal, will themselves medically examine every man who reports. This clause existed under the English Military Service Act, and the local Government Board published certain principles, or, perhaps, better termed explanatory notes, as to the application of this clause by the tribunals, and they called attention to that fact in particular-that, inasmuch as the man, after he passed their survey, had to undergo examination before the military officer, their duty was only to exempt under this clause such men as manifestly were, for the time being, incapable of military service. Wherever it was a case of doubt it would certainly be passed on, and left to the disposition of the medical military authorities. They say further that, in the operation of this clause, it was wise that a certificate of exemption should, in the first instance, at all events, in this case, be only a conditional certificate. In that way, they say, the clause is not abused. All that I desire to impress is that it is not likely that there will be any medical officer directly under the tribunal, or in the service of the tribunal. They will deal only, for example, with cases on medical certificate, or, perhaps, two medical certificates, where it is shown the man is incapable of appearing before them, and in cases where he is not incapable of appearing, and does appear, but is so crippled or infirm that it would be a mere formality to pass him on to the military officer.
Mr. MAROlL: I think in any case where the health of the man called upon is in doubt, the family physician, who is familiar with the family antecedents, should not be overlooked, because in the enlistments for overseas many were enlisted-I do not care to say how many-who should never have been enlisted, who are now in sanatoria and military hospitals all over the country, and are a charge on Canada. They were sent back, because they were never physically able to stand the strain. In a case of that kind, I think that, in every case where



there is a family physician familiar 'with the man's condition or antecedents, where perhaps .there was a tendency to tuberculosis or something of that kind, there should he a provision that that physician should he consulted before any decision is come to.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would urge that the previous suggestion of the hon. gentleman. from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) be taken into serious consideration by the Government, and that paragraph (b) subsection 2 be divided into two paragraphs. The first part of the clause, down to the word "obligation," refers manifestly to the individual man, the hardship is upon himself, and it is a business hardship, but in the matter of domestic relationship, the hardship is not upon the man who enlists, but upon those he leaves 'behind, and there should be a clause providing that, in case of hardship to others who are the natural dependents of the man, the question of exemption should be considered, I have in mind the case of an only son of a widow, *where, the widow was wholly dependent upon the son for support. Under this Bill it might be quite possible that that only son would be compelled to serve. Again, cases where all the sons have gone to the front but one, and the family is dependent upon the boy left at -home,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or partially dependent.


Herbert Brown Ames: Or mainly dependent. It is not a hardship upon the boy in that case, but upon the family; consequently, I think, there should be a separate clause dealing with domestic relationships, and making it clear that the hardship upon other people created by the boy being taken away is that which should be considered. '	.


Arthur Meighen: I think the clause is
better taken altogether. It is a question entirely of obligation. The idea of the clause is obligation to others. I rather think my hon. friend from St. Antoine is not quite right in saying that if a man is under heavy business obligations, such obligations as can be performed only by himself, and those obligations are neglected, that that man alone has to suffer. I am afraid others' would suffer too. In other words, the class of people who would suffer is just as wide as the class who would suffer by reason of a man being taken from his domestic obligations. I see no reason for separating the two.
Dealing with the case of the only son of a widowed mother, who is her sole sup-

port, no one could 'be more sympathetic in regard to exempting such a man than myself. But the difficulty is that, if we start these specific exceptions we destroy the principle and spirit of our Act, and I do not know where we should end. I think we should get into an endless maze. To carry my hon, friend's point a little further, what is the difference between the only son of a widowed mother, who is her sole support, and one of three sons of a widowed mother, if the other two are perhaps at the other end of the earth where they cannot be found; or one of four sons, if the other three are crooked; or one of four sons if the other three feel no domestic obligations whatsoever, and are perhaps in some other country? I have followed out that idea to show that there is no reason for stopping where the hon. gentleman suggests we should stop, if we start specifying these exceptions. One could logically proceed till he would 'be in. an endless maze, if he started to make exceptions. I think the better plan is to lay down general principles, and leave the application entirely to the tribunal. In fact, I do not see any other practical plan.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not say
those exemptions-Lhave suggested should be introduced in the Bill. I am only urging that there should be a clause which would deal purely with domestic relations.


Arthur Meighen: I dealt with that in my remarks a few minutes ago, and my remarks on that point would apply to the second suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax. As to excepting the only surviving eon of parents who have, at least, one son killed, perhaps my remarks would not apply with quite the same force. At all events, both suggestions will 'be noted for review later.
. Mr. EDWARDS: In the case of ill health and infirmity, who is to interpret the man's condition? Is it the regular medical officer?


Arthur Meighen: No, they will determine it after the subject has passed the review of the tribunal. As to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, that will be decided 'by regulation, but my own thought is that there will be no medical officer under the tribunal which will only deal with cases so manifest that the ordinary layman can say the party should not go through the formality of being examined by a medical officer.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know whether I caught the idea of the hon. gentleman

from Bona venture (Mr. Maroil). I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the certificate of the family physician should be accepted.


Charles Marcil: I contend that the family physician should be consulted in preference to a stranger who would not be familiar with the family conditions. Two medical men might be associated in that connection, one acting, on behalf of the Government and one on behalf of the family.


William Cameron Edwards: I concede that the opinion of the family physician might well be furnished to those who. have .to decide whether or not a certain person comes under this clause, but I do not think that the opinion of the family physician should * be a determining factor. I .speak as a medical man who knows something of the inside of the medical profession. Medical men are only human-the same, we will say, as lawyers are-land it is not fair to the medical man who is in close association with the people of a certain section of the community that he be .asked to give his opinion with regard to the physical condition of a certain person in order that it may be determined whether that person is fit for military service. That would put the family .physician in a very awkward position. While medical men are as honourable as the people of any other profession, I repeat that they are only human. I do not think that it would be fair to the medical man to ask him to give his opinion in this respect; nor do I think that it would be in the interest of what we have in view under this measure.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: I would like the Solicitor General to tell me to what extent the words " domestic position " would go if a imam had a good lawyer, .a good pleader -<a good .doctor, too-to plead before a judge who is. ready to be lenient to anybody? The .member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) spoke about widows: I was going to make a remark along the same line, because it all comes down to a question of domestic position.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know where
the goodness of the doctor -comes in in deciding o-n a man's domestic circumstances or domestic position.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Sometimes he
kno-wis a good deal about it.


Arthur Meighen: I am in hopes that the meaning of the clause will not depend in
any way upon either the goodness or the badness of lawyers. No doubt their interpretation, in the first instance at least, will depend somewhat on the spirit and calibre of the tribunal. To produce uniformity in the decisions of the tribunals as nearly as is humanly possible in any institution creatable by us, we provide appeal tribunals, and we provide a Central Appeal Judge. When the matter comes finally before the appeal tribunal-still more clearly when the matter comes before the Central Appeal Judge-the actual meaning of the words "domestic position" will not, I am quite certain, be affected by either a good lawyer or a good doctor.


Mr. McCRANEY:: With reference to the exemption of those engaged in agricultural labour, I inquired of Mr. W. D. Scott, Superintendent of Immigration, as to the number of farmers and farm labourers who were brought into Canada from the United States in connection with the seeding operations in western Canada this year. This matter has a very close relationship to the question of recruiting, and the committee may be interested in the figures. The information which I obtained from Mr. Scott was as follows:
The number of farm labourers who ente ed Canada from the United (States during the months of March, April and May was 14,030. This number is made up as follows:	March,
4,389 ; April, 6,653, and May, 2,988. The cost of advertising in connection with cur propaganda to secure an adequate supply of farm help -was $65,897.51 for the months of March, April and part of May, our returns in this connection for the latter month not le-ing complete.
When I point out that it was necessary to bring in over 14,000 farm labourers in connection with the spring operations, it will be seen that it will be necessary to bring in very many more in connection with the harvesting work in the fall.


Mr. CURRIE:: The clause that we are now considering, which deals with exemptions, is one to which we should give a good deal of attention. It has been stated by the Solicitor General that the tribunals will exercise a certain amount of discretion in this matter. The clause gives the tribunals the right to exempt almost anybody. The words "domestic position" have a very wide application. I had a conversation with one of the officers acting on a tribunal of this kind in the United States, and I asked him a question on this very point. He said that the United States tribunals have no authority to grant any exemption; all they can do is recom-

mend to higher authority the cases for exemption; the higher authority then has to pass upon them. According to this clause the tribunal has a perfect right to grant exemptions and the grounds set out are &0 very wide that a tribunal, if it were so minded, could grant exemption to almost any one. The old Militia Act exempts the only son upon whom a widow is dependent. I think that is a provision that should be put in this Act; the only son of a widow should be specially exempted, just as clergymen are. This provision has been in the Militia Act from time immemorial; in all countries where there is conscription a similar provision is made.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why exempt the clergy?


John Allister Currie: The clergy are not exempt in France, but they are in other countries. They have been exempt in all our Militia Acts during the last couple of hundred years. The clergy and the only sons of widows have been exempted. I think the committee would do well to introduce an amendment to this clause to the effect that the tribunals in the first instance should do nothing more than recommend the exemption to a higher tribunal or court of appeal. That does away with the question of whether or not a man shall be exempt though what we call the legal moral risk. As a commanding officer at Valcartier I had applications from sisters, cousins, aunts and sweethearts of soldiers for the exemption of men in whom they were interested upon grounds of domestic position, business obligations, and that sort of thing. To my mind, this clause is too wide1 in its provisions. I would suggest that the Solicitor General narrow it down a little bit more, because it is a dangerous clause.
All over the country people are saying that there are clauses in this Bill under which the rich will be exempted, or at least favoured. If one member of a local tribunal happens to have, a cousin or some other relative brought before him the chances are that he will exempt that man. Further than that, a tribunal in one county may be very lax, and the tribunal in the next county very firm, and I see nothing in the Bill to prevent a young man from appearing before the lax tribunal even though it is not in his -county.


Arthur Meighen: That is "provided against in the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I think the clause as to exemptions should be made absolutely
fMr. Currie.]
clear. Ill health or infirmity is given in the Bill as one ground for granting exemption. A man might be infirm for a few weeks with a bad cold, and he could claim exemption on that ground, though in two weeks he would be quite all right again. Or a certificate from a doctor would give him an "infirmity" at once. My experience teaches me that men can develop various forms of infirmity when they do not want to go into the trenches, and I think that will be the case here. In certain cases a certificate of exemption should only be conditional. A man suffering from varicose veins, for instance, after three weeks in a hospital, is just as good as any soldier in the ranks, but under this infirmity clause he could claim exemption and get off altogether. I think this clause should be given a great deal of consideration by the committee, because if many young men are exempted on the ground of ill health or infirmity we shall have to take the classes higher up, perhaps up to 40 years of age. No one who has not been in the army has any conception of the reasons that doctors will give in order to get a man off. At Valcartier every man was examined, of course, by a board of medical officers, and if a man had a cigarette eye-and one man out of every four	in	Canada	has a	cigaretteeye;	that is the	eye he blowsthe	smoke on-if	one	eye	was only
two degrees stronger than the other, and many men are born with this defect, the man was rejected. His other eye may be perfectly good, but although a soldier needs only one eye to shoot with the man is rejected, although he is just as good in other respects as any other man in the ranks. A slight limp will also disqualify a man. A man with a dropped arch is also rejected, although he may be able to drive a team just as well as a man with an arch like a Highlander. One man out of every four is rejected for defects that do not interfere in the slightest degree with his usefulness in the trenches. A great deal has been said about the age of the soldier. Now, a man of 40 or 45 may be just as strong and healthy, and able to- stand the trenches just as well as a man of 25, and sometimes better. I know lots of. men over 60 who went over with the first contingent and are in the trenches to-day, going strong, and they claim that they will kill off all the young men in the trenches before they get through. For the reason that this House should make a strong effort to prevent any fraud being perpetrated on these tribunals, I think this clause should be discussed further. I think,

also, that the Solicitor General should provide that a widow's only son who is her sole support should be exempted. That is the practice in every Christian country-in Europe at all events, although I do not believe it is the practice in New Zealand- and I would strongly urge that provision he made in the Bill granting exemption to a widow's only son who is her sole support.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I cannot quite agree with my hon. friend in his last suggestion. Why should the only son of a widow be exempted when the five sons of another widow might be taken?


John Allister Currie: I said, if he was her sole support.


William Foster Cockshutt: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend. At all events, a widow with five sons is entitled to keep one of them at home, if a widow with only one son is entitled to keep her boy at home. I know of a family in Brantford where the five sons have all gone to the front. One has been killed, one is now wounded, and three are in the trenches. The mother is a widow and is absolutely in need of some one to support her. Why should she not be allowed to have one of her sons at home, just as much as a widow with only one son? However, I am not here for the purpose of suggesting how men may escape from doing their duty. The primary object of this Bill is to raise men, not to exempt them, and if there is one man who should be exempted and who does not seem to be mentioned here, it is the returned soldier who has done his bit in the trenches. After being at home here for a few months he might be considered medically fit again, and might be called up under this Act unless there is a provision against it, even though he had served two years at the front.


Arthur Meighen: He is exempted in the schedule.


William Foster Cockshutt: Another point that I do not see covered by the Bill is whether the men who are conscripted will be given any choice as to the arm of the service which they shall join. It appears to me that a man who is an engineer by trade should not be attached to the infantry. A horseman or an artilleryman should be allowed to serve where he will be the most useful. I think the Bill should make some provision for putting the man in the hole for which he is best fitted. His training may have fitted him for a certain kind of soldiering, but not for every kind of
soldiering, and it appears to me that 3, man's fitness for a particular arm of the service and his liking for it should be taken into consideration. The aerial service is-becoming more and more important every day. I for one think Canada should have had a flying corps long ago, and I hope-provision will soon be made for it.	Wbhave seen by the newspapers recently that Great Britain is short in this respect, and in view of the urgent need for aeroplanes and airmen, I do not see why a man who is physically fit for the flying corps, and has the nerve and other necessary qualifications,-should not be allowed to join that wing. It seems to me we should be using our material to a disadvantage if we assigned such a man to some other branch of the service. I trust the Solicitor General will take that suggestion into his consideration, and, as T may not speak on the Bill again,
I take this opportunity of repeating what I said in my original address, that the Bill should not be restricted to providing the
100.000	men that are required to-day, but should be wide enough to allow us to raise
200.000	or more men should they be required. Men who are exempted from serving with this first draft of 100,000 should not be exempted for all time to come, but should be available in case another 50,000 or more men are required. Those men who have got off this time, so to speak, in the very class in which they are called, should not be considered exempt for all time to come. I do not know "whether this is carried out in the Bill. I simply mention it so that the Solicitor General may make a note of it.


George Ewan McCraney: Is the certificate of
exemption go,od in its class until the end of the war?


Arthur Meighen: No. Every certificate of exemption may be conditional.


George Ewan McCraney: But, supposing it is
not conditional; supposing a mistake has been made?


Arthur Meighen: If it is not conditional at all, but is absolute in form, then it is an absolute certificate and exempts the man from that call. The call is sent out by proclamation, calling the men in that particular class. If a man in that class secures an absolute exemption, the certificate of exemption applies to that call. While we are on the subject pf exemption, I may say certificates may be conditional as to time. A man may be exempted pending the happening of a certain event, or he may he exempted pending his occupation in a certain line of work. I wish to call attention

specially to this power of exemption by which a man may be relegated by the certificate to another class nexit in order. That is to say, though a man may be of the age which would bring him under the regulation in the first case, if in the judgment of the tribunal, though he is not absolutely entitled tp exemption, it is in the national interest that he should wait until the next call, he may be relegated to the next class, and when the next class is called he may be relegated to the one following. That is the method of exemption under the British Act, and which I think will take the place . of some other provisions of. the British Act and will be very useful indeed.
Now as to this wholesale exempting; of course it is possible, and it may be found to be the case, if weak tribunals are formed in some localities by accident. That is why we have the right of appeal. That is why we have a central appeal judge, and it is hoped that all this will be corrected by the two appeals, and that uniformity will be secured, because in the end, the military authorities having power to go to the central appeal judge, the one system will apply over the whole of Canada, and the one interpretation will govern throughout.
Undoubtedly, should this Parliament see fit to extend the Act, as suggested by the Ihom. member for Brantford (Mr. Coeksbutt). any exemptions that had previously been made would be utterly valueless, and any calls made thereafter would be calls made anew, and new applications for exemption would have to be made.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Might I ask the Solicitor General how he will explain the position of a judge who is too lenient and grants exemption to everybody. Such a judge will he surrounded in a district where he is well known and has lots of friends, and may exempt everybody 'under section 11. Who should appeal? Not those who are exempted, because they have their certificate of exemption from the judge. Do you mean somebody will appeal? If so, who is it?
Some bon. MEMBERS: The Minister of Militia.
'Mr. GLASS:	I have seen cases which,
if exemptions are to be specified, would present even stronger claims than the case of the only son and sole support of a widowed mother. I have in mind the case of a mother who had two sons and a daughter. The elder -son was her only support, the two others being very young children. This young man was not the only son of a wid-	,
owed mother, but he was a son who* was the sole 'support of his mother. I can conceive how a bToad 'application of the principle in the clause treated by the tribunals themselves would cover all cases in a much fairer way than specifying individual instances. I agree-with the Solicitor General that the broad application of the principle will give moire satisfactory results than trying to define a lot of fixed cases.


Mr. ROSS:: I just want to make a remark or two in regard to the principles contained in the Militia Act, one of which has been spoken of here to-night, that is the exemption of an only son and support of a widow. It seems to me there is another exemption contained in subsection 2 of section 26, which I suggest might with propriety he embodied in this Act. It reads as follows:
2. If there are inscribed on the militia roll more than one son belonging to the same family, residing In the same house, only one of such sons shall be drawn, unless the number of names so inscribed is insufficient to complete the required proportion of service "non.
If you get your quota of 100,000, and if, as is more than likely, you have more /answering your call-because you cannot gauge the
100,000	down to< a man, or 100 men, it seems to me this provision in the Militia Act is only just and fair, and should be made to apply to the case of a family in which there are two sons. Under the new law there is no provision made for such an exemption.
I wish to say also, I still sincerely believe that the production of food is so important in this country at this time that some special provision should be. made in regard to agriculturists. There is no question but the whole German offensive and submarine campaign to-day is against food production. There is no offensive upon land. They see food production is our weak point, and every man we take off the farm in Canada is only assisting the Germans and the iGerman game. I do not think it should be left to tribunals to say that any farmer shall go on the combatant line. There should be something in this Act saying that any man who is engaged bona fide in the producing of food on the farms of the country, on say, the first of May or the first of June-set a date on it if you like-shall not be obliged to go on the combatant line. I mention the first of May or the first of June in order to prevent men who may have anticipated it from skulking their duty by going back

to the farm, not in good faith but as a matter of subterfuge. I saw something in the newspapers to-day or yesterday in regard to what Secretary McAdoo of the United States has said as to what they expect from Canada. He said the grain supply of the United States was depleted, and the Allies and the American nation were almost dependent upon Canada for their supply of grain. Such being the case, I do not think the question of the exemption of a man who is engaged in agriculture should be left to the whim of any tribunal, which may consist of men obsessed with the military idea, and not the idea of food production. I think a man who is engaged in the production of the firing line. The man on the farm is producing foodstuffs not only for the soldier at the front but also for the artisan and mechanic in the town who is handicapped at the present time by the lack of labour and exorbitant prices and labour should not be taken from the land. Otherwise, the prices of food, which have increased to such an extent that the ordinary man is hardly able to live, will be further increased. We should have an assurance from the Solicitor General, or the Prime Minister, that rules and regulations will be framed under this Act which will say that they shall not be taken-


William Pugsley: How could they change the Act?


James Hamilton Ross: They can make rules and regulations if the Act says so. Section 12 says:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to secure the full, effective and expeditious operation and enforcement of this Act.


William Pugsley: But they could not
change the spirit of the Act.


James Hamilton Ross: That would not be changing the spirit of it, because agriculture is an absolutely necessary industry. You contend that yourself.


William Pugsley: Why do they not put it in the statute if they want it?


James Hamilton Ross: On the other hand, I cannot see how the arrangement which has been suggested by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rainville) is possible because, strange as it may seem, I do agree with my hon. friend from St. John (Mr.. Pugsley) in this case. If you put in the words that have been suggested by the amendment, you will limit the construction of the clause very considerably, because you will have to interpret the clause, as we say in law, on the
principle of ejusdem generis. You could not exclude a telegrapher or a man engaged in the transport service because the word "other" being in there would necessitate an interpretation of the Act preventing men in other not similar occupation being exempted when it it might be greatly in the public interest to exempt them.


Edmond Proulx: I proposed this afternoon to have a special subclause of section 11 in regard to the agricultural classes. What my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) has said confirms me in my contention. The view which the hon. member for St. John expressed a moment ago was that if you added it to subclause (a) it would perhaps embarrass the interpretation of the clause in regard to other occupations. For that reason there should be a new clause.
I was referring especially to agriculture.


Levi Thomson: I would like to say a word with reference to subclause (f) of section 11:
That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is pro-hibite l from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act-
It strikes me that some change in the wording there might be beneficial. It is provided by subclause 2 of section 3 that a man who was not married until after June 11 shall be counted as unmarried. I think it would be better, instead of wording this as being in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, that it should be so worded as to be in effect at the date of the introduction of this Bill, or June 11. That would get rid of the possibility of the trouble that the hon. gentleman from Perth (Mr. Morphy) has spoken of, that some little sect might spring up, introduce some change in their doctrine and promulgate a regulation against combatant service. It would be more in keeping with the intention of the Act if, instead of the date being fixed at the time of the passing of the Act, it should be at the time of the introduction of the Act.


Arthur Meighen: That suggestion, along with a similar one made by the hon. member for Perth, which was that it should be at the date of the outbreak of the war, is worthy of consideration. I would suggest that we pass on and hold these three or four suggestions over for consideration. The clause will be reopened and I will refer to the matter at a later sitting.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What clause is that?


Arthur Meighen: Subsection 1 of section
11.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I would like-to ask a question of the Solicitor General about paragraph (f) providing exemption for the person who conscientiously objects to undertaking combatant service. The clause is:
That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service.
That clause seems comprehensive enough. If I feel in my own conscience that I cannot go out and shed another man's blood, or do anything like that, that I cannot become a combatant, am I to be forced to engage in combatant service? I say: "Thou shalt not kill,'' and the faith of every Christian is that he shall not kill.


Ml NESBITT:: Steal.
Mr. L. A. LAP.OINTE: Steal they do- many of them. Who is to be the judge of my conscience? Will the judge of this tribunal interfere with my own conscience? I say I cannot go to fight, that I am ready to defend my country against all enemies, as many of my people are, that I cannot conscientiously undertake to be a combatant. Who is going to be the judge of that? I want to find out if my conscience will not be respected by the judge. Surely I am the judge of my own conscience. Who is to say that I have no reason for asking exemption on this ground? It seems to me that this opens the question very wide and that you will have to exempt everybody under that clause because it applies a religious test. That will be the first reason that every person will advance why he should be exempt. Do yon know, Mr. Chairman, that this clause ijs stronger than any other? It says that the judge " shall " exempt such a man. That puts an obligation on the judge to exempt him. If I tell the judge I cannot go and combat any human being the judge has to say that I shall be exempt.
'Mr. MEIGHEN: The word "shall" applies just as much to subclause (e) as to subclause (f). If a man establishes any of the grounds of exemption, then he is entitled to exemption, " Shall " has no special reference to s-ubclause (f). The subclause is phrased in the best way it was thought possible, to- avoid the abuse of the exemption privilege by conscientious objectors. The experience in Great Britain was considered very fully in the framing of that clause. A man must not only show that

his objection is really dictated by his own conscience but further he must show that he is prohibited from combatant service by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of the Act, of a well known religious denomination existing in Canada and well recognized at that date, and that he belongs to that denomination. These words are principally from the American statute. We have had regard not only to the experience and working out of the conscientious objectors:' clause in England but also to the American provisions looking to the taking care of all legitimate cases of conscientious objectors, but 'at the same time looking to the prevention of abuses of the clause which was one of the chief sources of abuse experienced, in Great Britain.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand that the meaning of that is that he both conscientiously objects and is prohibited?


Edmond Proulx: Does the minister know whether there were -many sects or denominations in England who objected to military service?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how many there were, hut I know there were a great number alleged.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the reason for clause (b)?


Arthur Meighen: In the British Act our subclause (a) and subclause (b) are united. Subclause (a) refers to exemption of a man on the ground that be is better serving the national interest in the work in which he is habitually engaged. Subclause (b) is ito take care of the case where a man, although he may not be habitually engaged in a particular work, can, in the opinion of the tribunal, do work in that particular neighbourhood .by which he would better serve the national, interest than by going to the trenches; some special, and, perhaps, very insistent necessary demand may be filled by him. That is the way it was under the British Act, but it was felt here that in the case of a man seeking an exemption, not because he is better serving the national interest where he is habitually engaged, but rather because he felt that he could do something where men were badly wanted in the neighbourhood, it would be necessary . to show special qualification for that work. That is an additional precaution which we have taken against the abuse of this clause which has not been taken in England. Otherwise the two are precisely the same.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The British section
sounded much better to me than this, which is indefinite.


Arthur Meighen: This is the British, except that before a man can foe exempted to undertake special work he has to show special qualifications. In Great Britain he does not need to so show. Thus, however indefinite it may be

and any such provision must be indefinite-it is more definite than the British provision.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That aims at what I was trying to get my hon. friend to undertake, that is, that he would organize 'labour, bring in an Act organizing labour so that the Government, or somebody, would place the labour where it was most needed.


Arthur Meighen: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That will not do any good.


Frank Oliver: If I understood the minister's explanation of this subsection, this is the other barrel of the provisions of the Bill. One barrel is supposed to catch the needs of the front trenches; the other barrel is to catch the needs of industry at home.


Arthur Meighen: Agriculture.


Frank Oliver: Munition making, for instance, or some other productive industry, conveniently situated, as my hon. friend said, to where this applicant for exemption resides. lit is amply evident that there is no necessity for this subsection if it were *merely intended to exempt men
10 p.m. from service at the front. Every possible circumstance of exemption is provided for under the preceding subsection. This subsection is inserted for the express purpose of giving direction of the labour of the country, under threat of military service, to the fulfilment of the requirements of the directors of industry in our great cities, I presume.
As to the attitude of the Government in regard to that matter, that is to say, in having one eye on big business in eastern Canada while the other eye is directed possibly towards the trenches, I shall take the liberty of quoting from the speech of the Finance Minister on Saturday last, when he said:-
During the fall of 1915 and the early part of 1916, it was brought to the attention of the Government-X should say to the attention of nearly all the members of the Government- that in certain districts in which recruiting had been brisk, vital industries such as coal mining, iron and steel, agriculture, and the munitions industry, were suffering by reason
of the fact that the recruiting was not in any degree selective; that is to say, that skilled mechanics were being recruited, and that it was not possible to replace them because of the long training required to qualify a man in those trades.
While the hon. minister made that most moving speech in regard to the military necessities of the Allied armies, it will be observed that his mind was fixed rather upon the well-doing and well-being of his friends in the eastern industrial centres, and that the recruiting of men under the voluntary system for the filling of the needs of the front was only on all fours, in his mind, with the needs of the iron and steel, the coal mining and the munitions industry, and, he says, agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman remember himself complaining bitterly to the Government because we did not control enlistment so as to prevent men leaving agriculture to go into the trenches?


Frank Oliver: Me?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Well, I would like to know when.


Arthur Meighen: I read it in Hansard recently. I will undertake to produce it.


Frank Oliver: I should be glad if my hon. friend would read it again, becausp if he pays any attention he will find that he did not read it correctly.


Arthur Meighen: I will undertake to produce it.


Frank Oliver: I shall be glad. The Finance Minister went on and read to the House a letter that he had addressed to "Dear Mr. Harmer," President of the Saw-yer-Massey Company, Limited, of Hamilton, Ontario. This was a letter in reply to one which he had received from this president of the Sawyer-Massey Company, and we must infer from the tenor of the letter that the Sawyer-Massey Company was one of those who had been protesting against such enlistment of men as would affect the welldoing and the well-being of their operations in Hamilton. In the course of this letter the Finance Minister said:
I am aware of the force of the arguments presented as I have canvassed them many times during the past few months. There is a point beyond which over-recruiting weak ns the strength of a nation for a long drawn-cut struggle.
He says in conclusion:
You may depend upon it we shall do what we can here to keep the nation strong and at

the same time put forth our best efforts in the field. .
We are going to keep the nation strong at home by taking care of the Sawyer-Massey Company first, and then we are going to take care of conditions in the field. The minister, after- having read this letter, says:
I had the view, during the concluding stages of voluntary recruiting, that the essential industries were being crippled to a certain extent by the enlisting of skilled mechanics, some of whom-I do not say all of whom- could have rendered better service, or as good service, in connection with the prosecution of the war, possibly, as if' they had enlisted, although I am the first to say that X admire above all the man who enlists and goes forward' to the front. Nevertheless in certain industries which are vital it is necessary, in my judgment, that a certain selection should he exercised.
We have, in this provision, the purpose of the Bill-to exercise a necessary selection in the interest of vital industries. I want to say that in my poor judgment, -when the Government of this country comes before Parliament with a proposal to conscript 100,000 men, under the pretense that they desire to procure these men for military service, they should frame their measure with that end in view, and if they want to make provision foT the protection of vital industries, that should be taken care of in another measure, not to introduce a means of, in a way, forcing labour into the employment of the so-called vital industry under the threat of military conscription. We know what our position is. We are one of the countries in this war. We know that the war must be won, or that the consequences to us will be very terrible. We know that it is our duty to win the war, and the Government, on behalf of their friends, the munition makers, come to this House and propose to put through a measure, in the name of patriotism, in the name of loyalty, in the name of our dead soldiers, the purpose of which shall he to assist the munition makers and the profiteers, who are making enough money to-day out of the blood and agony of the country, without having this Parliament legislate in addition on their behalf.


John Allister Currie: I think the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is labouring under a misconception, and I do not think he wishes to be unfair. At the time that letter was written to the Minister of Finance by the gentleman who manages the Sawyer-Massey Company, these were the facts:	Great Britain had sent to the
trenches something like 10,000 of her own

skilled workmen, whom she afterwards brought back to give them employment in the munition factories in England. I have in mind one shipbuilding industry where a great many of the most skilled men enlisted and went to England, arriving there about that time. Great Britain did not send these high class mechanics that were sent over there into the trenches, but they were conscripted into the munition plants, shipbuilding yards and machine shops. They wer-e trained and sent across the O'Cean, but were conscripted by the British munition workers. I think if there were any case where exemption should be provided, where men should not be allowed to leave the country and enlist to go to the trenches, it should be the case of those workers. They never should have been allowed to leave here. Hundreds of them left Canada ostensibly to go to the trenches, believing they were going there, and when they got to England, they found themselves taken out of the army, and placed at , work in munition factories.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Mn CURRIE:: Because they were needed. Britain needed skilled workmen. Skilled rivetters from the Collingwood shipbuilding yards enlisted, but were not allowed to go to the trenches; they were conscripted to build warships in Great Britain. The needs of this country in that regard are just as great as the needs of any other country. Anybody who knows anything about manufacturing in this country knows that, within the last year, the great increase in the cost of everything manufactured has been due largely to two things, namely, the high cost of labour, and the high cost of raw material. There is no' doubt about that. Nobody objects to paying the wages, but the fact remains


William Pugsley: Before you leave that
point, I understand you say that 10,000 of our men who enlisted for service in the trendies were conscripted.


Mr. OURRIE:: The hon. gentleman was
not listening.


William Pugsley: They were conscripted
by the British Government and put into the shipyards. Is that the statement?


John Allister Currie: If the hon. gentleman had been listening, he would have heard what I stated. I said that Great Britain had sent to the trenches, and brought hack to England something like 10,000 skilled workmen. When Lloyd George took charge of

the Munition Department Ihe istarted to drive the munition factories, to get out guns .and shells to destroy the German power,-the only way in which it could be destroyed. The men had left the coal mines, the factories, workshops, shipbuilding yards and machine shops of England, and had gone to Prance, and 10,000 of them were brought back to England, and every man that they could find-even in our army in England-who was a skilled man, was put to work there. So that these men enlisting here, with the best intention in the world, expecting to go to fight the Germans, were not allowed to go after they got to England, but were put to work, as I have stated. What is wrong about that? They did not conscript the men to work for nothing in the factories, as they do in Germany, The munition workers in Canada get more than they do in any works in the world, much better pay than in the United States, and the cost to the Imperial Government of munitions made in Canada is a large percentage less than the cost of those munitions made in England, or in the United States. Everybody ' who knows the business knows that we are making them cheaper for the British Government than they can make them at home, with much cheaper labour.
I desire to refer to another matter. The most unfortunate thing in connection with the labour question is the poor quality of the labour left at home. If that labour had applied itself diligently to its work, nobody would have objected, but, from my experience of a number of plants that I have seen, I know that every month, when the pay roll is gone over, sixty per cent of the workmen have changed. Is that right? They are getting all the money they ask. They will only work two weeks in one shop. They get their money, jump and go to another shop. I say that is not fair to the men in the trenches. It is all right that these men should Teceive large wages, but that they should neglect the work and only work half time is a crime, when munitions are needed so badly at the front. Why should a skilled workman employed in a factory here be allowed to stay at home, and only give one-half of his time to the work? Then the complaint is made, "Oh, you are attempting to conscript these men in the factories." Is he any better than the trained workman, his comrade, who has gone overseas and is being shelled, for $1.10 a day? I cannot see that he is. I cannot see that there is any necessity to pay him any higher wages
than the other man, as a matter of honour and justice. That fact remains true. So that there is no cause of complaint.
These men are not making complaint by petition through the hon. member for Edmonton because they think they are going to be conscripted. Until such time as a , large body of them make complaint, it will not be necessary for the House to take up their case. Every workman in this country who is conscientious and anxious to work can get employment at the highest wages ever paid in Canada and under more satisfactory conditions than prevail in any other part of the world. The manufacturers of Canada, it may be said to their credit, are selling goods to the Imperial Government at ten pe>- cent iess than the price at which similar goods can be purchased in the United States. I do not see, therefore, that there is any reason for complaint.


Mr OLIVER:: Some of my hon. friend's remarks a few moments ago established the point that I made with regard to this legislation. He complains of the character of the labour that is now available for the gentlemen who are engaged in the manufacture of munitions, and he thinks it is right and proper that labour should be conscripted for the advantage of the munition manufacturers.


John Allister Currie: Not at all.


Frank Oliver: That is what I understand to be the purport of his remarks. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with my hon. friend; I only wish to state my own position. In order to meet an urgent military necessity, it is right and proper that we should conscript men under proper circumstances and by means of a proper law which has proper authority for its being passed. This law, I maintain, has not such proper authority. But the conscription of men for civil employment is another matter altogether. People who will submit gladly under fair circumstances to a measure of conscription in order to meet a military necessity will not submit to conscription for civil purposes for the profit of any citizen of the Dominion of Canada. In other words, they will not submit to be conscripted for the private profit of any man or any corporation. At any rate, that is the position that I take. While I am willing to support a fair measure of conscription, brought in under proper authority, in order to meet a military necessity, I certainly protest against the conscription of men for civil employment for private profit, such as is the purpose of subsection (b) of this Bill.
,fi!30


John Allister Currie: What would the hon. gentlemen call civil employment? Will he be more specific?


Frank Oliver: Any employment that is not military.


Herbert Brown Ames: Suppose a man who was skilled in the operating of -a threshing machine was for the time being running a gentleman's motor ear in Edmonton; in other words, doing non-essential work. If it was proposed to conscript him, and he said: if I am permitted to do so, I will go into the country and resume my former occupation of running a threshing machine for the next six months, knowing, as I do, that there is a great need for skilled mechanics of that kind; would the hon. gentleman consider it inadvisable, under those circumstances, to exempt that man from going overseas?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman's question is a very long one; I think I would have to know the details before I would (be able to give an answer.


Herbert Brown Ames: I made it as brief as I could.


Frank Oliver: That is, before I could give a direct answer to my hon. friend's question. But I certainly would not, under existing conditions, support, or defend, or [DOT] countenance compelling that man to leave his civil employment to go into another for the private profit of another citizen, or 9, set of citizens, under the threat of military service provided in this Bill. I say that that is not a proper use to which to put the powers that are vested in this Bill. Such drastic action I do not consider at the present time well advised. But, assuming it to be well advised, if we are to conscript
100,000	men for military service, then we should prepare a Bill and enforce it for that purpose, not for the purpose of advantaging any private individual or corporation in civil employment. If the Government of this country were carrying on in its own name, for its own purposes, at its own cost and for the profit of the country, certain forms of industry intimately connected with the prosecution of the war, I could then see the reasonableness of conscripting labour for the benefit of that industry. But it is one thing to conscript labour for the benefit of the State and it is quite another thing to conscript labour for private profit. I suppose I will be corrected when I use the word "conscription" as applied to [Mr. Oliver.1
labour, but it is the purpose of this section to use the powers under this Bill for the purpose of, in effect, conscripting labour for private profit. To that I most strongly object.


John Allister Currie: A young man who is working on a farm is to be conscripted. He says to the farmer: I want $100 a month. The farmer says: I will give you only $50. He has his choice, therefore, of taking $50 from the farmer or of being conscripted. Does the hon. gentleman think that that is a case which comes under his category of civil employment? These things will occur right along. Is that a hardship? Is that the case of a man being conscripted by a civil power for the purpose of making profit for a farmer?


Frank Oliver: I may not have caught the hon. member's statement correctly, but, as I gathered it, I would say that I think so. If we want 100,000 men and this man is subject to the draft and is fit to go overseas, he should go overseas. We should not use the threat of sending him overseas in order to drive him into the private employment of some other citizen.' That is an improper use of the power and authority that this Government is asking from Parliament.


Mr. GLASS:: My hon. friend does not seem to think that Great Britain's experience of three years has any bearing upon cases of this kind. The member for North Sirncoe (Mr. Currie) has already shown that the British Government had to bring large numbers of men back from the trenches and fit them into industrial life. I cannot understand my hon. friend's reasoning when he says that because a man is exempted he is necessarily conscripted into industry. It may happen-I hope it will not-that labour will have to be conscripted and directed to industries devoted to the prosecution of the war. The United States are not so,slow to comprehend the difficulties that prevailed in England and other countries that sent thousands of their men to the trenches and afterwards had to withdraw them and employ them in industries. As evidence of the fact that the United States do not intend- to allow themselves to be led into the same mistakes as those made by the European countries, I find in this evening's Star a despatch from Washington which reads as follows:
The United States will sift out and exempt from fighting service labourers vitally needed in feeding, clothing, supplying and equipping the armies. Lest this nation make the same mistake England did at the outset, the Government will free such men and see to it that

they keep at their work. To this end, a corps of experts to-day began a list of industries essential as backstops of the armies in the field.
From official sources it is learned the list probably will name farmers as a general class, miners, men engaged in shipbuilding, munitions, workers of all classes, and every branch of industry that aids directly or indirectly in maintaining the military forces.
My hon. friend is very much concerned lest men. should he maintained m the manufacture of munitions. Why, to-day men working in munition factories are doing just as important work as the soldiers in the trenches. The United States are to be commended for the very careful preparations they aTe making to meet WiS extraordinary emergency. They have wiedom enough to profit by the mistakes of others.
I cannot understand why my hon. friend takes so much exception to the exemption of labour on the ground that it is conscripting labour into industry. Even if that were so, if the needs of the army required a greater effort from industry, it is only what has 'been done in England and France. The same thing applies to agriculture. Urgent as is the call for greater production to-day, I do not think there is any doubt that the call in 1918 will be stronger still, and if we do not encourage the farmer by helping him to get the labour necessary to work his farm how can we expect him to respond to the call for greater production? There is undoubtedly a great shortage of farm labour at the present time. I do not see why these tribunals should not be given discretion to look after the needs of agriculture and the necessary industries of the country.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend and other
members of the House have spoken to-night of the needs of agriculture, and have held out the suggestion that /under the provisions of this Bill men could be practically co/n

scripted into agriculture. My bon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) touched on this point to-nigiht and I want to emphasize what he said, that there is no such thing possible as conscripting men into agriculture, because conditions do not admit of it. To put an unwilling or inefficient man on a farm where only the owner and one or two other men a/re employed is simply adding to the burdens of the farmer and not helping him in his work. There are conditions -under which you may be able to conscript men profitably; for instance, where a large number of men are required on some work where they can be kept under supervision. But that cannot be done on
a farm, and to hold out to the farming community of this country that this or any other Government can conscript men for the service of the farmers is simply humbugging the farmers if they believe it, and I am afraid that many of those who held out the suggestion are aware that they are merely humbugging the farmers.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows very well that last year the soldiers in training were allowed furlough to assist in gathering in the crops, and I hope the Government will do the same with the volunteers and the conscripts this year. According to the present indications we are going to have a very big crop, and it will be a great pity if it is -allowed to stand in the field uncut for th-e want of labour. To-day our unemployed, men w-ho do not want to be employed at almost any price, are asking $100 a month to go on the farms, and m-any of the farmers cannot pay that price. These men are asking for the wages they would receive in the munition plants, and why should the munition plants go into competition with the farmer? I tlhink the country is in danger of losing a great harvest through the obstacles that are being placed ii. the way of what the hon. gentleman calls /the conscripting of labour to the farmers. It is .absolutely necessary that -the farms should have labourers, -and I should be willing to go as far as any one in this House in the direction of having a clause put in the Bill to the effect that the men who labour on the farm shall be exempted so long as they stay on- the farms; for it is just as necessary to have good crops as it is to produce munitions. I trust the soldiers in training this year, both volunteers and conscripts, will be ordered to go on the farms. Last year if they did not go on the farms they did not get any money. That was surely conscripting them, and nobody kicked.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As a matter of fact, the soldiers were not forced to go on the farms last year by any means. We had to make a written application for a man and guarantee to keep him a certain time and pay him a certain amount of mon-ey. The soldiers got that money in addition to their military pay, and it is no wonder a lot of them went on farms. It is preposterous for my hon. friend to say that the soldiers were forced to go on the farms.


John Allister Currie: What I said was that if they took their furlough they were forced to go on the farms.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They were not forced to go on the farms if they took their furlough, for several of them worked in factories at Woodstock.


John Allister Currie: They were not entitled to do so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That makes no difference; that is what they did. My hon. friend does not know everything about everything. I heard him say something else tonight which has no particular bearing on this clause. He said that in Canada they were making munitions cheaper than in England.


John Allister Currie: That is right.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You think that is right? How much will you bet that it is right? You are the first human being I have heard say so, anyway.


Frank Oliver: There has been a great deal of talk about assisting the farmer under this Bill. It was not the farmers who put in a protest in the fall of 1915 and the spring of 1916 against the voluntary enlistment of soldiers for overseas service: it was the heads of the munition plants. We have had evidence of that in this Hoirse within the last two days. Mr. McDougall of the Steel Company, Mr. Harmer of the Sawyer-Massey Company of Hamilton, and many others plagued the life out of the ex-Ministar of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes)
so he said in the House the other day. The Minister of Finance said only two days' ago:
During the fall of 1915 and the early part of 1916, it was brought to the attention of the Government-I should say to the attention of nearly all the members of the Government- that in certain districts in which recruiting had been brisk, vital industries such as coal mining, iron and steel, agriculture, and the munitions industry, were suffering by reason of the fact that the recruiting was not in any degree selective.	-
I will guarantee that it was not the representatives of agriculture but of these other industries who made the protests. It was "big business" in Canada that protested against voluntary enlistment in the fall of 1915 and in 1916, and as the result of their protests voluntary enlistment slackened, fell off, became insufficient.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Frank Oliver: Ever since.


An hon. MEMBER:: At what date did it start?


Frank Oliver: Some time in June, 1916; and it has continued ever since. Now we

have this conscription Bill brought in. The Prime Minister tells us it is exactly the same principle, so far as compulsion is concerned, as the Militia Act, but it has the selective principle instead of the balloting principle, so far as compulsion is concerned. We find that under these selective provisions every argument which has been brought up in this House since the Bill came into Committee confirms the idea that the Bill is essentially selective, and selective in the interests of the same men who demanded selective voluntary enlistment early in 1916, and who now demand selective compulsory enlistment. As I said before, I have no .objection to that if it is right and proper; if it is necessary; if it is honestly brought before the attention of Parliament and the country in. a Bill framed for the purpose. But what I do protest against is that it shall be smuggled through Parliament under the pretense of a Bill for the purpose of supporting the honour of Canada on the battle line. First things first. If we are to win the war, it must be won by fighting men; and if we are to increase our power on the battle front, let us cpme before the country honestly and say so, and make provisions for that purpose. Having done that, if it is necessary to take care of industrial conditions in. the country by compulsory service, let us make satisfactory preparations fpr that. But on such a question as this, where the lives of 100,000 men are involved, and where the honour of Canada is involved, let us not attempt to smuggle legislation through Parliament under false pretenses.


Mr. McKENZIE:: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of that letter?	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May 16, 1917. This was a long time after the Premier came back from England, and after they were in possession of all the inside information he could impart to a friend. I think it is only proper that the people of the country, as well as the members of the Provincial Conservative Association, should know what is the true inwardness of this.


George Perry Graham: Subsection (c) of section 11 reads:
That it is expedient in the national interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained.
I suppose that refers to students or apprentices. Could the Solicitor General give us a concrete case to which this section would apply?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is my duty to refrain from giving concrete cases. Any statement on my part would be an attempt to dictate to the tribunals.


George Perry Graham: Could the hon. gentleman imagine a case then?


Arthur Meighen: I could imagine a case very readily, and I am quite sure that those who inserted the same provision in the British Act knew that there would be practical applications of it or they would not have inserted it. The provision in the British Act is the very same as ours. I would in general terms say that if a man belongs to a class called out, and if he shows that at that time he is approaching the termination of a certain educational period, the results of which would he lost if he came just at that time, but that if he deferred for a week or two, or a month or two, that condition would be over and consequently he would be enabled to render better service to the state-that would be a class of eases that would come under that provision. I do not say that there would not he otheT classes. We had the advantage of the presence of Major Murray, who had to do with the working out of the several exemption provisions of the British Act, and we got no recommendation that this clause should be left out. We got many which we thought were useful and which we availed ourselves of. The working out of the British Act did not indicate that there was any danger in putting that clause in, hut, on the contrary, indicated that it would be useful.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say, with reference to this clause (c), that he is going to take into consideration some of the suggestions that have been made?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I have a note of practically all the suggestions that were made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman will
consider them?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they will be given very careful consideration and the decisions will be communicated to the committee, and if thought fit a .motion can be made to return to the clause.


Frank Oliver: In regard to paragraph (c), I think the Solicitor General might have given the committee the reasons that appeal to his mind for the insertion of this provision. It hardly seems enough to say that it appeared in the British Act. There has been a large enlistment under the voluntary system from our institutions of higher education. I do not know how many hundreds, if not thousands, of young men who were taking courses in the colleges and high schools have volunteered and have formed a very valuable part of the army at the front. It seems rather strange that, that condition having existed in this country, we should make special provision for the exemption of that particular class of men.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
must remember that any exemption granted under this clause must of necessity be a conditional exemption. No absolute exemption can be given to any man under that clause. A reference to sub-paragraph (b) of sub-clause 2 makes that clear. It is manifestly made to cover the necessity for temporary exemption for the purpose of enabling a man to complete a process of education that is near completion .at the time of the call to report for duty. I should think that would constitute the great majority of cases that would come legitimately under that clause. For example, a man might be within a week of the termination of his examination foT a profession. No one would contend that it would be in the national interest that that man should report for duty until that work was done. Unless such a clause as that is in, I do not think the tribunal would be empowered to permit a man to wait until the termination of the week and then report for duty.


Frank Oliver: I am quite satisfied with the propriety of the action suggested by my hon. friend, but there is another side to it. While he says it is the intention that this provision shall apply in such cases as he has mentioned, the clause does not

say so and it would be .quite possible under this section for one who was of military age to secure exemption by simply entering one of those educational institutions.


Arthur Meighen: Not to secure it, because unless there was a special case an appeal would immediately overrule any tribunal which would give a man exemption just because he had entered an educational institution.


Frank Oliver: That may be so, but this circumstance might arise. If it does not mean what it says, that is different. That is what it says and I would, of course, assume that it meant what it said.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
leaves out the first phrase of the subsection "that it is expedient in the national interest." It does not make it expedient in the national interest to exempt a man who enters an institution to avoid military serviice. It is for the tribunal to determine whether it is or not and if the tribunal determines wrongly it will be corrected.


Frank Oliver: I want to say a word in regard to this matter of appeals. My hon. friend and1 I have discussed the merits of the case relating to the judgment of these tribunals and I shall not continue the discussion. When a decision has been rendered by the tribunal, if that decision is against the national interest, then the question can only be raised by the Government itself. It is under the authority and initiative of the Minister of Militia that an appeal is taken in case a decision is supposed to be adverse to- the country. Beyond any question, that leaves the matter absolutely in the hands of the Government to force an appeal, or not to force an appeal, as they please, and it leaves the matter in this shape, carrying out the suggestion- of my hon. friend from Montreal, St. James (Mr. Lapointe)-given judges who are favourable to wide exemptions, and given the sympathy of the Government in the matter, the Act becomes a dead letter in so far .as particular sections of the country are concerned. When I spoke strongly earlier in the day in regard to the propriety of demanding' a certain quota of men according to population from different sections of the country, I did it because if that provision were inserted this contingency of which I spoke could not arise, but that provision not being inserted that contingency can arise, and I am bound to believe that it is with the view of acting on that contingency that the elementary

provision requiring a quota is not included in the Bill.
On paragraph (c) subsection 5, section 11:
Notwithstanding anything in this section contained, the Governor in Council may by regulations abolish any local tribunal, and transfer its duties and powers to any other local tribunal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the purpose of this last subsection?


Arthur Meighen: It was thought that as the work proceeded it might be found that there were too many local tribunals, and that in that event provision should be made for consolidating tribunals. This is the provision. The powers of any tribunal may be transferred to another, and then the other takes the place of the first one, and may carry on anything that the first one has had under review.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there any stipulation making it obligatory upon a man to appeal to a certain tribunal? Must he appeal where his residence is? What would prevent a man, if he should feel that one local tribunal was easier to pass than another, from going into the other district and appearing before the local tribunal where he thought his chances of securing exemption were best?


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing to prevent him. A man may make his selection in his own province. If it is good enough for him, it is good enough for the department. But having made his choice, he must abide by it.	.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not likely to become something like the divorce law in the United States, where men go to the state where it is most easy to obtain a divorce, Nevada, for instance?


Arthur Meighen: If a man gets a divorce in Nevada, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, but here we have a system of appeals. With the other plan the danger would be that we would have a great many questions of domicile.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 7, section 11:
When a certificate is lost, destroyed or defaced, the tribunal by whom it was granted shall, upon the application of the man to whom it was granted and upon payment of a fee of fifty cents, issue to him a duplicate of such certificate.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the purpose of levying a fee of fifty cents?


Arthur Meighen: It is a precaution against the certificate being too lightly lost. We had to take a more exacting precaution than this in connection with the . exodus regulations.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Who gets the fee?


Arthur Meighen: It is the intention that it shall go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. I think under the law it does not become the property, of the tribunal unless it is made its property.
On subsection 2, section 12:
(2)	All proclamations and regulations shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette and in such other manner, if any, as the Governor in Council may think necessary to ensure knowledge thereof by all persons concerned, and shall forthwith be laid before Parliament if then in session, and if not in session within ten days after the next meeting thereof.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think the proclamations should be published once in a newspaper in each county town where the boards are to sit. The Canada Gazette is not widely circulated, and comparatively few people ever get it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not important.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think it is important enough to let the people know what is being done.


Arthur Meighen: I agree that the Gazette publication really gives little or no publicity. It simply enables the newspapers to get it. The most of the proclamations are important, and they should be published in local newspapers. It may be necessary to utilize the poster system or billboards, but as to the publication of newspapers, there can be no question. The only reason that section was inserted as it is was that some minor regulations and changes might have to be made, and it would not be wise to insist on the publication because it might involve too much expense. The House may take the assurance that an important proclamation will receive wide newspaper publicity.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the peace officer appointed under this section be under military control?


Arthur Meighen: No, this is a civilian Bill, under a civilian minister, and the Governor in- Council appoints the peace officer and other officers to carry out the provisions of the Act. They will be in no sense military officers. They are peace officers.


Wilfrid Laurier: I observe
that in this section there is provision to remunerate the registrars. Paragraph (a) reads:
Define the duties of registrars and fix their remuneration.
And subsection (f) says:
Make provision for expenses and the remuneration of officers.
I assume, therefore, that the members of the tribunal will not be remunerated.


Arthur Meighen: The intention is that
they shall not be remunerated.


Frank Oliver: Subsection 3 reads:
All regulations shall have the same force and effect as if they formed part of this Act.
The Solicitor General said that the tribunal should be granted, in some measure, by memoranda or letters of direction. Would those directions be a part of this Act under that section-?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that the circular, as it is called, relating to constitution, functions and procedure of local tribunals, published in Great Britain, Should be called regulations. Although they constitute general indications to the tribunals looking to uniformity, it would be impossible, and it would be barbarous drafting, to insert such provisions as are in this circular in the Act. Consequently, I am not quite certain whether it was intended that this should be among the regulations which, under the Act, should form a part of -it or not. I 'am informed they are not pant of it. But sudh as are regulations have the force of law. They must be consistent with this Act, and they -must look to the carrying out of this Act and nothing but this Act.


Frank Oliver: Lt is not contemplated
ithat such directions, or such a circular, addressed to the tribunals in operation under this Bill, will be a part of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: No, not -directions of
the nature of those I hold in my hand.


Wilfrid Laurier: I call attention to paragraph (c), subsection 11, seo-tion 12, which reads as follows:
(c) Prescribe the conditions as to time or otherwise under which applications for certificates may be made, deferred applications received, appeals entered and heard and rehearings had, and prescribe forms.

Section 10, subsection 3, paragraph (b), reads:	.
(b) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Central Appeal Judge may make regulations governing the right to and fixing the conditions of appeal from an appeal tribunal to the Central Appeal Judge, provided any person authorized by the Minister of Militia and Defence may as of right enter and prosecute such appeal.
We have here two powers to make the same regulations. Under paragraph, (c) of section- 12, the Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations concerning appeals and re-hearings, and under section 10, subsection 3, paragraph (b), the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the appeal judge, may make regulations governing the right to appeal, and fixing the conditions of appeal. It seems to me there is a clashing, or a tautology.


Arthur Meighen: The intention is that
under section 12, the Governor in Council may make regulations, as to time or otherwise, under which deferred applications may be received and appeals entered, and it is not provided that it shall be on the recommendation of the central appeal judge. That refers to the conditions under which appeals may be entered, and nothing more. On the other hand, section 10, subsection 3, paragraph (b) provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations, on the recommendation of the central appeal judge, fixing the conditions of appeal from an appeal tribunal. That is not in regard to the entering of an appeal, which is dealt with in paragraph (e), of section 12.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would it not oau-se confusion, and would it not be better to have one provision?


Arthur Meighen: This matter was drawn to my attention yesterday by the right hon. gentleman, and I am disposed to think it might be well to take a portion of paragraph (c) of section 12, and insert it under paragraph (b), subsection 3, clause 10. I suggest that we defer consideration of this portion of section 12.
iSubsection stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.22 p.m.

Wednesday, July 11, 1917.