1917-05-21

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That Messrs. Barnard, Girard1, Jameson, Kyte, Marcil, Nickle, Northrup, Pardee and Turriff, be a committee to consider and during the present session, to report to this House the total cost including incidental expenses, of each session of Parliament, and the best way, if any, of. reducing the same, with power to send for persons or papers.
He said: This is simply to give effect to the motion which has already been passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Insurance Act, 1910.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is in the same terms as a certain Bill which was introduced by the late Mr. Lancaster, member for Lincoln, three or four years ago. The purport of the Bill is this: Certain insurance companies have coalesced with other insurance companies, not only in Ontario but in other parts of the Dominion, and certain companies which have absorbed smaller companies have introduced terms into their policies which were not consonant with the terms that were in the policies of the companies whose affairs were taken over. That, at least, is the contention of those who are interested in one particular insurance company, the name of which I need not at present mention, as that will develop when the case is under consideration in the committee. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance also has a Bill on the Order Paper for reference to the Insurance Committee, I would ask that this Bill be allowed to go to that committee, where the whole matter can be further discussed by the parties interested.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What amount has been spent on Post Office site, since purchase by the Government, at Bear River, N.S.?
2.	What amount has been spent on said site since March 1, 1916, to May, 1917?
3.	What are the names of persons employed and the respective amounts paid to them, and the dates on which they were-paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 2. $500.
3.	Contract made with Mr. A. W. Dunn for a lump sum of $500, which was paid him on November 28, 1916. Contract required him to level, sod and fence the lot, also to repair wharf along the river at site.


BEAR RIVER INDIAN AGENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. [DOT]CARVELL:
1.	Who is the Indian Agent of the Indian Reserve at Bear River, N.S.?
2.	When was he appointed, at what salary per year, and what are his duties?
3.	Has he any authority for disposing of wood, piling and logs, on said Reserve?
4.	Has he authority to allow outside persons to cut and take wood off the Reserve?
5.	Has any wood been taken off this Reserve in the last five years by any persons other than Indians? If so, by whose authority?
6.	Has any work, including repairs, been done to any and all buildings on the Reserve during the last five years?
7.	If so, what are the names of all persons who have performed said work, the amounts paid to them, and the dates on which respective amounts were paid?
8.	Is the Indian Agent allowed to do carpenter work or any other kind of work on Reserve and charge for same over and above his salary ?
9.	If so, has the Indian Agent performed any such work?
10.	If so, what is the character of said work, dates on which same was performed, and the respective amounts charged?
11.	Were any orders given by Agent to Indians during period from October, 1911, to May, 1917?
12.	If so, what were the names of Indians, and dates and amounts of said orders?
13.	What were the names of Indian doctors on this Reserve from October, 1911, to May, 1917, when were they appointed, and at what salary ?
14.	If not on salary, what rate of pay did they receive?
Mr. ROCHE:: I.	R. A. Harris is the Indian agent.
2/ By OrdeT in Council of May 13, 1912; $100 a year; to administer his agency under the direction of the department and in conformity with the law.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Not with the department's knowledge.
6.	Yes, repairs to Indians' houses and school.
7.	Fred. Schmidt, repairs to Indian houses, $4.50, December 13, 1912. Reginald Benson, repairs to school, $2, 'September 16,
1913.	Wallace Rice, repairs to school, $2, September 16, 1913; Wm, Lent, repairs to school, $1.80; September 16, 1913. Fred. Schmidt, repairs to 'School, $12, August 24,
1914.	A. Marshall, chimney for school, $9, September 21, 1916. Wm. Lent, outbuildings for school, $18.90, January 22, 1917. Wm. Lent, cupboard for school, $4.05, March 12, 1917. Wm. Lent, Indian house, $30, April 6, 1916.
8.	No.
9.	Not with the knowledge of the department.
10.	Answered by 8 and 9.
II.	Yes.
12.	The Indian agent was authorized by the department to supply the following relief and it is understood that he gave written orders to Indians therefor:-
Names.	Amount.
	
	
	
Mrs. Madelaine Paul....	$1 per week 	
Mrs. Abram Michael ....	$1.25 per week 	
	
Mrs. Matthew Picton . . .	$1 per week 	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Edward Bradford 		$1.25 per week during illness	
Date when authorized by Department.
Feb. 1, 1913.
Mar.
Nov.
26, 1913. 12, 1913.
Dec.
Dec.-
Jan.
Mar.


IS, 1913. 22, 1913.
[Stage Direction]
30, 1914. 17, 1914.
Mar. 28, 1914.
[Stage Direction]
Names.
Amount.
Abram Charles	
Glode boy	
Mary Phillips	
James Paul	
Matthew Jeremiah . ...
Simon Piotou	
John McEwain	
Matthew Jeremiah . .. . Mrs. Abram Michael ..
Newell Glode	
Frank Charles	
Joseph Fabadam	
Mrs. Johanna Paul . ...
Mrs. Denis Paul	
John Brooks, and wife. .
$1 per week until 1st July, 1914	
$13.75 for cripple's chair	
$1 per week	
$1.50 per week during illness	
$1 per week	
Further allowance of $1.50 per week for an Indian attendant during serious illness	
$1.50 per week during illness	
$1.50 per week until spring	
$2.50 per week	
$1.25 per week	
$1.50 per week during winter months	
$1.25 per week during illness	
$1.25 per week during illness	
$2.00 per week during daughter's illness	
$1 per week	
$1.50 per week	
Date when authorized by Department.
May 8, 1914. May 22, 1914. May 26, 1914. Nov. 11, 1914. Dec. 24, 1914.
ITan. 16, 1915. Feb. 19, 1915.
April 7, 1915 Oct. 12, 1915. Dec. 6, 1915. Jan. 18, 1916. Feb. 10, 1916. Nov. 25, 1916. Dec. 15, 1916. Mar. 28, 1917.
Names.
Salary.
Appointed.
L. J. Lovitt . C. C. Archibald J. D. Densmore
$250.00 a year
July 1, 1902. Jan. 1,	1912.
Jan. 4, 1917.
14. Answered by No. 13.

Mr. CRUISE:: 1.	Is the Government giving preference to returned soldiers in the appointment of postmasters?
2.	Has an application been received from a returned soldier for the position of postmaster at Smiths Falls?
3.	Has a recommendation of a returned soldier been made for this vacancy?
4.	Is it the intention to appoint a returned soldier to the vacancy at Smiths Falls?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No recommendation has yet been made for this office.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


PAYMENTS TO PRATT BROS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any sums been paid by the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works to Alex. Pratt, or to Pratt Brothers, of Matapedia, Quebec, or to both, in each year since 1912, to date?
2.	If such sums have been paid, why were they so paid, and were they for purchases, labour or for work under contract?
3.	What were the respective amounts in each year for purchases, labour and work under contract?
4.	Has Alex. Pratt or Pratt Brothers any contracts at present with the Government?
5.	If so, what are they?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Public Works, for lumber supplied. Railways and Canals, for ties, lumber, refund on siding, shims and claim for horse killed.
3.	Public Works, 1912-13, $138.10; 1913-14, $261.85; 1915-16, $628.48, for lumber for Matapedia bridge and road. Railways and Canals, 1912, ties, $5,521.69; refund on siding, $128; claim for horse killed, $225; 1913, lumber, 94.02, refund on siding, $139.15; 1914, shims, etc., $13,185.20; 1915, shims, etc., $17,816.58; 1916, shims, etc., $14,637.94; 1917, shims, etc., $5,702.09.
4.	Railways and Canals, yes.
5.	Railways and Canals, for shims and lumber.
104TH REGIMENT.


Mr. CARVEEL:: 1.	When was authority granted for the recruiting of the 104th Regiment in New Brunswick?
2.	Who was the commanding officer thereof?
3.	When dad: the said regiment sail from Canada?
4.	How many officers are still in England?
5. How many officers have gone to France?
6. How many of the men are still in England?
7.	How many of the men have crossed the Channel?
8.	Is the officer who took the regiment overseas still in command thereof, either in England or France? If so, where?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	November 3, 1915.
2.	Lt.-Col. G. Fowler.
3.	June 28, 1916.
4.	32.
5.	2.
6.	767.
7.	187.
8.	No. The 104th and 105th Battalions were amalgamated into 104th Battalion, forming part of Fifth Division. Lt.-Ool. Fowler, late commanding officer of 104th Battalion, is now commanding 13th Reserve Battalion at Shorham.


COST OF SENATE HANSARD.
Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Does the answer given by the Secretary of State on April 19, referring to the cost of Hansard for the past three years include the Hansard of the Senate?
2.	If so, what has been the total cost of the Hansard of the Senate, yearly, for the past three years, as to cost of staff, translation, printing and distribution, respectively?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	No.
2.
Service.	1914	1915	1916	Total.$ cts.	$ cts.	? cts.	$ cts.Reporters (War).	10,000.00 1,000.00	10,000.00	10,000.00	31,000.00Synoptic reports. (War) .	1,170.72 55.00	557.87	1,005.83	2,789.42Translation . . Printing.	4,600.00 8,632.43	4,800.00 5,153.25	5,000.00 6,639.37	14,400.00 20,919.29
Special
Session 494.24


Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many claims have been made on account of the Transcontinental Railway, for right of way and damages, in the County of Portneuf, between 1911 and the present time?
2.	How many have been adjusted?
3.	What are the names of the persons whose claims have been paid?
4.	What amounts have been paid to each of the said persons?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Approximately 76.
2.	26 for lands and damages; 19 for damages.
3	and 4. Edmond Lecuy, $100; Emma Tessier (Widow Casimer Trottier), $300;
Frank Blais, $25; Edouard Julien, $200; Mere Marie Helene Blondeau, dite Soeur St. Phileas, Congregation de Notre Dame, $125; Francis X. Perron, $120; Francis X. Piche, $100 and $22.10; Francois X. Dorval (represented by C. J. Lockwell), $1,168.63; Mizael Rochette (represented by C. J. Lockwell), $2,873.14; Samuel Matte (represented by C. J. Lockwell), $1,710.12; Joseph Fancher dit Chateauvert (represented by C. J. Lock-well), $1,396.66; Elzear Rochette (represented by C. J. Lockwell), $1,710.12; Joseph Matte (represented by C. J. Lockwell), $4,112.38; Pierre Dorval (represented by C. J. Lockwell, his attorney), $719.67; Joseph Laperriere, $65; Georges Matte, $50; Da-mase Dufresne, $100; Thurieff Gauthier, $50; Odlion Marois, $780; Honore Gaboury, $780; Jacques Drolet, $15; Gilbert Gignac, $100; Georges Leboeuf, $800; Phileas Grandbois, $25; Phileas Genest, $25; Vic. Casimir Trottier (born Emma Tessier), $25; Jean Bertrand, Auxee Genoron, his wife, Dame Henriette Trottier, Widow Pierre Aime Lefebvre, $28.20 and $2.82; Pierre Paradis, $75; Edmond Soulard, $125; Atha-nase Delisle, $1,100; J. O. Soulard, $302; Francois X. Richard, $1,500; Nere Gingras, $850; David Noreau, $50; Ulric Angers, $125; Joseph Boisjoli, $75; Felix Lavallee, $125; Emeri Mercure, $600; Madame Exilda Chaille, widow, Hercule Laroche, $2,300; Alfred Martel, $50; Seraphin Papillon, $100; Theophile Fiset, $1,100; Joseph Gingras, $971; Pierre Moisan, $30; Narcisse Perron, $30.


CROSS POINT, WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	From whom was the timber and lumber, used on the Cross Point, Quebec wharf, purchased since 1912?
2.	Were tenders called for?
3.	If so, was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? If not, why not?
4.	Who was the foreman of this work, and how much was he paid in all and per diem?
5.	What rate of wages were paid to the labourers employed?
6.	What was the total value of such timber and lumber so purchased for this work since 1912?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	In 1912-13:	Chalems Bay Mills Co.,
13,264 feet at $16, $212.22; J. D. Sowerby, 5,352 feet at $16, $85.63.
In 1913-14: James Bryan, 78 spruce logs, 1,215 feet at 6c., $72.90; F. W. Fraser, 27 spruce logs, 525 feet at 6c., $31.50; F. W. Fraser, 124 pieces bal. floor, 1,736 feet at 2c., $34.72; R. Percy Jellett, 117 spruce logs, 2,095 feet at 6c., $125.70; Cbaleurs Bay Mills Co., 26,217 feet at $17.50, $458.80; T. R. Bus-

teed, 71 pieces spruce, 2,523 feet at 10c., f252.30; Fred W. Fraser, 78 spruce logs,
I,	691 feet at 6c., $101.46.
In 1914-15:	Chaleurs Bay Mills Co.,
37,196 feet at $18, $688.12; Henry Boudreau, 24 logs, 468 feet at 6c., $28.08; Jellett Bros., 21 logs, 343 feet at 6c.,	$20.58; Fred
W. Fraser, 108 pieces bal. flooring, 2,160 feet at 2c.,	$43.20; Fred ,W. Fraser,
107 logs, 2,160 feet at 6c.,	$129.60;
B. C. Babcock, 3 spruce logs, 46 feet at 6c., $2.76; T. R. Busteed, 15 pieces spruce, 10 by 12, 400 feet, at 15c., $60; T. R. Busteed, 1 piece, flat on one side, 18 feet, at 10c., $1.80.
In 1916-17:	Chaleurs Bay Mills Co.,
II,	863 feet at $20, $237.26.
.2. No.	.
3.	Answered as above.
4.	A. A. Fraser, 4J days at $5, $22.50 ; 761 daye at $3, $228.75.
5.	$1.75 and $2 per day.
6.	$2,586.63.


RECRUITS ENLISTED IN CANADA.
Mr. SEGUIN:: '
1.	What has been the number of recruits enlisted in Canada since the beginning of the war up to the present date?
2.	Does that number comprise the aliens who have left this country to go and enlist under the flag of their own country as they are compelled by their own laws?
3.	How many residents of Canada have thus left this country to comply with the military service law of their respective countries, and what nationality are they?
4.	What number of soldiers has each of the British Colonies enlisted since the beginning of the war?
5.	What is the present effective strength of the British Army, not taking into consideration the colonials?
6.	(a) Does obligatory service in England compel the British born in England but residing in the Colonies to go and perform the military service in the British Army, or (b) are they free to enlist or not to enlist in regiments organized in the Colonies?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Up to April 30, 1917, 411,723.
2.	No.
3.	This information has already been furnished to the House by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on January 22, 1917, as follows:	British reservists in Canada who
went overseas, about 2,750; British naval reservists, 1,000; French reservists., 5,000; Russian reservists, 7,500; Italian reservists, 5,000; 21,250.
4	and 5. No information.
6.	(a) No. (lb) Yes.


WEST EDMONTON GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How many Fishery Inspectors are employed in the Federal Constituency of West Edmonton?

2.	How many employees of the Indian Department are employed in the Federal Constituency of West Edmonton?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	There is no inspector for this particular constituency; it is included in the district of the inspector for Northern Alberta. The chief inspector for Alberta and Saskatchewan also has jurisdiction over this constituency.
2.	Seven employees in the federal constituency of West Edmonton.


P. A. ROBB.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is P. A. Robb an employee of the Dominion Government in Alberta?
2.	If so, where is he employed, and at what
Salary?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


IMMIGRANTS AND MILITARY SERVICE.
Mr. McCRANEY:: -
1.	Have any assurances of exemption from Military Service been given by the Government of Canada to immigrants?
2.	If so, what are these assurances?


William Roche: 1 and 2. On account of representations made in the United States that immigrants to Canada were likely to be at once drafted for overseas military service, the Minister of the Interior, under date of January 8, 1916, addressed a general letter to the press of the United States, reading in part as follows :
"I, therefore, beg to advise you that all troops from Canada for the war have gone voluntarily; that while the Government has the power to enforce conscription, such action has not been considered, either advisable or necessary, and that even were conscription introduced it would apply to Canadian citizens only."
Those from the United States not British subjects nor alien enemies, entering Canada this year in response to the appeal for farm help in the Western Provinces, were furnished upon request with a certificate which stated that while they retained their present citizenship, they would not be called upon for military service. Since the United States entered the war the issue of this certificate has been discontinued, as has all advertising referring to the fact that there is no conscription in Canada. The members of any religious1 sect, such as the Society of Quakers, Mennonites, Tunkers or Doukhobors, who, on account of their

doctrines of religious belief, are averse to bearing arms, have been given assurance that upon coming to Canada they shall be exempt from military service, in accordance with the existing legislation in this respect.


N.T.R.-FINANCIAL RESULTS OF ITS OPERATION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: In the Quebec Chronicle, dated May 8, 1917, the following statement appears, in reference to the Transcontinental Railway, viz.:-
"The railway has been in operation from Moncton and Quebec to Winnipeg, for over a year, and the return of its first year's operation is lust appearing in the Government Blue Book, which shows that the gross earnings have amounted to the handsome sum of $5,798,516, and that a profit has been made in the very first year of $429,455."
1.	Is this statement accurate?
2.	If not, what is the accurate statement?
2. How many pounds	of butter	were imported into Canada during	the same	years?


Mr. REID:: Domestic.	Foreign.
1. *	Lbs.	Lbs.1910-11 	3.142,682	58,9361911-12 	8,844,402	72,6321912-13 	828,323	150,7241913-14 	1,228,753	124,1221914-15 	2,724,913	45,4111915-16 	3,441,183	108,4191916-17 	7,990,435	437,6192.	Lbs.1910-11 	.. 1,227,3901911-12 	.. 3,874,5871912-13 	1913-14 	1914-15 	.. 6,822,5401915-16 	.. 4,309,8311916-17 	.. 997,335


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No. The figures quoted are taken from the Annual Report of Railway Statistics for the year ending June 30, 1916, at page 45. Page 99 of that report shows deductions, and the result for the twelve months is shown therein as a loss of $341,615.51. To this should be added the rental of leased line from Fort William to Superior Junction for twelve months, $600,000, making the total loss $941,615.51.
2.	The railway was operating from Moncton through to Winnipeg as from May 1,
1915.	Operating expenses, including rental of leased line from Fort William to Superior Junction for twelve months ending 30th April, 1916, were $4,960,434.11, and the net operating revenue $4,083,603.51, the result being a loss of $876,830.60.


HEALS STATION RIFLE RANGE.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has any land been purchased for a rifle range at Heals Station, Saanich, B.C.?
2.	If so, how many acres?
3.	From whom was it purchased?
4.	What was the price paid?
5.	Who was the agent through whom the purchase was made?
6.	What was the date of the purchase?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: It is not clear what rifle range area is referred to. If the hon. member will more clearly designate the property referred to the required information will be furnished.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF FOOD PRODUCTS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many pounds of butter did Canada export during the fiscal years 1910-11, 1911-12, 1912-13, 1913-14, 1914-15, 1915-16, and 1916-17?


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many dozen of eggs have been exported from Canada during the fiscal years 1910-11,	1911-12,' 1912-13,	1913-14,	1914-15,
1915-16, and 1916-17?
2.	How many dozen eggs were imported into Canada during the same period?


John Dowsley Reid: Domestic.	Foreign.
1.	Doz.	Doz.1910-11 	
92,164	8,4231911-12 	
203,231	10,2401912-13 	
147,419	155,4101913-14 	
124,002	361,2001914-15 	
3,592,899	1,117,1301915-16 	
7,898,322	1,596,9801916-17 	
5,167,343	5,416,4752.	Doz.1910-11 	. 2,378,6401911-	12	
7,552,2481912-	13	
13,240,1111913-	14	
11,274,0361914-	15	
4,534,6111915-	16	
3,783,9521916-	17	
3,038,843


Mr. PAQUET:: 1. How many pounds of cheese have been exported from Canada during the fiscal years 1910-11,	1911-12,	1912-13,	1913-14,	1914-15',
1915-16, and 1916-17?


John Dowsley Reid: Domestic.	Foreign.
1.	Lbs.	Lbs.1910-11 	
181,895,724	251,3481911-12	
163,450,684	1,428,6901912-13	
155,216,392	83,9871913-14 	
144,478,340	432,4401914-15 	
137,601,661	179,2231915-16	
168,961,583	4,967,1771916-17 	
180,733,426	8,779,258


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many pounds of beef did Canada export during the fiscal years of 1910-11, 1915-16, and 1916-17?
2.	How many pounds of pork did Canada export during the same period?
3.	How many pounds of bacon did Canada export during the above period?
4.	How many hundredweight of wheat, wheat flour, barley, oats and corn did Canada export during* the fiscal years 1910-11, 1915-16, and 1916-17?


John Dowsley Reid: *	Domestic.	Foreign.1.	Lbs.	Lbs.1910-11	974,411	289,1471915-16	47,422,564	1,481,0011916-17	45,546,176	11,707,1922.	Lbs.	Lbs.1910-11	417,577	133,5711915-16	13,142,169	555,6921916-17	13,987,460	1,170,4823.	Lbs.	Lbs.1910-11	56,068,607	9131915-16	144,918,867	296,8261916-17	207,213,267	783,0514. Wheat-	Bushels.	Bushels.1910-11	45,802,115	3,972,5141915-16	157,745,469	10,944,9861916-17	189,643,846	944,290Wheat Flour-	Barrels.	Barrels.1910-11	3,049,046	61915-16	6,400,214	6001916-17	7,425,723	nil.Barley-	Bushels.	Bushels.1910-11	1,545,253	11915-16	5,928,373	nil.1916-17	9,681,327	111,202Oats-	Bushels.	Bushels.1910-11	5,431,662	93,6091915-16	26,816,322	101,7201916-17	66,368,832	589,894Indian Corn-	Bushels.	Bushels.1910-11	21,517	4,355,4121915-16	33,943	204,7981916-17	1,856,942	4,498,867


Mr. PAQUET:: How many tons of hay did Canada export during the fiscal years of 1910-11, 1911-12, 1912-13, 1913-14, 1914-15, 1915-16 and 1916-17?


John Dowsley Reid: Domestic. Foreign.
1.	Tons. Tons.
1910-	11	
326,132	101911-	12	
784,864	1251912-	13	
394,208	1341913-	14	
191,515	751914-	15	
131,875	721915-	16	
255,407	521916-	17	
198,914	1,741


Eugène Paquet: How many dozens of eggs did Canada import from the United States during the months of November and December, 1916, and January, February, and March, 1917?


John Dowsley Reid: Dozen.
November, 1916	 158,283
December, 1916	 320,672
January, 1917	 254,249
February, 1917	 340,025
March, 1917	 1,497,720


WAR VETERANS' ASSOCIATION.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government or the Minister of Militia been called to an article in the Ottawa Citizen and Journal-Press of the 15th of May, concerning officers who go overseas, and containing a report of the convention of the Ontario Branch of the Great War Veterans' Association, held on the 14th of May, in which a resolution on the subject of Commissioned Officers, their duties and responsibilities, etc., was adopted, and which the said Journals commented on at length?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government or of the Militia Department to give effect to the resolution referred to?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DENTAL OFFICERS OVERSEAS.
Mr. CARROLL:: How many Dental Officers have been sent overseas since October 27, 1916?


Albert Edward Kemp: Ninety-four officers.


CUSTOMS DUTIES ON SILKS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the Minister of Customs aware as to whether or not, since the middle of January, 1917, the Customs Collector of Montreal while not levying any war tax on silk velvets and silk cloths, officially and arbitrarily adds 15 per cent to the value of the invoice?
2.	If so, by what authority does he inflate by
15 per cent the stated value?	.
3.	Have any representations protesting against such inflation, if any, been made to the Honourable Minister of Customs?
4.	If so. what decision has been given by the Minister in this matter?


John Dowsley Reid: 1, 2, 3, 4. Silk velvets and silk cloths are subject to customs duties on importation into Canada. The additions to the invoice values thereof by the collector of customs or appraisers vary in amount;-but are made for the protection of the revenue under the provisions of Section 43, Customs Act, which require the collector, or appraiser, as the case may be, to estimate and appraise the true and fair market value

(any invoice or affidavit thereto to the contrary notwithstanding) of the goods at the time of their exportation to Canada.
The first appraisements are open to appeal, and are usually adjusted by reappraisement or production of other invoices so that if excess duties have been collected they are refunded.
Claims for refunds of duties on silk velvets and silk cloths have been received from Montreal, and each case is now being investigated in the usual course.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
Air. MACDONALD:: 1- What was the amount of debenture bonds issued by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners during the last fiscal year?
9. What is the total amount of the bonds issued by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners to date?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	600 debentures for $500 each, $300,000.
2.	The total amount of bonds issued was as stated in answer to No. 1.


INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Have any prosecutions been brought by the Department of Justice under Section 7 of Chapter 19 of the Acts of 1916, entitled An Act in aid of Provincial Legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No. By the British North America Act, the administration of justice is committed to the provinces, therefore the enforcement of the Act, save as provided by section 7 thereof, is a matter for the several provincial governments. The attention of the Minister of Justice has not been drawn to any offences of the kind mentioned in said section 7, as prescribed by said section as the condition of action by him.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
Air. OLIVER:: 1.	What is the total length, in miles, of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, from Ste. Anne-de Beauprfi eastward?
2.	How many miles of rails are now laid east of Ste. Anne de Beauprfi?
3.	When is it intended to lay rails on the remainder of the line?


Air. COCHRANE:: 1.	65 miles.
2.	134 miles.
3.	As soon as rails can be obtained.


RAILS FOR INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Are rails for renewal purposes now required on the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	Will the rails so required, in all or in part, be rolled at Sydney or Sault Ste. Marie, under arrangements with the Imperial Munitions. Board?


Air. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To be rolled at Sydney.


GRANDE PRAIRIE IMMIGRATION HALL.
Air. OLIVER:: 1.	From whom does the Department of Interior lease the Immigration Hall at Grande Prairie?
2.	What is the rental per month?
3.	What is the nature and extent of the accommodation thus made available to immigrants?


Air. ROCHE:: 1.	J. O. Patersen.
2.	$65.
3.	The building is situated on lots 31 and 32, block 4. The floor area is 4,800 square feet.


MATANE HARBOUR LIGHT.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has the white light at the entrance of Matane harbour been removed?
2.	If so, why, and at whose request?
3.	Is the Government aware that at the entrance of Matane harbour there is a sand bank dangerous to navigation?
4.	Have nay complaints been received by the Marine Department on this subject?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In order to improve facilities for navigation by the construction of a range of lights so situated as to lead through the channel across the bar. The improvement was recommended by the Lighthouse Board of Canada, after the matter had been brought to its attention by Mr. Boulay, M.P., on behalf of mariners trading into Alatane.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


WAR EXPENDITURE IN NEW CARLISLE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any moneys been paid in the municipality of New Carlisle, Quebec, since the outbreak of hostilities, in connection with war expenditure, not including the amounts paid to soldiers in uniform or to widows or the dependents of enlisted men?
2.	If so, what are the names of persons to whom such moneys were paid, and the respective amounts and dates of each payment?


Albert Edward Kemp: 1. Yes.
2. Dr. Kenipffea, rent of hall,
Dee. 10, 1915 to April 4,
1916	  $60-00
Dr. J. E. Michaud, Exam. Recruits, Jan. Feb. and March,
1916	$74	50Dr. J. E. Michaud, Exam. Recruits, April,	1916	
8	00
82	50
Dr. W. Maguire, Exam. Recruits, Nov. 15, Dec. 15 and
Jan. 1916	
85	00Dr. W. Maguire, Exam. Recruits, February, 1916	. .	14	0-0
99	00


$241 50 CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Under what conditions did the Imperial Government accept the offer of the Government to send the 1st Canadian Division for Overseas service?
2.	What were the terms of enlistment offered by the Government to the volunteers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force as contained in Militia Orders, issued August 17, 1914?
3.	What were the actual terms of contract entered into by officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force upon attestation?
4.	Under what section of the Army Act or King's Regulations and Orders may officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force be dismissed from the service?
5.	Under what authority may officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force be struck off the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force by officers of the Canadian Militia?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	The offer was accepted unconditionally. See return, Sessional Paper 40 (a), pages 41 to 48, documents relative to the European war.
2.	Terms as stated in Order mentioned.
3.	As regards men-these terms are contained in the attestation paper M.F.W. 23. As regards officers-attestation is not necessary; these terms being in effect on the acceptance of the King's Commission.
4.	Section 44 of the Army Act.
5.	All officers of the C.E.F. are officers of the active militia, and all units of the C.E.F. have been made temporary corps of the active militia. All officers of the C.E.F. in Canada previous to embarkation are subject to the orders of the Adjutant General, and also those returning to this country for disposal of the Adjutant General.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. DEMERS:: What was the cost of publishing the Blue Books for the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916, respectively?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and recommendations, if any, from the Grain Commission to the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other Department of the Government at Ottawa, following a meeting of the Grain Commissioners held in Lethbridge this year.


Mr. OLIVER:: For a return giving the names and salaries of employees of the Interior and Indian De-. partments, (a) Inside Service and (b) Outside Service, who volunteered for overseas service, and who were paid their full civil salary in addition to their military pay and allowances.
Those who volunteered for overseas service and who were paid a sufficient portion of their civil salary in addition to their military pay and allowances to bring their pay up to the amount of their civil salary.
Those who volunteered for overseas service and who received consideration (stating consideration) on account of their civil employment in addition to their military pay and allowances.
Those who volunteered for overseas service and who do not receive any consideration on account of their civil employment in addition to their military pay and allowances.
Also giving a list of those in said Departments who have been killed, wounded, invalided, prisoners of war, engaged on clerical duties in England and those engaged on clerical duties in Canada, respectively.


Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams, correspondence and any other papers in connection with the question of locating the 219th Battalion at Regina and Moosejaw respectively, during the winter of 1916-17.


PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.
[Stage Direction]
MOTION BY Mr. CURRIE, M. P.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, with a view to increasing the power of the Allies in the prosecution of the war, the Government should enter into immediate consultation with His Majesty's Governments in Great Britain, the other Dominions, India and the Colonies, in order, with their aid, to bring the whole economic strength of the Empire into co-operation with our Allies in a policy directed against the enemy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion, which appears on the Order Paper, has been there for some time. It is almost similar in character to a motion that was passed unanimously by the British House of Commons on January 10 of last year. Since that motion was adopted in the British House of Commons, we have had a number of commissions and boards of inquiry dealing with matters appertaining to the subject which may properly come under the heading of this motion. In Great Britain
m

we have had the Economic Congress at Paris which discussed matters coming under the heading of this resolution. We have also had Lord Farrington's commission ,oh banking, which dealt with foreign banking. We have had the Royal Commission on Transportation, which dealt with transportation between the colonies and Great Britain, and also between Great Britain and foreign countries. Then we have had the recent commission to Washington, which dealt with matters pertaining to the war. We have had perhaps the most important commission of all the gatherings of imperial commissioners at London recently, a conference in which our own ministers took part; and no doubt we shall shortly have a report from that commission or conference laid before this 'House. Thus the motion might to some extent be considered superfluous, so far as discussion in this House is concerned, but as long as the war continues matters will continually arise pertaining to this question, and I think it would perhaps be just as well for the House to affirm its position in the matter of the war and ,our relations to the Allies. In the first place, I think it is advisable that we should affirm our position so far as our own people are concerned, and state to them clearly that this House and this country have a definite economic objective not only during, hut after the war, that we intend to do something after the war. The people of this country must not consider that this Parliament is carrying on this war in a lackadaisical way or has neglected to take into consideration question of economics that may arise not only during the war but after it. In the second place, it is important to define our position towards the Allies. The Allies have an economic position as well as a position in the war. We have given them an assurance that we are with them so far as men and munitions are concerned, and we have granted aid in the way of money to assist the Allies in the war. We should define our position to some extent, and say that it is our intention to carry on a vigorous policy to the conclusion of the war, until we have an honourable peace. In the third place, it is as well for us as a House to make it plain that we are prepared to support the men we now have in' the field and that this House is with them heart and soul, and is prepared to support them on every occasion. They must know that we have not sent them to the war to waste away and fritter their strength needlessly and without support-,
but that it is our intention to carry on the war vigorously, to raise further troops, to feed them and clothe them and support them in every possible way.
I should like the House to discuss this question without any partisan spirit. The resolution which appeared on the English order paper was in similar words and was discussed by both sides of that House and passed unanimously. I hope that the same measure of treatment will be accorded to this resolution, because I think that, taking all together, for the past year or year and a half we_ have had a little bit too much politics in this' country. We have 'been carrying on under a supposed flag of truce, and at the same time carry on Prussian politice-that is shooting from under a white flag. I think it is a great mistake for this country and for the members of this House to take part in any political fights outside of this House or to participate in partisan discussions of any kind when matters are at such a critical stage. It is quite true that until a few months ago the full strength of the enemy was not realized; but anybody who reads the terrible lists of casualties that fill the columns of our papers every day and who -remembers the fact that we have lost 25,000 men this year, that one whole division has been wiped out and that there has as yet been no definite issue to the war, must realize that this is no time for carrying on partisan warfare. We should settle down to business and united carry on the business of the country, supporting any measures that may come before the House affecting the war. Unless we win this war the loss to this country will be far greater than to any of the Allies or any of the other nations that are involved in it.
What is the position of Canada so far as this war is concerned? Canada is the only country or the only Dominion that has gone into this war without the hope of receiving anything from it. Let us look at the position of the Allies. Russia expects or expected to derive large acquisitions of territory. She looked forward to the time when she would receive Constantinople, supposed, in the language of Napoleon, to he the heart of the world. It has been the earnest hope of the Russians for centuries that the day would come when the Christian flag would fly over the great Church of St. Sophia and when the Holy Land would be under the dominion, possibly of the Czar, at least of a Christian nation.
Italy expects large accessions of territory, not only in Austria, but in Asia Minor. It


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman suggested that there were people who wished to destroy the factories. May I inquire who it is that desires to destroy the factories?


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman himself is one of the members of this House who has been crying free trade from start to finish, and free trade means the abolition of our factories. If you destroy the agricultural implement factories, how will these returned soldiers be enabled to return to their business again? Hundreds of the men who were engaged in the agricultural implement factories in Canada have gone to the war-moulders, machinists and men of that description. If these manufacturers are such terrible men and if you are going to have free trade and thus destroy their factories, what are you going to do after the war so far as the returned- soldiers are concerned? Are you going to get these men their jobs again? Are you going to leave them to charity? I do not think that policy will receive the endorsement of any one who has the winning of the war at -heart and who is a lover of this country.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Try it.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member will have an opportunity of trying it in the West, and he will find that the returned soldiers will

not afford him very much support. He will have his opportunity; hut if he and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), who,. I am sorry, is not 'in his seat, think that a policy of so-called free trade, which they are constantly preaching from platform. to platform, and which would mean the destruction of the industries of this country, is a proper policy for Canada they are very much mistaken. Any one who studies the principles of economics knows that taxation, to he just, must fall equally upon every one. The soldier on the march carries a weight of approximately 86 pounds, which is distributed over his person, his knapsack and belts being so placed that he can carry his burden lightly and easily, whereas if the whole weight were put on one shoulder he would not be able to march as much as three miles. I give that as an illustration from one of the economists, and I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) has studied economics deeply enough to say what principle of economy it illustrates. If he had he would know where the illustration comes from. The weight must be evenly distributed over the person of the soldier. Although the Manchester School of Economics proclaims free trade, only a very small proportion of the taxes of Great Britain are raised by income tax; a large amount is raised by customs duties, just as we raise taxes in Canada.


John Gillanders Turriff: Oh, no.


John Allister Currie: I do not want to waste much time over the figures, but if the hon. member will read the Blue Book he will find out that I am. correct.


John Gillanders Turriff: Let us have the figures.


John Allister Currie: stantly producing a surplus in various lines we must find1, a market for it, and if it is neeesary to modify the tariff in order to get that market, as in the case of free wheat, then it is good policy to modify the tariff.


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I regret to interrupt my hon. friend, but this is the last day for private members' business. I appeal to you, Sir, whether the observations which the hon. member is mak-aig are relevant to the discussion of the motion which has been placed in your hands. The motion is to this effect:
That, in the opinion of this House, with a view to increasing- the power of the Allies in the prosecution of the war, the Government should enter into immediate consultation with His Majesty's Governments in Great Britain, the other Dominions, India and the Colonies.
I submit that a discussion of such an academic question as free wheat versus protection, which concerns our domestic business entirely, does not properly come within the purview of discussion of the resolution I have just read. My hon. friend's remarks in support of the resolution should be confined to arguments which are relevant to the subject.


John Allister Currie: The resolution deals with the development of the economic strength of the Allies, and perhaps I am discussing that a little too strongly for my hon. friend.


William Erskine Knowles: The point of order
should be discussed without personal references. For the hon. member to refer to how I receive his remarks is quite out of order. That is a second point of order, I think.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member should be allowed considerable latitude in discussing an economic question of this kind.


John Gillanders Turriff: Go on with your partisan speech.


John Allister Currie: I have not filled Hansard up this session with speeches like the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has done. I shall endeavour to curtail my remarks to the subject of the resolution, and if hon. gentlemen object that I am wandering slightly afield I think it will be rather because I am treading a little too hard on their corns. I think it is extremely important for this country to discuss its economic position both now and after the war. Unless wp consider now

what our economic position will be after the war, when hon. gentlemen opposite come into power, as they expect to do, what will they find? Will they find this country in bankruptcy, a broken country without business or population? That is apparently the doctrine that some hon. gentlemen opposite have been preaching. I have been endeavouring to show that the policy which has been adopted by the Conservative party since 1878 is the proper economic policy for this country. I think under that poliey we shall be able to build up and make our country great after the war. If we want to get population into this country, it is just as important for us to get industrial workers as it is to get farmers. We must work out our own salvation. I am not one of those who are constantly looking for handouts from the United States or some other country. This country should be independent and carry on its business affairs with a view to the future regardless entirely of what any other country may do. Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the great leaders in this country, laid it down distinctly as part of his policy that he would let no other country interfere with the economic policy of Canada, and not so very many years ago the Canadian people endorsed that principle as the right hon. leader of the Opposition knows.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: The people in 1911 said they were not going to allow this country to be tangled up with the economic policy of any other country. Sad to say, that is when the right hon. gentleman failed. If we are to develop our full economic strength, not only during the war but after the war, we must carry on the same line of policy that we are now carrying on. That is the policy that has made a great industrial Germany; it is the same policy as that which has made the United States such a great country.
What, then, are we to do? We have here great resources. One thing that is fundamentally necessary is that we should encourage agriculture. Agriculture is one of our basic industries. It has been treated too much as an accident, and not as a technical trade. Any man is supposed to be good enough to be a farmer. We laugh and sneer at the Huns, the terrible Huns. But Hungary is far ahead of this country in its agricultural progress. There is not one of these central states of Europe, with which we are at war, but has a great system of agricultural colleges and high schools. Hun-

gary, for instance, has thirty-five agricultural high schools. Our agricultural development must be directed along the same lines. At present it costs us far too much to produce the things that are sold from our farms. We must develop our agriculture on technical lines.
We must develop our mines. We know that we have vast mineral resources, but what they are we are only discovering from day to day. After the war we should have thousands of men employed in our mines, not only our gold and silver mines, but our great coal-fields of the West. There are enormous coal areas in Alberta into which a pick has never been struck, as well as great areas of iron. I have no doubt that there are men now within the sound of my voice who will live to see Edmonton the Pittsburg of this country. At present, none of these mines are developed. Why should we go on simply growing and shipping wheat and pay so little attention to our mines? We must have population; we must have a mixed population; and in order to give employment to all classes we must have various industries developed.
Then, consider our forests. We have vast areas suitable for the production of pulp, and the pulp industry has received a great impetus within the last few years. At the time when the war broke out, Germany controlled almost entirely the printing and lithographing trade of Europe. Many thousands of people were employed in those trades-in one city no less than 15,000 people gained their livelihood in these industries. If Canada can produce paper more cheaply than any other country, why should we not become the centre of the lithographing and printing industries of the world? I am sure that every member of this House would gladly see such a state of affairs 4 p.m. brought about, but you cannot do that if you discourage our manufacturing industries. It is too much the habit of some people to find fault with our manufacturers. Take, for instance, our textile industries. They were starved for years because there was always a politician to raise a yell whenever somebody thought the woollen factories were making too much money. We have not developed the sheep industry and the production of wool as we ought to have done, and just for the same reason. Politics have been the curse of this country in many cases-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: -and the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows that to
be the case. If he had his own way there are many things he would not stand for that he does stand for now, many policies that his followers promote, which, if he expressed his own ideas, he would oppose.
Our fisheries offer great opportunities. They have not been developed as the fisheries have been developed in Great Britain. With the coming of the trawler the development of our fisheries will mean many millions added to the wealth of this country, and a great population carrying on this industry.
It is not necessary for me to go through the whole list of our industries. But there is one thing most important of all, which must not be forgotten, and that is our foreign trade. Only a few months before the United States entered the war-and I am sure we all welcome the accession of the United States in this war, as bringing about once more a great Anglo-Saxon union-an economic conference was held by the manufacturers of that country. I take the trade papers, and had the pleasure of reading the discussions of that conference. It was pointed out that it would be the duty of the United States, after the war, to organize their industries for the carrying on of a more extensive foreign trade than that which they now enjoy. The expansion of the United States up to this time has been such as to absorb almost entirely the manufactures of that country. But they look forvjard to supplying foreign countries after the war is over. The manufacturers of the United States made a careful inquiry into the question how they could carry on business with various foreign countries- how they could extend their trade with South America, how ,they could increase their dealings with Russia, and so on. They discovered that if they were to compete with the Central European powers in this trade, one thing the country would have to do would be to organize foreign banking so that they could afford the long-term credits that these countries require. They found also that it would be necessary to obliterate some of the legislation that had been placed on their statute books with reference to trusts, because the manufacturers in allied industries would have to combine for the purposes of foreign trade. They found also that it would be necessary to follow the example of the Germans in pooling freights, so as to put the manufacturers in different centres upon an equal footing in relation to foreign business. In Germany manufacturers before the war, were given the same advantage in freights

whether their goods were produced in Dresden or in Hamburg. The railways and steamers absorbed the difference. What does that mean for us? It means that before the war ends our manufacturers must get together, and the country must cooperate with them, in order that means may be devised whereby our banking system will be extended to those foreign countries in which we hope to find markets. It means also that our manufacturers must be prepared to form unions, or committees, or commissions, to promote the sale of their products in foreign countries. And, if we are going to take over our railways-and we shall take them over or do something else with them-such arrangements must be made that the manufacturer at Winnipeg will have the same advantage in relation to foreign trade as the manufacturer at Toronto or Montreal. Then we shall be able to have great cities in these vast agricultural areas of the West, and the country will grow as it should. Otherwise, manufacturing in the West will be impossible, and the result will be disastrous to the country. Our industries will not grow as they should, and we shall not be able to pay off the great public debt we are taking on our shoulders.
Another thing to be dealt with is shipbuilding and our navigation laws. Shipbuilding is a problem that should receive our most earnest attention. Japan, for instance, by adopting a forward policy in shipbuilding and in shipping, succeeded in a few years in capturing all the Oriental trade. They built their ships and were able to take the trade from Great Britain, from the United States, and even from Germany, so far as the Pacific is concerned. The present moment is a very, critical one for this country. We must endeavour to stimulate shipbuilding, including wooden shipbuilding. A wooden ship will last for fifteen years. There is still plenty of timber in Canada. It is a great pleasure to me to know that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has seen fit to hand over money to the Imperial Munitions Board for the building of ships in Canada. What is more, I hope that some laws may before long be passed, such as the old navigation laws of England. They are quoting the navigation laws of Cromwell in the British House of Commons, and the navigation laws of Cromwell are to the effect that British goods must be carried in British bottoms. We should adopt some such system, because if we do we will

strengthen our trade and shipping, and we will be able to compete in the markets of the world with our surplus products. The sale of our surplus products and the increase of our foreign commerce will bring to the treasury of this country vast resources, and enable us to carry the burdens of the war very lightly.
The next subject I wish to discuss is the question of the returned soldier. The returned soldier will come back here filled with high hopes and courage, and he will be prepared to write the name of Canada commercially and industrially on the banners of the world just the same as he has done while fighting on the field of battle. It will be a great mistake for this House to continue idle discussion on economic topics or to consider proposals that will have the effect of thwarting the ambitions of these men upon their return home. They are the next generation, and in their hands will be placed the work of building up Canada. I am sure that there will be many hearty laughs when they read some of the speeches that have been delivered in this House during the war. Their eyes are opened. They realize what internationalism means to the world at large and particularly to their own country, and no doubt after the war is over we are going to have some form of union or of alliance between the nations which will be of some benefit to Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: With the
United States also?


John Allister Currie: I propose to speak
frankly to the House. I have discussed this question so far without taking up the question of the Imperial preference at all, because I feel that, possibly, the United States having once more become one of the great English-speaking nations, if any special favour were given to Canada that were not given to the United States, it might give offence. Hide-bound protectionist as I am, I would not be one of those who would say that it would be wrong for the United States to get an Imperial preference along with the British colonies. We are the same people, speaking the same language, and I think it is the brightest feature of the statesmanship of to-day that it can change its mind. The great men of to-day in the Old World, the men who are doing things, like Lloyd George, are the men who are changing their minds. A politician, or a man who has anything to do with political affairs, who sticks constantly to one line of thought, is not

the man who is cutting any figure in the world's history at the present time. The greatest men in England have cast aside the question of free trade. They have realized the necessity for a change. This world will not be the same again after the war, and if we receive an Imperial preference as one of the dominions of the Empire, and if the United States is desirous of coming in, there must be reciprocal advantages which we must all derive and it will not be wrong.
But, with reference to preferential tariff arrangements amongst the Allies, there is * a great deal of alarm amongst some so-called economists as to what is going to happen with regard to this question. It is all very simple. A four-column tariff is proposed by the Allies in opposition to the German proposals. The nature of the German proposals, as given expression to at their meeting in Vienna, is indicated clearly by this paper which I have here:
A secret conference of delegates of the Central European Economic Associations was held recently in Vienna, at which detailed proposals were formulated with reference to the questions of German, Austrian and Hungarian economic union. Under the leadership of the three presidents of the associations-Duke Ernst Gunther zu Schleswig-Holstein, Baron Plener, ex-Finance Minister, and Herr Wekerle, ex-President of the Council of Ministers, and with the participation of the prominent agricultural, industrial and commercial representatives of the three States, the following resolutions were passed:-
1.	Prior to peace negotiations being entered upon, the foundations are to be laid for the most comprehensive economic rapprochement between the German Empire and the two States of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
2.	This economic rapprochement is to be brought about on the basis of reciprocal preferential treatment and must embrace as far as possible all aspects of economic life. Thus it is not only the unification of the customs system which is to come into consideration, but also the improvement and development of a reciprocal system of trade and traffic in the widest sense of the word.
3.	The basis of the customs part of the political reciprocal preferential treatment is to be-subject to full preservation of necessary protection of home production, including in exceptional cases even the raising of particular customs duties-that side by side with the reciprocally granted customs concessions, the free list of the customs tariffs is to be extended as much as possible and a periodic revision of the customs duties operative in the reciprocal trade undertaken, actuated by the spirit of rapprochement. Endeavours are likewise to be made to devise a unified customs tariff scheme and classification of commodities, as also customs administrative legislation which shall be as uniform as possible.
4.	It is to be a condition precedent of the customs political preferential treatment that- particularly in the treaties of peace-the principle shall hold that such preferential treatment shall not be accorded to other States on the basis of most-favoured-nation treatment.
5.	Commercial treaty negotiations with other States are to be carried out by the Allied Empires, subject to the preservation of their commercial political sovereign rights, in agreement with one another, and with mutual support and simultaneously; such treaties, too, being concluded simultaneously.
6.	All measures of a legislative or administrative technical character which appear necessary for the development of the production, trade, communication, and financial economy of their countries are to be carried out in the free economic territories with expedition in the sense of rapprochement and unification.
7.	The arrangements of the Allied Empires which eventuate in the sense of these proposals are to be made for a period which shall con * siderably exceed the duration hitherto customary for commercial treaties.
That is what they decided upon at Vienna. As tar as the Allies are concerned, the proposal has been made and it is considered almost virtually as an established principle, that there shall 'be a four-column tariff. Many people ask: How is a four-column tariff to be applied? Let me give an example. First, there will be a general tariff, which will apply to neutrals and to everybody. While that general tariff will apply to neutrals and to everybody, there will be a reduction of, say, 10 or 15 per cent in favour of the Allied nations. Then, between the British Colonies and the Empire there will be an Imperial preference of say, 33 per cent. That gives us three rungs of the ladder. The fourth rung will be a surtax of 25 per cent against Germany and the Central Powers. That is how it can be carried out, and it is very easy to carry it out. As far 'as Canada is concerned, It will be very easy, because we are accustomed to preferential treatment as between this country and Great Britain. There is no great disadvantage, but, on the other hand, there is a great advantage, because, when we go into an alliance of that kind, our raw materials, such as grain and the products of grain, will cut a large figure. If any man will take the trouble to study the economic questions and results consequent upon such an alliance he will ascertain thait the Allies, as constituted at the present time, contain within themselves all the elements that contribute to economic greatness. We are in a position to supply ourselves with all the grain that is necessary to meet the requirements of our peoples, and we will have 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 bushels to export to other countries, which will all work out to our advantage.
As a manufacturer, I realize the great advantage it is to the manufacturers of this country who 'are not making munitions to be able to export material to the four cor-

iiers of the globe. I am one of those manufacturers, because I am interested in a factory whose products are going into South America, South Africa, and other countries where German goods at a former period supplied the demand. .
It has proved a very profitable business. We are not alone in the enjoyment of that business; it is enjoyed also by the other manufacturers in this country. We enjoy that, and have had a taste of what foreign commerce means, and you have no idea what a great advantage it is in a factory to have an opportunity of disposing of surplus goods in a foreign country, instead of having to throw them on the markets of this country at reduced prices. It is a tremendous advantage, and it would be a tremendous advantage after the war if the manufacturers of Canada would take the place of Germany. Canadians are exceptionally able as factory employees; they are bright, intelligent, and become first class workmen, and Canada should be able to carry on foreign trade as well as Germany, the United States or any other nation. She should be able to carry it on better than the United States. We have a great advantage in cheap power; the white coal of Quebec and Ontario and the Maritime provinces is cheaper than coal, and enables small industries to be carried on in small buildings, upstairs, and in various places, in cities, towns and villages where formerly it was impossible to do any manufacturing without the installation of great steam plants. This will give us a great advantage, and if we get the advantage of a tariff from the Allies which will enaole us to displace Germany in many manufactures, the burden of taking care of returned soldiers, so far as this country is concerned, will be very light, and the country will go ahead by leaps and bounds.
I look forward to the period of the return cf our soldiers with a great deal of anxiety, i think that we in this House should make it Known to the people of Canada and to those who are likely to invest money in Canada, that, when the war is over, business will go on at the old stand in Canada, that the policy of destroying industry will not receive the endorsement, for instance, of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. It never did-


Wilfrid Laurier: Never.


John Allister Currie: Because he was always
a good sound protectionist, in spite of the few free traders behind him. And it was [Mr. Currie.J
to his credit because, after all, any one familiar with conditions in this country, must know that we cannot all be farmers or tradesmen or lumbermen; somebody must carry on the manufactures of this country, and it is from the manufacturers of Canada and the skill of its workmen and textile workers that our future glory and greatness must come.
As one of the Canadians who did a little hit, perhaps, in the war and who has at heart the feelings of those men who are gallantly fighting for us at the front, I feel that the only hope for them is for Canada to adopt such a policy. You cannot expect all of our soldiers to come back and go on the farms. Many of them will be minus a leg or an arm, but they can still go into a factory and work as well as if they were whole in body and limb. But it would not be possible under any conditions for more than 40 per cent or 50 per cent of them to go on the farm. It is essential that we Should get behind them with the resources of the country. I am a great believer in the German system of state socialism, and I believe that we must develop a similar system; that we must have something to correspond particularly with their great system of rural credit banks, supplementing, not competing with, our present banking system. Ft is the rural credit banks of Germany, of Austria and of Hungary t/hai. are enabling the Central Powers to carry on the war to-day. The farmers of Germany, of Austria and of Hungary are buying the war bonds of those countries, and it is from them that the Central Powers have derived their financial strength and have been able to carry on the war. That is the great source of their economic strength.
I have no desire to enter into any lengthy discussion of the position of those gallant men who are fighting at the front, but I wish to say that I feel that- this House is behind them at the present moment and that the people of this country are behind them. It is only a few days since it was announced that we are to have some form of conscription in Canada. The Canadians at the front have had anxious moments. They have covered tnemselves with glory because, let me inform you, the battle of Vimy Ridge was a far greater battle, to my mind, and more decisive in the history of the world, than the battle of Waterloo. These men have covered themselves with glory; they have been decimated again and again, and it is necessary that we in Canada should keep up their strength.

I have always been a believer in a system of conscription, or as I like to call it universal national service-I hate the word "conscript" because I do not think it represents the proper feeling that should he in the bosom of everybody desirous of defending his country. The old Militia Act provided for a system of conscription. The right hon. leader of the Opposition in 1904 inserted a clause in the Militia Act -which enabled the soldiers, the militia men of this country, to be sent abroad for the defence of Canada as well as for service at home. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head; does he deny that? Yes? Well, I have no desire to discuss it, but section 69 of the Militia Act of 1902 was amended so that it now reads:
The Governor in Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canadaand these are the words added in 1904:
-and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable to do so by reason of emergency.
Is that not correct? That means that the Governor General in Council at any moment when there is a war or invasion can declare that there is an emergency and call for a levy en masse of all the manhood of this country capable of bearing arms. That clause was put there because at the time of the South African war it was found that the Act did not permit a man to be called out under the Militia Act and sent to fight in South Africa. When the present war broke out, Canada was the only country in the Empire that had a conscription law on the statute book. I have read the clause, and if it is anything else than conscription I do not know what the English language means. The other countries of the Empire had what they ca'led the old Militia Act, which permitted a man to be called out for home defence only. The territorial law in England permitted a man to be called out only for home defence. The Australian law permitted a man to be called out only for the defence of Australia at home within her own borders. Premier Hughes had to put the question to the people whether they would have conscription or not.


John Gillanders Turriff: A very good plan.


John Allister Currie: A very good plan,
but it is not in accordance with the principles of British Parliamentary government because prerogative rests with the Parliament, not with the people, as was shown
by the decision in British Columbia. Or if my hon. friend will read Walter Bagehot, who has studied the question fully, he will find that it is different from the American system under which prerogative comes from the people up.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the Militia Act confers on the Government full authority to raise men by conscription, why has not the Government, of which my hon. friend is such a valiant supporter, put it into force?


John Allister Currie: I am not the Government and I do not understand why, because, so far as I am concerned as a member of the House, when I served in France I understood that I was serving under the Militia Act and I thought I was a militiaman and one of the members of the militia of Canada. Only when I returned home to Canada did I find that the overseas force fighting to-day was not raised under the Militia Act, but under the Defence of the Realm Act, or the Act that was passed when the war broke out. Further-I wish to speak frankly-it is a matter of considerable pain to those who are engaged in the war to know that they are npt a part of the militia of Canada. Officers who served overseas were notified that when the war ended and they returned to Canada, their rank would not be recognized under the Militia Act. The Order in Council which brought the Canadian Expeditionary Force into existence will be done away with simply by the passing of another Order in Council. I dp not know why the Militia Act was not applied, unless because of the feelings of some hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not understand why the Militia Act was not invoked in the first instance. The matter rested entirely in the hands of the late Minister pf Militia. All the requirements set forth in the Militia Act were present. The war was on; the militia was mobilized for war purposes; Parliament was called within ten days after the mobilization of the militia-but, strange to say, the Militia Act was not enforced. I do not wish to express any opinion in the matter; the fewer organizations we have in Canada dealing with military matters the better. I am sure that one army is enough for any country; in Canada we have several such organizations and, unfortunately, the most bitter enmity exists amongst some of them. The Expeditionary Force and the Permanent Force are not on the best pf terms. For instance, a colonel who is fighting to-day in the trenches is getting $6 a day, while a colonel who has

stayed at home, who has not even crossed the water, is drawing between $15 and $20. You can see, therefore, that anomalies have arisen, by the non-enforcement of the law. The law as it stands now is ail right. It provides for the organization of the troops, their enrollment, their being sent abroad.
It would be a disastrous thing for this country if we were to spend the summer discussing this Militia Act or the proposed conscription Bill. Whatever comes, let us support it, because the men at the front require support and assistance. To discuss this question at great length would, to my mind, be disastrous and a disgrace to the people who have sent such a magnificent army to the front. These men have distinguished themselves and are distinguishing themselves every day. It would be a great shame if their stars should be thrown into the sea as they came across, or into the waste-paper basket when they came home, and they were accorded no military recognition. Some amendment to the Act may be necessary before conscription can be fully carried out. But, instead of calling it conscription, let us call it universal national service. It would be disastrous in the extreme if the legislation enacted were such as to give ground for the opinion that the poor would have to serve, whereas the rich would escape, or that one part of the country would have to serve while another part would escape. Selective conscription was adopted in Great Britain because they wanted to omit Ireland from the scope of the legislation. I am sure that no part of this country wishes to escape its duty in connection with this war. Some people are mean enough to make insinuations about our good friends on the east side of the Ottawa river. I know differently, for I have seen them serve. The history of the French-Canadian people is such that they can very well be proud of it. They were not in any sense a conquered race when Canada was taken over. The French-Canadian militia never lowered its flag. When Canada was taken over the French-Canadian militia marched out of all the fortresses and positions with the full honours of war. They were fighting men, and, to my mind, their descendants are as brave, as national, and as strong for the Empire .as the men of that day were.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would remind the'hon. member that he is wandering somewhat far afield. I would ask him to confine his remarks more closely to the subject of the resolution.


John Allister Currie: Perhaps I am out of order in dealing with questions that will come up in the House later. However, I think this House should adopt ,a resolution showing the Allies that we are still steadfast in the war, showing our brave soldiers that we are still steadfast and that we are not going to desert them and leave them without reserves during such times of emergency as they went through on several occasipns this year.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this question which has been so well discussed by my hon. friend (Mr. Currie). He has certainly taken advantage of the liberty that was given him by the Deputy Speaker to make his discussion of the matter fairly broad. I felt a little sorry that the Speaker, who sits in the Chair now, drew the circle a little closer because I am afraid it had the effect of cutting off the latter part of my hon. friend's speech. I am certain that the House must be deeply indebted to him for the wide field he has covered and for the arguments he has adduced.
The proposition which my hon. friend sets forth appeals, of course, to all of us. It is a matter in respect of which, as my hon. friend knows, a great deal has already been done by the Dominion Government, by the British Government, and by the Allies, in the way of preliminary investigations, conferences, discussions, arguments, and to a certain extent, acts. The economic conference which met in Paris last June was one of the developments of the feeling which had taken deep root in the minds of the Allies that certain considerations outside of the struggle for political hegemony were involved in the world wide contest; that beneath it and along with it there was an economic aspect. The conference, which was attended by the representatives of all the Allied countries, with the exception, I think, of Montenegro, devoted a week to the general discussion of the subject, came to certain conclusions which were immediately put into operation and came to an agreement upon certain principles which should be applied during the period of reconstruction, as well as during the time after the reconstruction period shall have passed and what might be called the permanent period of peace shall have been entered into. The action which had been taken by the Allies in respect of trade treatment of the enemy during the war was about

parallel to the course of action which was approved by the economic conference. Trade with the enemy, of course, is for* bidden., and we are to take advantage of every reasonable means of curtailing the enemy's trade expansion in every respect, and to push to the very utmost limit, consistent with fair treatment of neutral countries, the blockade which should restrict, restrain, and gradually diminish the power of the common enemy. The principle was also laid down that in the war, naval military, and economic, the Allies should in every possible way co-operate with each other, making common issues and, if necessary, even sacrificing in some respects individual preferences and even individual benefits if in that way the general Allied cause were made stronger as against the common enemy. Various methods were suggested for such co-operation. Great Britain, as being the greatest owner and director of mercantile transport has, in connection with the transport business of the world, carried out this principle of co-operation and help, even to the point of self-denial of her own purely economic or commercial interests. In financial matters the Allies have co-operated1 with each other, the strong aiding the weak, the weak taking advantage of the strong arm of the strong, each bearing the other's burdens. No definite length of time was set for the duration of the era of reconstruction-it might be two years, three years, or more-but with reference to what should take place in the war of economic and commercial treatment during that period, there was reached an agreement which has been ratified' by the Allied nations. That agreement was on this general basic principle:	you protect your
people with your arms, and with your blood and with sacrifices when you are in war; when war ceases, then you are to help each other in the work of reconstruction. The same principle of co-operation during the reconstruction period was affirmed in the resolutions of the Economic Conference, that is>
that the strong was to aid the weak, and that the different resources, eco-. nomie and otherwise, of the Allies as a whole, should be directed, not each one for its own special selfish benefit, but all for the general up-'building and reconstruction of the Allied peoples who have borne their part of the war and many of whom have been very severely harmed and damaged by the actual course of the war.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did that principle imply no commercial intercourse
with the nations which at this moment are our enemies? I may Temind my right hon. friend that the action of the Paris Conference was interpreted) by the German Chancellor as implying enmity even after war, and he used it largely in order to prolong the war.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The interpretations of the German Chancellor are generally made with a view to strengthening the German cause with his own people, and I have no doubt he used that interpretation to the utmost limit. But if the Allied nations were at any time during the war to base their conduct upon possible interpretations of the German Chancellor, they would be reduced to inanity and weakness. What the Allied nations did do was to discuss the questions and come to conclusions as to what would be best for the Allied nations as a whole; and if the German Chancellor, in his appeals to his own people, chose to make capital out of their action, that was not the fault of the Allied nations, and they would have to take that disadvantage for the sake of the advantage on the other side.


Mr. MARCIL:: In that Paris Conference, was any provision made for any new nation that was not at that time in the war, but that might become an ally-the United States is a case in point?


George Eulas Foster: No provisions were made except to lay down principles to apply to all the Allies that were in the war then, and those principles would apply equally to countries that might come into the war later on. I do not say-and I hope my hon. friend has not the idea-that the actual details in the working out of the principles were considered. That was not part of the duty of the Economic Conference; its duty was to get at principles that might be carried out with the cohesion and co-operation of the Allied nations. From now on until we reach the period of re-construction, experts and men of affairs in all the different lines will work out the methods so as to apply these principles. With reference to a remark of my right hon. friend, I may say that while every one felt that the economic resources of the different Allies countries should be used for the reconstruction and benefit of the Allies, there was no disposition in that conference, nor was there a hint of it, that there should be anything like non-intercourse or enmity towards neutral powers. Nobody at that conference, so far as I have heard, wished to



do any harm commercially to neutral countries, and on two grounds:	Erst,
because friendship could be kept with all neutral countries, and, second, because the broad grounds of commercial development and progress would not be consistent with any attempt to make a close corporation amongst the Allied powers to the exclusion of trade with neutral powers. Therefore, I think that this criticism that has sometimes been levelled against the Economic Conference is one which has no foundation in fact.
As to what should take place after the period of reconstruction and in normal periods of peace, principles were laid down tentatively and carefully and along somewhat the same lines, especially as regards the retention of the same spirit of helpfulness and co-operation amongst those who had borne the burdens of the war and who had suffered its tremendous consequental damages. There again, however, there was no thought of the exclusion of trade with neutral powers. As' far as I have studied the discussions, I think there was the general apprehension that trade and commercial development was a world-wide phenomenon, and that it was neither possible nor beneficial that an attempt should be made to divide it up into air-tight compartments. At the same time, there was a strong adhesion to that idea of comradeship in trade, commerce, and development after the war which had been cemented in the comradeship of battle and bloodshed on the fields of conflict.
My hon. friend '(Mr. Currie) led us over a very wide field. As to the necessity for most things which he mentioned, I think we all agree. We want in the first place to do the very best we can, on his return to this country for the man who has gone out from our midst and has fought our battle against the German foe; I do not think on either side of the House there is the least difference of opinion in that respect. There may be difference as to the best methods of bringing that about, but as regards our treatment of the returned soldier in every state of health and condition -from the man who has 'been rendered incapable of future labour to the man who is partly incapacitated and has to be taught and helped, to the man in full possession of his physical vigour who takes up again his old profession or wishes to undertake some new branch of labour and of life-we all feel that we owe to these men a debt which must he paid, and it is for us who

have for the time being the management of affairs to make for them the best and wisest provision possible. That feeling which prevails in this country and m this House will, I believe, be appreciated, by the soldier. I do not think the soldier who comes back -after fighting our battles will feel that he ha6 simply to sit down and be nursed by the country bemuse of the service he has performed. He knows that he has performed gallant service, service of sacrifice and of great peril. That consciousness is with him, but he comes back to this country wdth the feeling that he wants to do hie part in the civil life of the country just as well and as nobly as he did his part in the military life of the country. He has a perfect right to ask for the sympathy and help of the country for which he has fought and suffered, and if that be given to him in reasonable measure we shall have little difficulty with him in hie effort to adapt and adjust himself to peaceful life. The returned soldier will have received much teaching and instruction that is not to be obtained in schools or in colleges, and which is only to be learned in that great drama of life in which he has played such a part. In certain essential elements he may therefore be a better citizen than without that experience and training. So I look to the adjustment of the returned soldier to the duties of civil and peaceful life as a matter of great importance, but not of such tremendous difficulty, if the country itself does its duty, as I believe it is determined to do, and if the soldier himself takes up his part in civil life as I believe the great bulk of our soldiers intend to. So much for the soldier settlement.
As regards trade and commerce-we want employment; our people need employment. There is no country in the world which has resources more ready at hand, more rich, more varied, and more widely distributed than has Canada, and if we can direct the capital and labour of our country in wise and reasonable ways to develop the great resources of this Dominion, there will be great things in store for us. But I am not one of those who believe-I think it would be wrong if we tried to believe-that we are going to float from the period of war into the period of peace without trouble, without great anxiety, without possibly a great deal of sacrifice and of difficulty. After a three-year period of dislocation, such an adjustment on so vast a scale is not an easy matter, and we cannot expect to go

through that operation on the flood time of prosperity. Prosperity will come afterward, in due time, but to my mind there will he a period in which difficulty, and lack of great prosperity will intervene and it is that period that will try the mettle and spirit of this country as much as the war is trying it to-day. You may put on tariffs until you are gray-haired and talk about them just as long and eloquently as you choose, but there are only two ways, either by internal commerce or by external commerce, in which this country can march to prosperity on the line of the development of its great natural resources, and that is along the line of wise laws, tariff and otherwise. We must have legislation to suit the time and the occasion. But even if we should have the best tariff legislation possible, we still need an accordant working of labour and capital on the basis of equal advantage to each, taking the circumstances into account, and without either one or the other wishing to gobble up the larger share. Labour and capital working together wisely, intelligently, and sympathetically is one thing essential in this country, and it will be necessary in all countries when the war ceases. Then it cannot be too often said that we cannot compete in the home field in this country with the man from outside unless we can make goods as efficiently, as cheaply, and as tastefully as our competitor, and we certainly cannot get into the foreign market unless we can do the same thing there. Therefore, we have got to have a working body which has received the best education possible on the lines of practical work and technical education and all that kind of adaptation of labour to the spirit of the time and to the object to be produced which is going to be one of the great factors of future development and future prosperity. So in these respects we have in the first place to get the wisest legislation possible. Then we .have to get the closest co-operation between capital and labour. Then we have to get the most intelligent and best trained artisans and workers in the producing classes that we possibly can.
That is the object, I think, that my hon. friend has in view. His plan is to be carried out, in the first place in Canada for the development of Canada; in the second place in the Empire, for the development of the Empire as a whole; and in the third and fourth places for those outside of our own family who have the distinct relationship of ally or of neutral, with the bond of sympathy and co-operation, greater with
101 i
the former than with the latter, as is natural and right. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) is to be congratulated upon bringing this matter forward and treating it, as he has, so broadly and so well. The Government has no objection at all to the passage of the resolution. In fact, the Government has been working along in consonance with the Overseas Dominions and the British Government and, to a certain extent, with the Allies, for the years of the war, and it proposes to work along the same lines in the years of peace that are to come.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) tells us that the Government has no objection to the passage of this resolution. I think I can safely say that no one on this side has any objection to U. But it seems to me it is altogether uncalled for; it declares for exactly what we have been doing all along. Can the hon. member for North Siincoe (Mr. Currie) point to any member of this House, either on this side or on his own side, who is not desirous of doing the best he can on lines indicated in the resolution? I do not complain of the resolution, but I do complain that the hon. gentleman has taken advantage of the moving of this resolution to make a most bitter partisan attack on members of this side, and has practically said that we have been sniping under a flag of truce. If any members of this House have been guilty of that sort of thing, I think the hon. member (Mr. Currie) himself is as guilty as any of the rest. Not very long ago there was a bye-election in Ontario, and of all the bitter partisan utterances I ever read, I think his speeches in that campaign were about the worst. This was during the war, and I was told-I do not state it as a fact-that he was in uniform when he made those speeches. I can hardly think it true, and I expect him to say that it is not true.


John Allister Currie: It is not true. It is like the rest of the lies they told about that campaign.


John Gillanders Turriff: But the hon. gentleman will not deny his own speeches, for I read reports of them in newspapers that support the Government. I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but as the hon. gentleman has selected some members on this side, myself included, as the objects of attack, I feel called upon to take part in

the debate. The hon. member says that we are endeavouring to shut up the manufactories of this country. I never in my life advocated a policy to the detriment of our manufacturers, nor do I wish to hurt any manufacturer. The policy that I advocate is one which will give the manu-
5	p.m. facturer less tariff protection than he has now, when he has two or three times what he needs. But it will bring about such a condition of affairs that the workingmen, the farmers, and the consumers generally, will have money in their pockets and will be able to buy the goods that the manufacturer makes. And what better can the manufacturer ask? Can he expect to prosper under a policy that does not tend to prosperity of the common people? In my opinion, what the manufacturer needs is a market. At present, he has a market abroad, owing to special conditions that will end with the war. Why should it be said that one who wishes to reduce the tariff seeks to injure the manufacturers? Prior to 1896 the old Conservative Government made reductions in the tariff. Did that close up any manufactories? My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) is a manufacturer; can he point out a case where putting an article on the free list that previously had been subject to duty closed up a factory? I was talking to a manufacturer the other day, and in the course of the conversation he mentioned some lines of his production on which there were high protective duties. But as to these he complained of lack of business. Incidentally, he mentioned one class of goods that he was manufacturing, which is on the free list, but in the production of this line he was making better money than in any other line. I was talking to another manufacturer about a month ago-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member (Mr. Turriff) has had an opportunity, of which he has taken advantage, to deny the imputations of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). Having done so, I hope he will not enter upon a discussion of a subject that is not covered by the resolution.


John Gillanders Turriff: I bow to your Tuling, of course, Mr. Speaker. But the hon. member (Mr. Currie) went faT afield, and with the consent of the hon. member who was then acting as Speaker, and I think it only reasonable that I should be allowed to answer some of the statements he made

against hoh. members on this side, myself in particular.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) has already given denial to those statements.


John Allister Currie: With your permission,
Mr. Speaker, I would remark that the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) brought it upon himself by an interruption.


John Gillanders Turriff: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I probably have said enough on the point with which I am dealing. I take up another statement of the hon. member which no doubt comes within the terms of his resolution. He talks of preparedness and says that it was because of our unpreparedness and that of Great Britain that this war was brought on. Did preparedness ever keep any country out of waT?


John Allister Currie: I might point to the Morocco incident, England was ready for war then, and Germany was not.


John Gillanders Turriff: Germany has been ready for war for the last twenty-five years, and has been preparing all the time. It was the preparedness of many nations for war that brought on the war. The hon. member went on to speak of those who were opposed to preparedness and said they should be put in the asylum. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not treat the advocates of preparedness in that way; we make colonels of them. Instead of going to Britain for his ideas and ideals, the hon. member prefers to go to Germany, and all afternoon he has held up Germany as the nation that we should copy after. I do not think my hon. friend will get much backing up either on this side of the House or his own when he proposes that we should go to Germany for our model in -carrying on the civilization or business of the world. Britain is good enough for me. With her mistaken policy of free trade in everything practically excepting liquors, tobacco and a few luxuries, she is able to conduct the big end of this war and to loan money by hundreds of millions of pounds to all the Allies, and all the countries borrowing from her are high protectionist countries. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to that part of his argument.
My hon. friend said that Canada should be the paper-maker of the world. Perhaps she should, but I can assure my hon. friend that as long as Canada has a high protective tariff on everything that practically goes into the making of paper, whether she makes the paper down on the Atlantic coast

or up in the central portion of Canada, or out on the Pacific coast, she will not be the paper-maker of the world. By high protection you make the cost of machinery, wages and the feeding and clothing of the people so high that you cannot manufacture paper or anything else cheaply enough to enable you to compete with the other countries of the world that make paper under better conditions and with lower rates of freight.
Another idea that my hon. friend advocated as one which was going to solve all our difficulties was that we should take over the railways and' carry manufactured goods from the manufacturers to the seaports at the same rate of freight for 2,000 or 3,000 miles as was charged for 25 miles. What would the people, who have to pay for keeping these roads up, think of carrying raw material from Montreal to Edmonton there to be manufactured and then shipped back to Montreal to be exported at the same rate of freight that the manufacturers in Ottawa paid to ship goods to Montreal? To my mind the suggestion is very, very unreasonable. It is not feasible at all, and bad and all as the railway situation may be in Canada, if my hon. friend undertook hr remedy it in that manner, it would be just out of the frying pan into the fire, because he would make the situation much woree. There are some things you cannot do to advantage in the West. The manufacturing of many lines of goods is amongst those things that cannot be done to advantage. We can grow almost all kinds of farm produce to advantage. Let the manufacturing be done largely in the east under a proper tariff, not a protective tariff, but a revenue tariff. The tariff on, many lines now is such that we do not get any revenue out of it. But, I am afraid I will get on the wrong side of your ruling, again, Mr. Speaker, so that I will not go any farther on that subject.
My hon. friend stated that he was pleased to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) on having set apart money for the building of ships in Canada. I think he was mistaken there. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Finance in all the speeches he has made in connection with the matter and I do not think I heard him say that he had set aside one dollar of Canadian money for the building of ships. Hon members on this side of the House have advocated for the last two' years that the Government should do something in connection with the building of ships, but they have not done so and the
Minister of Finance did not say, as far as I understood him, that one dollar of Canadian money was being placed to the Imperial Munitions Board for the purpose of building ships. It is all British money that is being handled in that way.
There is just one other item that I wish to touch on before I sit down. The hon. member for North Simcoe made the statement that this Government was paying lieutenant-colonels-or colonels-I forget which-who were not at the war and who were not going to the war, from $15 to $20 a day, and that colonels who are bearing the brunt of the battle in the trenches are getting $6 a day. If that statement is correct it is the most scandalous charge I ever heard made against the Government since the House met. Why should a colonel in Canada get from $15 to $20 a day who is taking no risk, and who is going around with his frills and feathers while the man who has the courage of his convictions and who goes to the front and faces the enemy is getting $6 a day? If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose it must be, because I imagine my hon. friend knows what he is talking about, there is an explanation coming from the Government, an explanation to the people of Canada, and there is more than an explanation, there is action coming from the Government that will put a stop and put a stop at once to that state of affairs. The fighting colonel gets $6 a day and the tea-party colonel gets $15 a day, to put it at the lowest figure. I am just drawing the attention of the Government to it. I do not know anything about it but I take the statement made by the hon. member and I say that if it is correct then there is action coming from the Government and that quickly. The Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) is out of the House at present or I would ask him if the statement is correct. We will expect the Government to make some statement in that connection and, if conditions exist, such as have been stated to exist, action must be taken and taken promptly to bring about a better state of affairs. If there is any advantage to be given it should be given to the man who is at the front and not to the man at home. My hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Militia and Defence (Mr. McCurdy) is here and he will probably be able to give the information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would suggest that my hon. friend put his question on the Order Paper.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have brought the matter to the attention of the Government, and if they are not able to answer it, or do not care to answer it, why, it is their responsibility. There is one other matter that my hon. friend dealt with, that I will not deal with to-day, and that is in connection with the returned soldiers. That is a wide matter and one that I intend to have something to say about at the proper time. But as there will be many other opportunities for the discussion of that question I will pass it over to-day, and I will not deal further with the remarks of the hon. member for North Simcoe than to emphasize that he was absolutely mistaken when he stated that I was in favour of the closing of any manufactory of any kind in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the proposed motion of Mr. Pugsley:
That, whereas, in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan anti Alberta, the provincial franchise has been granted to women by legislative enactment, and in British Columbia the electors have voted in favour of similar legislation ;
Whereas it is provided in the Dominion Election Act that persons entitled to vote for Members of a Provincial Legislature shall also be entitled to vote for Members of Parliament, but in respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan

alone of all the provinces of Canada-it is provided that only males shall be entitled to vote for Members of the Federal Parliament, thus creating an anomalous situation as between the provinces, which should be removed :
Whereas during the present 'Umpire struggle the women of Canada have shown a most intelligent and patriotic interest in, and an unselfish devotion to, the welfare of the State;
And whereas It seems hut just and right that they should he given a voice in the direction of its affairs:
In the opinion of this House it is desirable that provision he made either to grant to women who are qualified to vote for Members of a Provincial Legislature, the right also to vote for Members of the Dominion Parliament, or to grant to women throughout the Dominion the right to vote for Members of Parliament, subject to such provisions and limitations as may seem reasonable to Parliament.
Wilfrid Laurier: Dropped.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dropped.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
On the proposed motion of Mr. Murphy:
That, having regard to the fact that the failure of the Ross rifle as an active service weapon was known to the Government in the early stages of the war, and that notwithstanding such knowledge the Government has continued' to equip Canadian soldiers with the said rifle, this House is of opinion that the Government is deserving of censure for its conduct in
[Mr, Speaker.!
the premises as' well as for its prolonged delay in providing an efficient substitute for the Ross rifle.
Wilfrid Laurier: Dropped.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dropped.


RETURNED SOLDIERS.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Government should fully realize that this House, while approving largely its past efforts to provide fully and amply for returned soldiers, would favour legislation providing for those who have fought for their country so that they may not he compelled to resort to canvassing and other unsuitable measures to eke out a livelihood which should be provided by the country for those practically disabled and unable to find suitable employment ; and that generally it be understood by the Government that this matter is one for immediate and complete consideration; and further that pensions and other provisions on behalf of soldiers and their families should automatically rise or fluctuate as prices do, so that the amounts thereof be not curtailed or decreased as at present to the detriment of those for whom Canada is under every obligation to provide.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my object in putting this resolution on the Order Paper was manifestly to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion up to date concerning a matter of the first importance. It will be remembered that last year, when the Pension Bill was foreshadowed, I put a resolution on the Order Paper of the same tenor as this. On investigating the Bill last year I found no less than 26 cardinal objections to it, and I did myself the honour of sending to some members of the House, notably the members of the Government and the right hon. leader of the opposition, a schedule of these, in order that they might be taken into consideration. However, later on a special committee was appointed to consider the question, and as I presumed it would deal with all the objections that I as well as others had made, I took no further practical interest in the matter with regard to the resolution itself. But I find that the pension scheme which was then brought down has a great many vulnerable points in it, of so serious a character that unquestionably the whole subject should be thrown open for discussion.
I have intimated in my resolution that there are three main divisions for reconsideration. One is that the men are not properly provided for; in other words, that

the pension list is not sufficiently munificent. Another is with regard to the finding of suitable employment for those who will be out of employment; and the third is with regard to the fluctuation of prices, since a stated pension is manifestly greater or less according to the fluctuation of the prices which it is intended to meet. I am aware that the Government is actuated by a desire to deal with soldiers most generously. I understand that a Pension Bill is coming down that will be a great improvement on anything we have had before. I have no doubt of that. But it may be possible that we shall have some suggestions to make to-day that may help in a case like this, and we cannot afford to omit anything that may be of the least advantage to the soldier and his dependents.
The true basis of a pension scheme in a democratic country like Canada should be equality; that is, that there should be really no distinction between officers and men. The spirit of the pension scheme as outlined in this memorandum which was served upon us all recently would indicate, in fact it specifically states, that the pension shall have no reference to the previous occupation of the soldier. Well, it should have no reference to the subsequent occupation of the soldier. I freely admit my appreciation of discipline and of that halo of distinction that must necessarily attach to an officer in authority over a large body of men, who, like a magistrate, or like you, Mr. Speaker, is more or less clothed in a distinction which is perhaps, though very fitting, nevertheless somewhat artificial. I could therefore understand that when a colonel or any such officer is in the actual course of his employment he should have a larger salary, a larger pay, a larger wage, than a soldier. But when he comes out of the fight he should not have a larger pay. I can find no reason why he should. There is no reason why by reason of any distinction that he has acquired or any service that he has rendered or not rendered he or any member of his family should have a larger pay than any other retired soldier. If this House, or the country desires to reward him particularly it is open to the House to move that he should have a larger sum of money placed to his credit or some other distinction conferred upon him. It is open to the Government or to the authorities to decorate him with various medals. Those are the things provided for that purpose. But when we come down to a simple commercial consideration of the question,
he has no title to richer food, better apartments, finer accommodations and generally better, support by the country than any other man who has done his duty, because I am convinced that a sense of duty, a sense of self sacrifice, is the highest qualification for merit. Absolutely we are not civilized until we reach that stage. If any other thing, such as the acquirement of property or the leverage that a large income may give, is to be the climax of our demo- 1 cratic distinction, then all I have to say is that we have not reached that peculiar and subtle form of the true spirit of democracy which means that sacrifice is far greater than property. Therefore I would urge that this feature of the matter should be very carefully considered. I may say in general terms that the soldier and his family should be, so far as necessary, even to the straining of a point, wards, of the nation. Therefore I give utterance to my absolute dislike of the provision that after a boy is 15 years of age and a girl 17 there should be no further payment of pension on his or her account. That is preposterous; it is absolutely improper. Wards in chancery are taken care of until they are 21, being the children of the court until they attain that age. It has never Ibeen suggested that a boy is of age when he is 15 or a girl when she is 17. We should try to find out, not how little we can do, but how much we can do without offending the soldier and his family. Let us be ever ready to help.
Another thing, I must confess, appears to me to be extraordinary. When a man is discharged from the Expeditionary Force he gets 15 days' pay and then he goes into the domain or the zone of the province, which is supposed to find him employment. I say that that is wrong. This man is taken out of the life of the country, in which, perhaps, he was earning a very comfortable salary. He may have been a plumber, a coal dealer, a man of that description, making money, hand over fist. He dropped i!t all, dropped his prospects, dislocated his whole domestic system and went abroad to fight. Having done these things, he is told, when he comes back: we will give you 15 days' notice, to enable you to get into your proper sphere of civil life. That is my understanding of the procedure, >and I certainly think it is improper.


Mr. McCURDY:: With the permission of the hon. member for West Peterborough, I should like to correct his assertion with regard to the conditions under which soldiers are discharged when they become fit

for return to civil life. The hon. gentleman speaks of their receiving 15 days' notice. As a matter of fact, under present arrangements, each soldier returning to civil life is entitled to receive three months' pay upon his discharge .from the Expeditionary Force.


John Hampden Burnham: I understand the hon. gentleman's reference; I will return to it in a few moments. The present pensions for the men are, I confidently assert, away below what they ought to Ibe, especially in view of the fact that when the men set out prices were 50 per cent lower than they are now. Indeed, the necessities of life have advanced, roundly speaking, 100 per cent; yet the pensions remain the same. If we were paying a salary, or a wage, well and good. Then we might say caveat emptor-let the man who makes the contract look after himself. But it is not so. We have said to the soldier: Go and fight for us; we will look after you; do not worry about that. And the way we look after him is to give him a pension which is now only half what it was when the pension list was first made out; yet we do not purpose increasing it in any way. And, strange to say, a man who is totally disabled gets $480 a year while his wife gets nothing. His children are provided for, but his wife gets nothing, on the principle, I assume, that man and wife are one, and therefore the wife is not entitled to anything. Or it may be that it, is supposed that she would like to take in washing or something of that kind, doing something towards the support of the family. I do not endorse that view. I think that single men should be provided for on one scale and married men on another, and certainly the wife should not be ignored.


Mr. BLAIN:: My understanding of it is that when a man is totally disabled he gets $480 a year and a further allowance of $250 a year.


Mr. HAZEN:: If he requires the services of an attendant.


John Hampden Burnham: That is an entirely different thing. But even if a man be disabled to such an extent that he requires some one to look after him, the payment of $250 a year would not help him very much. When a man gets into such a condition as that,' through old age or otherwise, he has to pay $50 a month or more for a male attendant, so that $250 a year is practically nothing.

The partial disablement pension is founded on an entirely erroneous assumption, namely, that finding employment is purely a matter of arithmetic. In other words, if a man is 80 per cent unfit, his chances in life are diminished by just that much. If a man who is 80 per cent unfit seeks employment, he will get very little, because there are mighty few people who would employ a man who was 80 per cent unfit. His salary is cut down accordingly, and he is, therefore, in far worse condition than if he were totally unfit. Strange to say, the scale stops when it comes down to the man who is 20 per cent unfit. That is to say, a man who suffers partial deafness, or the loss of an index finger, is considered 20 per cent unfit; but the man who is 19 per cent unfit gets nothing. I suppose many people will hardly believe that, but it is so. In other words, if a man has an injury like a scar across his face, which Would make him look pretty tough and probably result in his rejection if he sought employment, gets nothing under the partial disablement plan.
The pay and provision of a soldier on active service is, to my mind, largely the criterion upon which we should go. The single man on active service gets $1.10 a day. His quarters and rations are valued by the Government at 60 cents a day-that is to say, were valued; I am taking the list as it is. Then we must value his clothes at $4.50 a month, and I am putting down his medical attendance, which is free, at 50 cents a month. This means that he gets a total of about $672 a year. It is not necessary for me to go into this in any involved way; I simply say that when a man who ' becomes totally disabled gets $480 his pay is reduced by $200. When he was well able to fight we could give him $672-which is a generous statement of the amount-and when he is not able to fight we give him $480. If that is equity I do not understand it. If he were a married man on active service his pay, quarters, rations, clothing, medical attendance, separation allowance and allowance for, say, five children, would amount to about $100 a month, or $1,200 a year. As I shall show, however, when I come to a consideration of the pension statistics as given in this memorandum, the pension such a married man would receive is very much lower than this figure. In other words, although I know that the Government are most anxious to treat the soldier in a fair manner, nevertheless we have taken him in his strength and heyday of life and have paid him one amount, and

when he is of no more service to us we have cut him off with a very small pension. I know we do not intend to do that, but that is what our treatment amounts to.
I would like to call the attention of the under-secretaries to this point. After the fit man is discharged by the Government, he gets fifteen days' guarantee between his discharge and possible employment.
Mr. MeCURDY: Three months.


John Hampden Burnham: Three months whe\ he comes back.
Mr. MeCURDY:	A soldier on his discharge from the Expeditionary Force is entitled to draw three months' pay.


John Hampden Burnham: That is when he is discharged. After that is there any guarantee?
Mr. MeCURDY: I do not know about a fifteen days' guarantee.


John Hampden Burnham: This memorandum says:
If fit for discharge, that is, fit to resume his civilian occupation with no lessening of his earning power in the general labour market, his discharge is post-dated fifteen days, to which date his account is settled, all pay due to him being paid. Case finally closed.


Wilfrid Laurier: What ie the
hon. member reading from?


John Hampden Burnham: I am reading from a
pamphlet with the heading:
Memorandum showing rates of pay and allowances authorized for the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the active militia on home guard duty, and the active militia called out for active service, together with rates of pensions applicable in the case of death or disability incurred on service.
Mr. MeCURDY:	Since that book was
distributed the regulations have been changed.


John Hampden Burnham: This is the information that has been furnished to me. All I can say in that case is that the records of the House are incorrect.
Mr. MeCURDY:	There has been this
alteration, that a soldier on discharge receives not fifteen days' pay, but three months' pay.


John Hampden Burnham: I am glad to have that amendment made. So far, so good. We are advancing. I am making my indictment of the statement in this pamphlet, and the first indictment I have made with regard to the fifteen days' guarantee has been anticipated by its being changed to three months' pay.


John Douglas Hazen: By whom is that book published-by the Militia Department?


John Hampden Burnham: This was sent to me by the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it published by the Militia Department or by the Pensions Board?


John Hampden Burnham: I cannot eay, but I
think it is published by the Militia Department. Colonel Winters sent it to me.


Mr. NICKLE:: That red book which my
hon. friend has was published before the recent Order in Council went into effect. Men who have not been overseas-and the same regulations did apply to men who had been overseas-receive fifteen days' pay; in other words, their discharge is post-dated fifteen days. Soldiers who have been overseas receive three months' pay when they are discharged. I believe the payments are made monthly, but their pay is continued for three months' after their discharge.


John Hampden Burnham: Is this book correct in all other respects, because I do not want to spend time in discussing it if it is not?
Mr. MeCURDY:	That book was correct
on the date it was issued.


John Hampden Burnham: Does any one know
whether it is correct now or not? I understand there is an intention of giving some good, fat salaries to some hon. gentlemen, and I fancy they are gopd, careful men and would spend their time in bringing things up to date. This is a time of war, and I would like to know what they are doing.


William Folger Nickle: That 'book was correct
on the date it was published, but there have been subsequent Orders in Council that have made alterations.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will understand that an edition .of the book cannot be published every day.


John Hampden Burnham: As soon as the Government undertakes to serve people with notice of what the Government is doing, they become entitled thereafter to notice of every alteration. That is a principle well kn.own to every lawyer.


John Douglas Hazen: Is the date of publication of that book printed on the first page?


John Hampden Burnham: I really do not know.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend can tell
by turning to it.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not see the date.


Wilfrid Laurier: la that book printed by the King's Pointer?


John Hampden Burnham: All I know is this.
This b.ook came to me with a letter and that letter was signed by .Colonel Winter, the Military Secretary of the Department of Militia, and it purports to be a memorandum- containing rates of .pensions and so forth.


Frank Oliver: When did you receive it?


John Hampden Burnham: About ten days ago.


Charles Marcil: I received a copy of the same book with a similar letter.


Frank Oliver: I did not receive a copy of any such book.
Air. AlcCURDY: The Order in Council to which the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has referred, was passed more than a month ago.


John Hampden Burnham: That does not make any difference as to the receipt of the book. Surely the book was not sent out after an Order in Council, making alterations in it, was passed. If so, then the Government is going to pieces altogether.


William Folger Nickle: The Order in Council was passed subsequent to that book being distributed.


John Hampden Burnham: I would recommend the matter to the attention of my hon. friend. There is a question I would like to ask the Government with respect to partially disabled men. Partially disabled men are liable to a recurrence of their ailments; their wounds may burst out afresh; there may be gangrenous affection besides. If a partially disabled soldier has to pay for additional medical treatment, all his meagre pension will be swallowed up. Is there any provision made for such cases? No. In this, pension list, in the treatment of partially disabled soldiers, that fact is entirely ignored, whereas any one who has any knowledge of the human frame, or who has the slightest idea of pathology, must know that these wounds may burst out afresh at any time. The pensioner, however, must pay his doctor's bill; there is nothing that I can find here to the contrary. I would advocate strongly that for at least three years after discharge free medical treatment be provided for the partially disabled soldier, because there will be no graft on the part of the pensioner as no man wants to be medically attended if he does not require such treatment; no

one wants his limbs probed or tampered with in any way unless there is something wrong with him and perhaps a piece of bore is working its way to the surface or something of that kind. The Government therefore need not be afraid that there will be any graft in such a case.


William Folger Nickle: Provision has been made by Order in Council wheTeby a man who has been prematurely or improperly discharged may appear before the Medical Board, -and if they are satisfied that his then condition is attributable to his services he is again admitted to hospital, his pay and allowance are immediately resumed, and he is treated toy the state free of charge.


John Hampden Burnham: That Order in Council is not in this book.


William Folger Nickle: I cannot say as to that,
as I have not read the book. I am only stating what the fact is.


John Hampden Burnham: I am glad the Government has a lot of good things up its sleeve, because, upon my word, it seems to need them. These misapprehensions and misunderstandings on the part of members of Parliament may just as well toe cleared up, because we want to know what is being done.
The next paragraph says:
The Commission shall make provision for the vocational training of those who are desirous of taking advantage of it, and for the supplying, from time to time, of artificial limbs and appliances to those who would thereby be benefited.
I see nothing in this book to indicate that after they have received vocational training and become proficient, work will be provided for them. Some reasonable effort surely should be made in that respect. Let me give the House an illustration. A man came to me not long ago who had had his left eye blown out by a 'bit of shrapnel. He was given a glass eye. He had one ear hanging, not very bad perhaps, but still pretty ragged. He had also a wound in the back of his head, and had lost his left arm. The whole of his left side had also -een gouged out-it did not appear until he showed it to me-and his left knee had been knocked to pieces. He said " I am a pretty looking object," and I said, " I agree with you. Were you in a railway collision." " No," he said, I was over in France, and am now a wounded soldier. If it were not for the Maclean Publishing Company I would be in a very bad fix, because my pension is not nearly

enough. You know how things are yourself. I have got to eke out somehow, and this publishing company have given me and some other soldiers some work." Another returned soldier came in while he was talking. This one had a wooden arm, and I asked him how he got along with it. He said, "I could get along all right if it were not for the infernal pain. I am supposed to be a one-armed man, but most of the time I am half crazy with pain." The pension he got was on the basis of a onearmed man, but he was no more fit to do work than the man in the moon. The pensions of both these men were entirely inadequate, as I knew myself. But they were given work by the Maclean Publishing Company selling books. There were five or six other soldiers selling books for the same company in the immediate neighbourhood that day. Many people have said to me, "It is disgraceful that these poor fellows, many of them knocked to bits, should have to do this. Some of them were horrible looking objects because of their wounds, but their wounds, bad as they were, were marks of honour and distinction. These soldiers would go around to the same few men in the central part of the little city of Peterborough and ask, "Will you buy this book?" The man would buy it, of course, even if it took his last cent, and the soldiers would say, "We are sorry to have to come and ask you, but if we did not do this we could not possibly get along." Now, I say that state of affairs is too bad. Even if a pension of $480 was sufficient some time ago, the price of butter, potatoes, coal, rent, clothes and every thing else has gone up so rapidly that the pension does not represent anything like $480 now, and this must be taken into consideration. People may say: If you are going to provide against fluctuation, what about it when things go down in price? Well, that is really alarming. Would it not be an awful thing if the soldier got a dollar or two too much? They have given their best for us; they have.faced the cannon's mouth, and we are so frightened they may get a dollar or two extra in case of a fluctuation downwards that we will not run the risk of providing against a fluctuation upwards. That is really one of the most appalling things I ever heard. That kind of thing won't satisfy the people of this country and it won't satisfy the soldiers. I know this Government is most anxious to do what is right but these are concrete instances that have come before me. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this afternoon these men do not ask to be nursed when they return to civil life. Certainly not; I do not know any of them that want to be nursed. I have seen and talked with hundreds of wounded men. Imperial and Canadian, and, believe me, some of them are more like crazy men than anything else; they have been simply jarred to pieces. Between the hours of eleven and twelve they would be calm, perhaps, and would talk about themselves, but very often from one to two o'clock their nerves would be completely gone. Not only are the nerves merely affected in what are known as these distinctly nervous cases, but frequently the nervous system is permanently injured, and nobody can possibly tell how much or how little the man is injured; when you undertake to say that one man is 80 or 60 or 40 or 20 per cent injured and ignore all below 20 per cent, you are going pretty strong. Class 1 deals with total disability, 100 per cent, and reads:
Loss of both eyes.
Loss of both hands, or all fingers and thumbs.
Incurable tuberculosis.
Loss of both legs, at or above knee joint.
Insanity.
Permanent extreme leakage of valves of heart.
Insanity need not be mentioned in that list, because insane patients are sent to an asylum at the Government's expense. Anyone who is suffering from permanent extreme leakage of the heart is absolutely useless physically. Now, all that a man in this class gets is $480, and I say that won't do.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Hampden Burnham: (Continuing) Mr. Speaker, I was approaching, with some degree of diffidence, the clauses dealing with the rates of pensions. I may say, before going further, and for the purpose of allaying any anxiety that may exist on the part of any of my friends, that I am going on with this resolution with the full knowledge and consent of His Majesty's Government who are always anxious to know everything that can be said on any question in order that they may turn out, no doubt, the best quality olf legislation possible in the interests of the country.
The man in Class 1, total disability, receives $480 a yeaT, I dealt with that. I now come to Class 2:-

Class 2-Disability 80 per cent and less than 100 per cent-pension 80 per cent of Class 1. For example:-
Loss of one hand and one foot.
Loss of both feet.
Disarticulation of leg at hip.
The man in this class gets $384 a year. Now, manifestly, $384 a year will never put that man where he was before, even supposing that where he was before was a very moderate condition of life indeed.
Class 3-Disability 60 per cent and less than 80 per cent-pension 60 per cent of Class 1. For example:-
Loss of one hand.
Doss of legr at or above knee.
Loss of tongue.
Doss of nose.
"Loss of Tongue." What man with no tongue in his head could get employment? This, to my mind, is absolutely extraordinary. The man who got up this list of pensions had a much keener sense of arithmetic than of anything else. The man in this class gets $288; his wife gets nothing.
Class 4

Disability 40 per cent and less than 60 per cent-pension 40 per cent of Class 1. For example:-
Loss of one eye.
Loss of one foot.
Total deafness.
Loss of two thumbs.
Total deafness is an extremely serious thing. Tf a -man totally deaf came to us looking for appointment, we should certainly put him off, for we should have to communicate with him by writing. That man would be useless as a porter, as a janitor, as a clerk. I cannot understand some of these things:
Class 5-Disability 20 per cent and less than 40 per cent-pension 20 per cent of Class 1. For example:-
* Loss of one thumb.
Anchylosis of elbow, knee, shoulder, wrist or ankle.
Class 6-Disability under 20 per cent, a gratuity not exceeding $10-0. For example:-[DOT]
Total deafness In one ear.
Partial deafness in both.
Loss of index or other finger.
This man gets $100 and is thrown on the world. Partial deafness in both ears is differentiated from total deafness, yet i. may come close to total deafness, and partial deafness is very likely to grow worse, and people would hesitate to employ this class.
16. If a member of the forces has been killed, or has died as the result of injuries received, or disease contracted, or aggravated while on active service, the widow, until remarriage, shall he entitled to the equivalent of the pension in Class 2, and also be entitled to draw the allowance for children. On the

re-marriage of the widow her pension shall cease but she shall be entitled then to a gratuity of an amount equivalent to one year's pension.
She is .relegated to Class 2,-$384. It seems to me that is a very serious reflection upon the generosity of those concerned, especially in view of the fact, as I will cite later on, that when a widow is left with children and remarries, she gets a certain amount as a gratuity which comprises the allowance for herself and her children.
22.	A widowed mother, step-mother, or grandmother, wholly or mainly dependent upon a member of the forces who Is killed or dies as the result of injuries received, or disease contracted, or aggravated while on active service, if such member was without dependent children and unmarried-
Mark that. If a man increases his obligations, if he enlarges his sense of filial piety, by taking his poor old grandmother under his wing, she would get nothing.
[DOT]-or a widower, shall be entitled to a pension of Class 3, provided, however, that no such woman shall be entitled to more than one pension.
Which, of course, is perfectly correct.
On the marriage of the woman such pension shall cease, but she shall he entitled then to a gratuity of an amount equivalent to one year's pension.
23.	A father, wholly or mainly dependent upon the son who is a member of the forces, and who is killed or dies, as a result of injuries received, or disease contracted or aggravated while on active service, if such member was without dependent children and unmarried, or a widower, shall be entitled to a pension of Class 3.
Comment is unnecessary. On page 19, at the bottom, we have a reference to a widow with children. This paragraph is not dignified with a number. It comes in after a lot of others, and may be any old thing, I suppose.
Pensions may be paid to widows and children of those who have been killed in action, or who have died from injuries received, or illness contracted on active service, during drill or training, or on other military duty, at the following rates; provided, the soldier's death was not due to his own fault or negligence and was clearly due to the carrying out of his military duties.-
All which, I may incidentally observe, he has got to establish, and establish with such accuracy and so beyond cavil that by and by, I can well understand, they got absolutely desperate. The Government should take upon themselves the onus of making immediate inquiries, most searching inquiries, in the most generous way, regarding these cases. As soon as they learn-

as they should learn, should be bound to learn-that somebody connected with the man's family is in want, or may fall into want, or is entitled to something, they should send reliable officers to learn the facts. I do not believe the Opposition would object, and demand returns, and say that there were too many officers. If necessary, appoint returned soldiers, and then they would not say anything. These poor souls are blocked by routine. They do not understand the thing, they do not know what you mean, half of them. Now a widow and her children, if the husband belonged to the rank and .file, would get $22 a month, and $5 a month for each child. If she had four children, that would mean $504 a year. Now, $504 looks a big sum to the man who is giving it, but it looks like a very small sum to the woman who is getting it, especially if she has to provide for those children and train them. I do not believe that that $504, if it were given to the widow and children of a soldier who happened to die elsewhere than on the battlefield, would send him to his grave in a very contented frame of mind.
(b) In the case of orphans, the rates shown above for children may be doubled, and the pension paid to legally appointed guardians.
This is on the face of it a very generous construction-it " may be doubled." But look at the files in the office of the Board of Pension Commissioners and you will find correspondence enough there to fill an ordinary filing cabinet. And at the end of it, what? Desperation. " May be doubled." And they immediately begin piling up objections. They begin to say " We must do this;" "we must do that;" "we must do the other." In Heavens name, let them do it. But they don't do it. And you have to keep attacking them, you have to keep pounding at the door. They do not do anything of the sort.


William Folger Nickle: Does the hon. gentleman understand thait he is not quoting now from the rules in regard to pensions applicable to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


John Hampden Burnham: Does this refer to
militia? What is this?


William Folger Nickle: The hon. gentleman will observe that after page 18, at section 27, it goes to another scheme of pensions altogether not applicable to members of the Expeditionary Force.	.


John Hampden Burnham: What is the pension that applies to widows and children?


William Folger Nickle: From the word "one" on page 14 to the words "to it" on page 18.


John Hampden Burnham: This misapprehension would have been saved by the number I was looking for in this paragraph. However, this does not in any sense sidetrack my objection, because these are pensions that are supposed to be given to those who deserve them, and this is a case that must be analysed just the same as anything else. It says further on, and this is possibly to what the hon. member for Kingston points, that pensions may be paid monthly in advance. I say they should be paid monthly in advance. This book contains the whole system of pensions. I am not necessarily confining myself to the Canadian Expeditionary Force pensions. I am dealing with all the pensions which this Government propose to give to men who, at this period of the war, are supposed to deserve them for services to the state. It says that any pension to a widow with children will cease when the mother re-marries, but the mother's gratuity will include the children's pension for two years, in which case the children's pension goes. As a result of a conference held between the Dominion and the provinces, I understand that fit soldiers were to be looked after by the provinces and disabled soldiers by the Dominion. This newspaper, the Citizen, of a recent date, from which I am quoting, says:
The Dominion Government, on the other hand, assumed the responsibility of caring for and providing for soldiers incapacitated for employment, or those who required special training or treatment before undertaking employment. This division of the work has been followed since this conference. The provinces have formed committees to undertake the work of re-employment, while the Dominion has provided for all invalided and disabled soldiers, and the vocational training of returned men.
In that there is a very serious omission; for the vocational training and employment of returned men, it ought to be. The provinces do not look after the employment of these men at all, and neither, according to this statement, and I understand it to be correct, does the Dominion. I shall now quote from some evidence contained in the
Proceedings of the Special Committee appointed to consider, inquire into and report upon the reception, treatment, care, training and re-education of the wounded, disabled and convalescent who have served in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, and the provision of employment for those who have been honourably discharged, and the training and re-education of those so discharged who are unable to engage in their former occupation.

This is dated Friday, March 2, 1917.
By Brigadier General Mason:
Q. You get information concerning the returned soldiers in what way? A. Through the Military Hospitals Commission. We had a great deal of difficulty at first in meeting the returned soldiers because the train which would bring them to Ottawa from Quebec arrived here late at night, and the soldier, being treated so generously in Montreal en route by the Khaki Club, would prefer to leave there at 10 o'clock at night, thus reaching here at one or two o'clock in the morning. It has been the case that soldiers would not arrive on the train we were advised they would come on, but on a later train, with the result that there was nobody on hand to meet them, but that has not happened frequently.
It is not necessary to go farther with that to show that there is an entire lack of system. That is not the way the men went abroad. Everybody was down at the station to see them off. This is a difficulty that arose from the very haphazard and unsystematic methods that existed in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is quoting now from evidence given before a special committee of this House?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I ask if the committee has yet reported?


John Hampden Burnham: I think so. This has been furnished to members.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the committee has not reported it is not competent for the hon. member to refer to the evidence.


John Hampden Burnham: I thought it had been handed to the members and that it was all right to refer to it. I got this copy from the table of the House. As my documentary evidence was somewhat called in question at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to read this letter:-
Minister's Office, Ottawa, 19th April, 1917.
Sir,-
In view of the many enquiries being received regarding rates of pay and allowances for members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force overseas, the Active Militia on Home Guard duty, and the Active Militia called out for active service in Canada, as well as rates of pensions, separation allowance, etc., I am instructed by the Hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to enclose herewith for your information and guidance a pamphlet setting forth these particulars, and other information in regard to the Canadian Military Forces.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Charles F. Winter, Colonel,
Military Secretary. John H. Burnham, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.

That letter was accompanied by this little red book.


George Perry Graham: What is the date?


John Hampden Burnham: 19th April, 1917, just a month ago. This memo is, therefore, I should fancy, duly authenticated. I shall not detain the House, but I would simply assert, if I have not done so before, that widows and orphans are not adequately provided for. At a recent meeting of the War Veterans' Association in Winnipeg it was held that the basis of pay should be $1,200 a year, or $100 a month, and that strikes me as right. I know what expenses are in this country, especially at this time, and no soldier can be adequately provided for in view of the enormous prices of everything and the fact that prices -are likely to continue, if not quite alt the present rate, very nearly at that rate, and I do not think that one can make a mistake in being decidedly generous. Where men have been allowed to eke out their pensions by going about selling articles and soliciting from the public I think their cases should be inquired into and the results reported to headquarters. I do not think they should be compelled to do this sort of thing by reason of their circumstances, and I do not think, if they have been properly provided for, that they should be allowed to do it. Whilst I have no complaint really to make in regard to the Board of Pensions, as I believe they are actuated by the highest sense of duty, I positively assert that the system of investigating pensions is entirely wrong, or nearly so.
I shall give you one instance, the case of a woman who had married again but had been very unfortunate in her second marriage in that she married -a chronic invalid who was not able to earn a living, and who clearly came within the spirit and, I think, the actual letter of the pension law. This woman came to me to see what had become of her deceased son's estate. This- son was her only child. He had sent to her each month a large sum, considering his pay; but he wae one of those men who did not know the regulations and he had not returned it according to the regulations. Let me digress to say, without being unduly critical, that, the frequent delay in the return of assigned pay-I will not say through whose fault-and the uproar occasioned from time to time by failure to pay the separation allowance, excited in the minds of many soldiers an apprehension that since their good people at home had nothing or next to nothing to go upon they could not afford to risk delay and eent the money

home themselves, paying the -cost of transmission. In the case to which I am referring there was nothing wanting that I could find. I sent the woman's application in. She could neither read nor write, and therefore could not be expected to decipher the regulations or to know anything about the routine. She was a woman well on in years and being illiterate would know little about things of this kind. I sent her eimple application in. They sent us back forms in due season. I said to this woman, who was a Roman Catholic: You take this affidavit to your bishop and this to the chancellor of the diocese and this to your own rector and this to the surgeon in charge, who knew all about the circumstances of the family. I also made an affidavit. We all swore positively and gave a detailed account of the whole thing. I never put in as much evidence in anything. I got a letter saying: We will send to the Canadian Patriotic Fund Society in Peterborough and have them ascertain what the physical and pecuniary condition of this woman is. I said if the bishop of Peterborough and myself and the doctor and the chancellor of the diocese and the rector are no good, know nothing, are a lot of hoboes, why, go on? That is what I call red tape; it is something like a story from Dickens; it reminds me of "Bleak House." Is a member of Parliament for a constituency nobody at all? Has he got such a political reputation that it is worse than none at all?


Mr. McKENZIE:: It looks like it.


John Hampden Burnham: If that is the case, thes Opposition has given us such a bad name that we have been hanged, that is all.


George Perry Graham: So much good accomplished.


John Hampden Burnham: If you call that good,
look at the result of it. I made up my mind that, as I was coming down here soon, I wpuld tackle the job myself; so I went up to the Pension Office, and I must say that the conditions there were enough to deter the ordinary applicant. Suppose, for example, I had been one of those people instructed to apply for a pension. Imagine me the poor woman. She is not bound to have a friend at court, she may have no friend at all. She may think that she can rely absolutely on the Government and the intelligence as well as the generosity of its officials. So I went upstairs and announced, in a very bashful but nevertheless formidable manner that I was a member of Parliament, according to the custom in that
behalf. I was very sorry to find that it did not impress the man in the slightest. They were a lot of people there, and they said: You have to take your turn. I said: I haven't got time. This was a duly authorized clerk who said this. Somebody else came along and finally I was ushered in after a certain degree of delay to a very urbane, kindly gentleman, who said: Do you happen to know, Mr. Burnham, the number of the soldier? I said: I regret to say I did not charge my memory with it, I thought you would have some way of finding out. He said: We are all at sea, we do not know anything except by the number; if we have not the number we are absolutely buried. I had a private suspicion that that is what ought to happen to them anyhow. But at last one intelligent gentleman ventured to speak up, probably at the risk of dismissal, and he said: Perhaps we could find out from the applicant's name. So he dodged upstairs and brought down the file and the applicant's name was absolutely on record, and of course the file was attached to it. Imagine the woman going .there, what could she have done? She would have gone bafek to Peterborough and on to her little village in the country, and given up her claim, she would never have heard of it again, and would never have got one red cent.
In closing I wish to say again that this is not generosity, it is not justice. To have 400,000 men upon our pension list at $1,000 a year would mean a charge of $400,000,000 a year, that would be more than we could afford. I admit that is rather serious; but we must face these things as they are and not allow the fact that it is a serious business to impel us, directly or indirectly, to do something that is not the square thing with those men and those they have left behind them. Let us, for goodness sake, remember that these people are in our charge and that when we said: You go to the war and fights and we will look after those you leave behind you, we meant what we said and were worthy of belief.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, if the members of the Government or those who are at the head of the Militia Department do not think that the statements placed before this House are worthy of their attention, I shall take the liberty of intruding upon the time of the House for a few minutes. I am personally interested in the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Peterborough



commissioned officers oi the 51st Battalion were given to understand before going to France that they would retain rank, and Malloy has a letter from Colonel HaTwood of the 51st Battalion stating that he would hold his rank. He was wounded on June 28, 1916. He drew pay of rank until November 14, 1916, when he was boarded for Canada. He first learned on November 14, 1916, when he got his last pay certificate, that he was reduced to private from June 6, 1916, the date of his landing in France. He had drawn on pay account as sergeant-major up to that time. His last pay certificate showed him to be $72.90 overdrawn. A battalion sergeant-major's pay is $2.30 a day, and a private's, $1.10 a day. He refused to accept the reduction of rank and pay until he ran out of funds, and was compelled to sign a receipt in full on January 20th in order to get transportation to Canada. He signed under protest. He believed he was drawing $69 a month, whereas he was only drawing $33, of which $22 was assigned to his mother. There was no entry in his pay book showing reduction in rank or pay.
These men were reduced to the ranks on leaving for France, and they will, of course, draw only the pension of a private, which is the rank they were holding when wounded. While these two men who held the rank of sergeant and battalion sergeant-major respectively, before leaving for France, get the pension of a private only, non-commissioned officers of the same battalion who remained in safety and comfort at battalion headquarters in England, retained their rank, and should anything unfortunately happen to them in England, they will receive the full pension pertaining to their rank. The men who went over to France lost their rank, lost their pay, and lost the pension to which their rank entitled them.
After the facts I have placed before the House, I do not think there is anything more for me to say. It is absolutely up to the Government to see that the Pensions Board, the creature of this Government, carries out the intent of this Parliament, which agreed informally to the pensions list as placed before the country by the Government. The list has not been embodied in an Act of Parliament yet, but only in an Order in Council, and the responsibility is therefore still more directly on the Government to see that the intent and purpose of the people of Canada, as expressed in that Order in

Council, is absolutely carried out by the Pensions Board, as it certainly is not being carried out at the present time.
I wish to say one word in regard to the remarkable condition that has been revealed by the discussion between the hou. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), relative to information placed be fore the House by the hon. member for Peterborough which he derived from a Government publication received at the hands of an officer of the Militia Department. The hon. member for Kingston informed the House that this information was not up to date, inasmuch as certain orders in council had been passed subsequently either to the date of the publication of the book, or the date of its being received by the hon. member for Peterborough. The position taken by the Government through orders in council in regard to the responsibility of this country towards its soldiers, is a pledge on the part of the country to the soldiers, of which both the soldiers and the country are entitled to full knowledge without delay. To publish a document for circulation throughout the country such as my hon. friend from Peterborough has placed before the House, and then withhold from public knowledge modifications of that document- and these modifications have been withheld from public knowledge-is not playing fair with the country, is not playing fair with the men who are most directly affected, is not good business from any point of view, and is not creditable to the Government that is a party to it.


Richard Blain: I do not think the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) or the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) expressed the feeling of the people of Canada in regard to the Pensions Board's treatment of returned soldiers. I represent a county from which a large number of soldiers have gone overseas; many of them have been seriously wounded, and many have lost their lives in battle. For that reason I have had occasion to come in contact with the Pension Board, and I know something of the generous provision that has been made by the Government for those who have suffered in the great struggle. In regard to the statement of my hon. friend from Edmonton as to secrecy on the part of the board, I wish to say that every time I have applied to the Pensions Board for information it has been given to me

promptly and fully; nothing hg,s been withheld. To-night is the first occasion on which I have heard or read of any man in Canada expressing the opinion that there is anything secret about the Pensions Board. I have no hesitatipn in saying that the statements of my hon. friend with regard to secrecy are not well-founded, and I am sure the people of this country do not share his views.
Having many of these matters to deal with in my own county, I called a meeting a short time ago in my home town of the relatives of the soldiers, and I gave an explanation of the regulations in regard to assigned pay, separation allowance, pensions and other matters of that kind. The meeting was largely attended by people of all shades of politics, as it was entirely nonpolitical, and at the conclusion of the meeting I asked whether there was any one present who had complaints to make about separation allowance, assigned pay or the Pensions Bill, and of the many persons present there was not one who rose to say he had not been treated promptly and fairly by the Government of the day. It would be impossible to expect there would be no complaints when the board is dealing with such a vast number of cases; some people complain for reasons of their own, but I am sure from conversations I have had and from what I have read there is very little criticism of the generous treatment the returned soldiers are receiving from the Government. Only the other day I received a letter from a friend of mine in the cdunty where I reside. It said that a certain young man who had enlisted in October 1916, had assigned his pay to his sister. She had been complaining that the Government had paid her none
9 p.m. of the assigned pay. As soon as the matter came to my attention I immediately got in touch with the Assigned Pay Branch, and found that this young man instead of assigning his pay to his sister had assigned it to another person altogether. This young woman had been complaining for more than six months that the Assigned Pay Branch had paid no attention to her brother's order assigning his pay to her.
When it was brought to the attention of the Assigned Pay Branch they were able in a moment to explain. Instead of people going to the right quarter to get the information, which they could receive by telephone in a moment, they prefer to take up the attention of the House and spread their complaints broadcast. For my part,
1021 '
in such matters as this, I think iit is the duty of every member in this House, instead of exposing these things in Parliament, to go to the proper sources of information. I do not say this in particular criticism of what my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has said. He is a public man of note and importance, but I rather think he did not do himself justice in not informing himself up to date before he presented his case in the House. That is a matter of opinion, and, I am sure, my hon. friend will not complain, and he was generous enough ito say that the Government were desirous of doing the proper thing.	.


John Hampden Burnham: What I said was correct, and I have nothing to take back, and I regard the remark of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) as impertinent.


Richard Blain: I accept that from my hon. friend in the spirit in which itis given. I venture to say, however, that he could have obtained up-to-date information. He was corrected in the House by gentlemen of thePen-sions Committee, but, when corrected, he was hardly willing to accept the correction, but rather preferred to read from a book thait is out of date. There is only one thing I want to add, and it is this: as I understand it, the question of pensions was referred to a committee of this House last year. On that committee were members from both sides of the House. The hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), and other bon. members on that side, including, I think, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), were named as members of that committee. The pension list was revised by the committee, and the committee's report was adopted unanimously by this House. I do not think it is very appropriate for the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to bring up such matters, particularly at this time, when we are making an effort as a Canadian people to enlist young men for the war. I do not think that such discussions help to increase enlistments, nor do they assist in the conduct of the war. Canada's pension allowance is the highest in the world.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: I congratulate the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) on being in very great luck in his county in regard to the business of returned soldiers and their dependents. I am sorry to say that my experience has not been so happy, and I think that the gentle-

bodied men or prosperous families than that one maimed man, or one bereft family should be allowed to bear it alone.
It seems to me that we would most easily dispose of the problem of our pensions and our Pension Board by throwing the whole present scheme into the discard and starting afresh on a new basis of even-handed justice to the men who have served, and who no doubt will serve us so splendidly, and to the helpless ones from whom we have taken the services of their bread-winners.


John Douglas Hazen: When this war broke out there was a Pension Act in force in Canada with a pension scale, and the Act was administered by the Department of Militia and Defence. It was felt that the provisions of that Act were not of a character that met fairly the situation that arose, when Canada sent troops overseas and took part in' the European war that is now raging. The matter was brought up in this House and discussed. It was discussed last session during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) spoke, and I made some reference to the subject myself; and, partly as a result of that discussion, the Government submitted the existing pension scale to a committee of this House composed of gentlemen representing different political views. That pension scale was considered by the committee, of which I had the honour of being elected chairman. The other members of that committee were, Mr. Nickle, from Kingston; Mr. Green,\from British Columbia; Mr. Scott, Mr. Macdonald, of Pictou; Hon. Mr. Oliver, from Edmonton; Mr. Claude Macdonell, from Toronto; the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, of Rouville, and Mr. Nesbitt, from North Oxford. The committee called witnesses, had before it representatives of the Militia Department, representatives of labour and other organizations in this country, and private individuals who had been taking a deep interest in this matter and had to some extent been forming public opinion on the subject. The committee gave to the consideration of the matter the very best attention it was possible for it to give, and the result was that it made a report to this House signed by every member of the committee and unanimous on all but one point; my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) differed from the rest of the committee with regard to having one pension rate for men whether they were married or single. That report was sub-fMr. Taylor.]
mitted to this House and discussed here, and without a single dissenting voice it was approved, it was recommended to the Government, and we were asked to see that effect was given to it. Perhaps I should not be wasting time if I referred to a few things that were said by members of the committee at the time the report was submitted to the House. In the first place, in explaining the matter to the House, I said, among other things: '
The changes which we recommend involve a very considerable increase in the amount that the country will have to pay for pensions. Under the scale in force at the present time, it is estimated that for a force of 100,000 men of all ranks in the field for one year the pension list of Canada will amount to $5,481,500. It is estimated that, under the pension laws which we recommend, the total pensions for a similar force in the field for a similar length of time be $7,184,181 a year. So hon. gentlemen will see that, based on the estimate of a force of 100,000 men in the field for a period of one year, there is an extra cost under the scale we propose of $1,702,681.
This is the pension list that is' in force at the present time For a force of 400,000 men in the field for a year, therefore, it would amount to about $29,000,000. That estimate is made up, as my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will recollect, from figures we obtained from the War Office showing what the casualties usually were in proportion t,o the number of men actually engaged in active service. That report came before the House and nearly all the members of the committee had something to say about it. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said:
In my experience in this Parliament I have never served on a Committee in which every gentleman on both sides seemed to be actuated by so sincere a desire to arrive at the best solution of a very important question as were the members of this Committee.
Similar statements were made by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the Other members of the committee, all bearing testimony to the way the committee had tried to discharge their duties, to the harmony that prevailed, and to the fact that, from first to last, there never was a suggestion made by members of the committee on either side of politics that would for a moment imply that they had any political consideration, but that their sole desire was to arrive at a pension scale that would be fair to the dependents of the brave men, and to the men themselves, who were fighting the Empire's battles at that time and who are fighting the Empire's battles to-day.

The Prime Minister made a speech in reference to the matter, because the committee recommended that effect be given to this report as soon as possible. It was suggested that it might be possible to give effect to it by legislation at once, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) expressed regret that that had not been done. The report was discussed at the very close of the session, and the Prime Minister used words to this effect, that the Government bad ample power undeT the War Measures Act to pass an Order in Council that would at once bring into effect and into operation the report of the committee, and that it would be better, in his opinion, to do that rather than to pass legislation because t'he experience of the commissioners in administering that report might lead to the conclusion that changes and amendments were desirable, and these could be embodied in a Bill dealing with the whole matter at the following session of the House. As a result of that report, the Government, at a very early date after the close of the session, passed an Order in Council under the provisions of the War Measures Act which brought the new pension scale into force, and without any alteration whatever, brought into effect the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of this House.
Among other recommendations .in the report was one that a commission should be appointed for the purpose of administering this whole scheme of pensions. Up to that time the pensions had been administered by the Militia Department. To-day the Minister of Militia and the Militia Department have no more to do with the administration of the Pensions Act than has my hon. friend from Edmonton, or any other gentleman on that side or this side of the House. It is absolutely incorrect to refer to the Pensions Commission as a branch of the Militia Department, or as in any way connected with the Militia Department of this country, as some hon. gentlemen have done to-day. This is in consequence of the report of the committee at the last session. It was felt that in dealing with a matter like pensions the very suspicion of any political interference ought to be removed; that, therefore, the Pensions Act should not be administered by any department of Government, and that the Government should appoint a commission with independent powers who would administer the Act irrespective of political considerations. Let me read some of the recommendations of the Committee which have been made effective by Order in Council:
That three persons, to be known as the Board of Pension Commissioners hereinafter called the Commission, be appointed to hold office, during good behaviour, for ten years unless removed for cause, and to this commission be entrusted the consideration, determination and administration of all military and naval pensions.
The report further said:
That the Commission have full authority and responsibility to deal with and determine all matters pertaining to pensions, and from their decision there be no appeal; provision, however, should be made for any complainant so desiring to present his case, either personally or by counsel before the full commission sitting for the purpose of hearing the complaints of those who may have been dissatisfied with awards given in the ordinary course of administration.
In introducing the resolution recommending that the report be seriously considered by the Government, I used these words:
The object which every member of the committee had in view was the establishment of a board that would be entirely removed from all considerations of a political character, and with that object in view they have provided that there shall be no appeal from the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners, either to the Government or to anyone else. The only appeal that will be allowed is that of a soldier who is dissatisfied with the pension that has been awarded him in due course, on the documentary and other evidence that is produced in support of his claim, and that appeal will be heard by the full Pension Board; but from the decision of that hoard there shall be no appeal whatever.
The hon. member for Edmonton and other hon. gentlemen who were members of the Committee will remember that, after fully discussing the matter from every standpoint, the Committee finally and unanimously decided that the Pensions Board should be the final court of appeal. It was felt that if there should be an appeal from the decision oi the Pensions Board to the Governor in Council, political considerations might have weight, and, whether those considerations had weight or not, there would be a suspision that the pensions received by the men were subject to the influence of political considerations. We came to the conclusion, therefore, that an independent Pensions Board should be appointed. Having by Order in Council adopted in its entirety the report of the Committee, the Government appointed a Pensions Board consisting of three gentlemen who are now administering the Pensions Act without any interference from the members of the Government, the Militia Department having not a word to say with regard to the matter. The gentlemen appointed were Mr. J. K. L. Ross, of Montreal, Major Todd, of McGill University, and Mr
COMMONb
Labatt, of London, Ontario. What is the ground for complaint? The Government carried out in good faith and without alteration the report made by the joint Committee, which met with the unanimous approval of members of the House at the last session. If there is any fault, it is, in the first place, that the report of the Committee did not make adequate provision. That is a matter of opinion. The Committee brought its best judgment to bear upon the question, and as a result they recommended the scale which is now in force. If the Committee erred, the mistake can be corrected. Either that is the grievance, or it is that the Pensions Board is not capable of performing properly and efficiently the duties that have been entrusted to it. I have no reason for believing that such is the case. I represent a large constituency from which a great many men have gone to the war. A great many men have gone from the province of New Brunswick, outside of the constituency which I represent, and I am satisfied that if any persons in my province felt themselves aggrieved with regard to the administration of the Pensions Act, I would hear about it. Soon after the Pensions Board was appointed and before the work was well organized, complaints came to me from representatives of men who were entitled to pensions.. Since the Board has completed its organization, such complaints have not reached me. I think that a good many of the complaints at the outset were due to the fact that the organization had not been completed and that the machinery had not commenced to run smoothly. If the Pension Commissioners are not capable of administering the Act properly, then the Government erred in judgment when it appointed them. I do not, however, think that this is the case; I believe [DOT]that the administration of the Act will proceed smoothly and successfully in the future. I cannot believe that men of the intelligence of the Pension Commissioners would say that the work of that body was of such a confidential character that information as to what they are doing should [DOT]not be furnished. The fullest information should be furnished, and I should like to hear what they have to say on that subject *before coming to a conclusion which would be condemnatory of their methods.
We must get away from the idea that the *Government has anything to do with the administration of the pension fund. Following out the desire of the Committee and of this House, the matter has been taken [Mr Hazen.]	0
entirely out of politics and the pension fund is administered by that Commission alone. The members of the Commission are not infallible; they may make mistakes. On the other hand, things may have been overlooked by the Committee in the report that they .made to the House last year. The right hon. leader of the House said that in all probability the Pension Commissioners would find in the course of their work that certain things would need correction or alteration and that the time to deal with such matters would be at this session of Parliament, when it would be desirable to give force by legislation to that to which force has been given hitherto simply by the provisions of Order in Council. I understand that the members of the Pension Board have, .in connection with the administration of the Act, found a number of matters which they think should be remedied and are of the opinion that certain changes in the pension scale are desirable. From what I have heard, I approve of some of these changes and disapprove of others. Some of the matters in respect of which a change is suggested were fully discussed by the committee; they are matters of judgment and opinion upon which the Committee came to an unanimous decision, which, however, is different to that which has been arrived at by the Pension Commissioners. It is suggested also, and properly so, that the Pensions Act to be introduced at this session should practically consolidate the different Pension Acts that are now on our statute-book. The report which the Committee made last year and which now, in consequence of Orders in 'Council passed, has all the force pf a statute, applied only to members of the overseas expeditionary force. Another Pension Act applies to members of the militia and still another to the members of the naval service. It is desirable that these Acts should be consolidated and all administered by the Board of Pension Commissioners. There are other changes, which, as I say, are worthy of consideration.
I might state to the House that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill embodying the provisions of the report made by the Committee last year, embodying some of the changes recommended by the commissioners and providing for the consolidation of the different Acts. While this Bill will, in a sense, be a Government measure, the Government does not wish it to be considered for a moment that it is presenting that Bill to the House with a

desire to crowd it through the House without its receiving the very fullest possible consideration, because it is extremely desirable that in this matter of pensions there shall not be any party controversy and that a conclusion shall be reached that will commend itself to both sides of the House, because we regard this whole pension scheme as too sacred a matter to be used as a football for party purposes as might be the case. After that Bill is introduced, it is the intention of the Government to move that it be referred to a committee of this House, constituted as the Committee was last year of members from both sides, so that they may consider all its provisions; they may, if they so desire, bring before them the members of the Pensions Board who have been administering the Act; they may, if they care to, bring before them people who have been dissatisfied with the administration of the former measure, so that there may be the fullest possible consideration of the whole question and a conclusion arrived at that will be satisfactory to the country, and satisfactory, as far as possible, to the dependents; of' those men who have fought our battles and who are fighting our battles at the present time. No man can fpretell the duration of this war, and if it continues and if we keep overseas as large an army as we have at present, the amount of pensions involved will be simply enormous, and for years to come a tremendous sum will have to be paid out of the treasury of the country for the purpose of providing these pensions even on the scale as it is at present. That, however, is neither here nor there; the disposition of every one in the country is to treat fairly, properly and with generosity the men who are fighting the battles of the Empire and the battle of liberty and civilization at the present time.


Mr. THOBURN:: Is it a fact that the
pensions which are being paid by the Dominion Government are higher than those paid by any other country in the world?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I think that is a fact. I think the pensions scale, taking it all around, that was laid before Parliament last year, reported on by the Committee and adopted by Parliament, is higher than the pensions scale in any other country with the exception, perhaps, of 'Australia, in which the pensions are a little higher in some cases and a little lower in others, there being some difference in the scale.
I will not refer to the other matters that have arisen in this debate. I rose only in order that there might be a clear and distinct understanding as to how the matter stood. I do not want the impression to go out to the country that this Government is responsible, either for the pensions scale or for the administration of the Pensions Act, although, as a member of the committee of last year, I am willing to take my full share of the responsibility, and to say, in common with my fellow-members of the Committee, that we tried to do our duty and what we considered was in the interest of the overseas forces and of the country. At this session of Parliament ample opportunity will be afforded to have the matter discussed by the same committee, or by another committee if it is thought desirable that the Committee should be changed.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has placed the position of the matter, so far as the Government is concerned, very fully before the House. The idea last session which was conveyed to the Government, and which seemed to have a great deal of support behind it in the House and in the country was that the system of pensions, whatever it should be, ought to be administered by a commission' that was not directly under the supervision or control of the Government. It was not suggested, so far as I can remember, that there had been, up to that time, any political interference in the granting of pensions, but it was apprehended that political pressure might be exercised against a Government, and, therefore, in the interest - of the people of the country, in the interest of the men entitled to pensions, and in the general public interest, it was thought it would be better if the matter were removed from the control of the Government. We accepted that view; we placed the consideration of all these matters in the hands of a committee of five hon. gentlemen from this side	of the House and
four from the other side, and that committee brought in their report. Personally I think I ventured to offer some suggestions with regard to the terms of the report. I am not sure that the report commended itself in all its details to my own judgment; but it was a unanimous report of the committee; it received the unanimous endorsation of the House, and the question was as to how it should be enforced. At that stage of the session, we

had not time to pass the necessary legislation, so we undertook to bring the recommendations of the committee into force by Order in Council and to introduce legislation at this session. We propose carrying that out.
I would like to point out to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as well, that a good many of the matters to which they have directed the attention of the House have been under consideration for many weeks past by a committee of this House. It is impossible for me to refer to the proceedings of that committee, even if I had them before me, because it would be against the rules of the House to do so; but I think I am justified in the statement that some, at least, of the instances, to which allusion has been made here, have already been investigated very fully and thoroughly by that committee. I am not disposed to minimize any of the considerations that have been brought forward; I do know, however, within my own experience, that whenever allegations of a very serious character with regard to one or another member of the Canadian Expeditionery Force have been brought to my attention and I have investigated them, I have in a good many instances found that the representations made to me in the first place were not borne out when I got to the root of the matter. I shall not be surprised if, when that report of the committee is presented to the Houee with the evidence on which it is (based, the same result may be found as to some of the cases- that have been alluded to, but I merely e-ay -this in passing and with regard to the- whole subject, I have no desire to restrict debate. So far as a portion of these matters are concerned, they have already been investigated by a committee which has not yet reported. So far as the other portion is concerned, they must be under the consideration of a committee of this House as soon as a Bill is brought down which is to carry into effect the recommendations made by the committee of last year, with such further provisions as may be submitted to the Government by the Pensions Board and -considered as appropriate to include- in the legislation- to be introduced. Therefore, the whole question either has (been investigated or will be under investigation by a committee to be appointed before the session is over.
So far as other matters are concerned which may particularly affect the question
. -
of military administration, brought forward by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), I have no personal knowledge of many matters of administration in connection with the -military forces, which is not a surprising thing considering the large forces that we have- enlisted and the complexity and variety of the questions that are continually arising. I have no doubt that these matters will be taken fully into consideration by the Minister of Militia and Defence. I appreciate the force of the considerations which -have been addressed to the House by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). There is, however, perhaps one consideration which we ought to endeavour to keep before us in dealing with all these matters of administration beyond the s-eas. Sometimes there are occasions of very great urgency when reinforcements must be sent at once to the front, when it is a question of throwing men in to make up losses or to hold a position against which the enemy is driving with all his force. It must be- apparent that under such -conditions, which must continually arise in the greatest and fiercest war the world has ever known, sometimes there is not a great deal of time for dealing with administrative matters in a very deliberative way. The problem that confronts the -men who are responsible at the front is to get reinforcements there at once, without the delay of one unnecessary moment, to get them there instantly in order that the line may be held and the enemy kept back. I do not say this for the purpose of minimizing the force of anything my -hon. frien-d from New Westminster has said; I think that what he has urged must be taken into account and dealt with in some satisfactory way, if possible. But conditions overseas are from time to time very urgent. I was there myself during three or fo'ur weeks when there were great losses at the front, when counter attacks -were coming all the time, when the important thing was to get the men over there, whether or not they went over as the units in which they originally crossed the ocean; -the important thing was to get them over there so that the enemy could not recover the ground we had taken from him. Under the circumstances, in view of the approaching report of the committee which has dealt with a portion of this question, and in view of the impending reference to a committee of this House of other matters which were referred to this afternoon. I

think this debate might very well be adjourned, and I will undertake to have it resumed, if necessary, after the report of the committee -if submitted, or after the committee to which I have alluded has been constituted. In any event, the subject could be discussed very thoroughly upon the report of the committee which is shortly to present its findings to the House.


John Hampden Burnham: As there has been a pretty full discussion, I should be glad to withdraw the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I was going to propose the adjournment of the debate, but as my hon. friend has accomplished the object of his motion, perhaps the House would have no objection to the motion being withdrawn.


George Perry Graham: As the subject can be reopened later, I think there would be no objection to withdrawing the motion.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: The committee that has been referred to will doubtless make its report shortly and will lay before the House not only its findings, but all -the printed evidence, and on the presentation of that report there will be an opportunity for discussing any of these questions. As chairman of that committee, I would -say that we are indebted to many hon. members for calling our attention to certain specific cases. I think there have been over 50 specific cases where soldiers or others acting on their behalf have represented that they had a grievance, and in every case the grievance has been thoroughly investigated. I think the case brought up by -the hon. member for Edmonton has already been dealt with by the committee and will be found in the evidence. Before the committee complete its findings, if any member of the House wishes to -have the case of any returned soldier investigated the committee will be only too glad to go into 10 p.m it thoroughly, and the case will appear in the evidence.
Mr. W. F. NIiCKLE (Kingston): The hon. member for Edmonton has referred to certain Orders in Council which I mentioned this afternoon as being secret. He -seemed to think they had been passed after this little red book had been printed, and without the attention of the people at large being directed to them. Both the Orders in Council to which I referred this aftempon were published in the public press, and if they do not appear in this book the reason is that one was passed after the book was published an-d the other dealt largely with
the treatment of soldiers by the Military Hospitals -Commission, which is not related to the subject matter with which this book deals.
Motion withdrawn.


SHIPMENT OF STEEL RAILS TO FRANCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Oliver: I
wish to draw the attention of the Government to a question which I asked on May 16 as follows (Hansard p. 1542):
How many tons of steel rails taken from sidings on the Transcontinental Railway have been shipped from Canadian Ports to France, to date?
The answer was:
It is not in the public interest that this Question should be answered.
May I give what appears to me to be good reasons why I was entitled to ask this question? It is because the rights of property and interests of a very large number of my constituents, several thousands in fact, are involved in the proposed action, and in view of the present condition of transport of supplies across the Atlantic, it appears to me that as the representative of these people in the House I have a right to kn-ow whether it has been found possible to -transport the rails overseas that have already been taken from the Transcontinental. I think the House is entitled to this information before the 'Government proceeds to destroy the property value of my constituents by taking up the rails on the Grand Trunk Pacific. We are all anxious to win the war, but the .taking up of rails, unless they can he transported, will not help to win the war, hut it will injure my constituents. That is the reason why I ask the question, and why I desire to press for an answer.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall look into the matter to which my hon. friend has directed my attention. It might be very much against the public interest to give information as to the actual shipment of rails across the Atlantic in the conditions under which transportation has to be carried on. My hon. friend himself, I think, will appreciate that. I do not know that I can say more about it at the moment, but I will speak to the Minister of Railways and Canals about it, and perhaps he can give the hon. member privately information upon the subject that will be of service.


Frank Oliver: With permission, I desire to add a word. It is not necessary, in answering the question I asked, to give information that would be of damage to anybody. The only question is, has it been Xiossible to make transportation of the rails already taken-are they in service now? Is it possible to transport the rails that are now being taken up or are about to be taken up? We have a right to know that, not privately but publicly.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I cannot give the information at the moment. '


George Perry Graham: May I be allowed to add, in to-night's paper it is stated that certain material is being taken up from the Canadian Northern as well as from the Grand Trunk Pacific. Will the Minister of Railways be ready to tell us to-morrow if this is authentic?


CANCELLATION OF A MAIL CONTRACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. FORTIER (Lothbiniere) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I put upon the Order paper a motion, on the 30th January, for the production of papers and correspondence concerning the cancelling of a mail contract.
Since the House resumed its labours, on the 19th April last I had the opportunity of seeing twice the acting Postmaster General in that connection and he gave me the assurance that these papers would be brought down as soon as possible. I have not got them yet and I should like to know when the Minister will give me satisfaction.


Robert Laird Borden: I will direct the attention of the acting Postmaster General to the matter to which my hon. friend has just alluded.


LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN COAL MINES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat)
I would like to get some information from the Minister of Labour (Mt. Crothers) about the coal strike situation in western Canada. I have here a despatch sent from Ottawa on the 19th instant-last Saturday- in which this statement is credited to the Minister of Labour:
"If negotiations for a settlement of the difficulties in the western mining areas prove unavailing, the mines won't be'shut down. The Government will see to it they are run alt right."
I understand also that a statement has been sent out to the Western press to the

effect that the Minister of Labour has intimated that if the strike is not settled the Government will operate the mines. Further than that, I read a statement of-one of the representatives of the Miners' Committee that the strike was due entirely to the high cost of living, and the difficulty lay in getting a 'settlement with the operators in that matter. They said that if the Government would regulate food prices, they were prepared to make an agreement and come to terms with the operators. They say it is up to the Government to control food prices. I have had a wire from Lethbridge stating that steam ploughing outfits which should !be carrying on the Government's greater production campaign, have had to cease operations-they cannot operate because there is no coal. The situation is very serious and demands the serious attention of the Government. The trouble has been carried along for six or more months, and there seems to be no prospect of a settlement in sight; in fact, the situation is more serious than at any time since the trouble commenced.
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: I am afraid my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) is not familiar with the facts when he talks about there having been trouble for six months. There has not been trouble for six weeks. He is aware that the operators and the representatives of the miners, following out the provisions of the agreement which was to expire on March 31, met about the beginning of March to try to negotiate a new agreement to 'be effective on and after April 1st. While they were negotiating, an accident occurred at the principal mine, one of the mines of the Crowsnest Pass Coal Company, and 38 miners were entombed. Their fellow-workers did not like to go to work while the men's bodies were buried in the mine. (I am- sorry to say that their bodies have not all been recovered even yet). The negotiations were more protracted than the men expected, and soifie of them became impatient and ceased work. The operators and the representatives of the miners finally reached an agreement which, under the rules of the United Mine Workers of America to which organizations most of the miners belong, would go into force only if ratified by a vote of the miners themselves. That vote was taken, being completed some time between the 5th and the 10th of this month. Then it was discovered that the majority of the miners had voted against the acceptance of the

agreement made by their representatives and the operators. Since that time we have been giving the most careful consideration to the situation. We are not unmindful of the necessity of keeping these mines working, and have been doing every thing possible to secure a resumption of work. .1 am now in a position to tell the House that I hope-yes, I expect-tnat within the next forty-eight hours, work will be resumed in all the mines. I do not think it would be in the public interest to tell my hon. friend the details of the efforts that have been made and which, I am satisfied, will prove successful during the next day or two.


ARBITRARY FIXING OF PRICES.
[Stage Direction]
CRIMINAL code amendment.
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Criminal Code. He said: When I asked the House to permit the first reading of this Bill, I gave a brief explanation of its purpose-to prohibit in future the setting of a price by the vendor of an article arbitrarily fixed and binding upon the purchaser. For example, manufacturers of certain goods, very largely manufacturers of patent goods, will sell to the jobber at a certain price, calling upon the jobber at the same time to sign a contract that he will not sell for less than a dictated price. As a consequence, competition is removed with regard to that article. My point is that the consumer has a right to the ordinary benefit that comes from competition between different merchants, and in so far as you have a dictated price for an article you take away from the consumer that benefit and the industrious, vigilant merchant selling the goods becomes little more than the medium of passing the article along at a fixed price, just the same as you would sell a postage stamp. I wish to establish the fact that there is, to a very substantial extent, in Canada a system of this kind, that a very great many manufacturing houses have adopted the system of the dictated price at which the jobber and the middleman are permitted to sell to the retail dealer and the retail dealer to the public. I am going, for the purpose of putting them on Hansard, to quote extracts from a few of the price agreements, or selling agreements of the principal houses, the names of which are well known to hon. members, and it will be noted that the terms of the agreements are, in nearly all instances, practically identical. The first one, and I take it merely because it is on the
top, is that of the Borden Milk Company of Montreal. I believe this is an American concern. The first provision of this agreement is that the purchaser shall not sell at any price less than, the price dictated by the manufacturer, and the price may be changed by the manufacturer. The second is that he will not sell to any person whose name may be on a prohibited list. The prohibited list is supplied by the manufacturer from time to time. The third provision is that the manufacturer may call upon the purchaser to give a sworn statement at any time that he is obeying all these injunctions and on his not doing so there are certain penalties and liabilities for damages.
Frank Oliver: Does that company operate in Canada?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, the Borden Milk Company, Limited, of Montreal. I believe it is really an American concern. It operates in Canada. I think it controls practically all the condensed milk interests except one in Canada. It is certainly a tremendously large concern. Here is the way the agreement reads. I shall not read all of it, but it provides that the purchaser must not sell

at less than the prices set forth in the price list attached hereto, or at prices in force from time to time, or on better terms than 30 days net, no discount for prepayment.
The next clause deals with the trade discount:-
It is further understood that trade discount from Borden Milk Co, Limited is wholly contingent upon the margin of profit from other manufacturers of similar products not being less, and the terms of protection as to the keeping of prices being no less favorable. This includes private or special label goods as well as other competitive lines.
It is also agreed that upon request of Borden Milk Co., Limited, declarations covering the details of any sale of Milk Products will be furnished, same to be sworn to by one of our Principals and salesmen specified. Failure to comply with this condition will be considered a breach of contract.
The man signs this.
I have a statement here which will interest a great many hon. gentlemen present, and it is a very important one, too. It deals with tobacco. A letter was sent to me by Mr. E. A. Morris, a wholesale tobacco dealer in Vancouver and a reputable man, who writes me as follows:-
March 21, 1917.
W. E. Knowles, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir: -
I have noticed an article in our local paper re trade agreements for which you are en-

deavouring to amei\d the Criminal Code, the following information might be of assistance to you.
In October 1915, I was obliged to enter into an agreement (copy of which is herein enclosed) with the Imperial Tobacco Co. of Canada whose head office is in Montreal, not to sell their goods or any other manufactures of like goods below the various list prices. Later I was advised by their agent in this city that it was the intention of the said Company to place my travelling salesmen, who sell from Auto wagons, upon their oaths that they were keeping to this agreement. Now I feel that this is a direct interference with one's liberty who I contend should be permitted to carry on his business in quiet enjoyment. The object of this agreement was to stop competition among the Tobacco Jobbers and wholesalers, also to stop the giving of discount and general competition of other manufacturers. A manufacturer might have the right to dictate the price of his own manufactures, but why should he dictate the price of other manufacturers.
In the case of the Eddy & Co's agreement they say you must not handle like goods of other manufacturers. That very agreement stopped the going on of a competition match manufacturing business here. Who would buy stock in a concern which was barred from doing business with the wholesalers and jobbers? Consequently the enterprise fell through. Why should I or anybody else be dictated to, as to what I should charge for another man's goods, It seems to me that any one licensed to do business or manufacture in Canada should be compelled to sell to any one of the trade who is ready and willing to pay the list price.
Trusting this information will be of benefit to you.
I remain
Yours truly,
E. A. Morris.
He encloses a copy of the Imperial Tobacco Company's contract, a part of which is as follows:-
We understand this agreement is for the sole purpose of eliminating price cutting and giving special discounts, and the object of same is the handling of the lines referred to on a fair and equal competitive basis.
It is also understood that in the event of a jobber violating this agreement, and thereby losing his regular jobber's discount, no jobber will be permitted to supply him with tobaccos and cigarettes at less than retail price.
I have a letter which concerns me as a western man particularly and which I shall read. It is from the Merchants' Consolidated, Limited, of Winnipeg, a syndicate of some 500 retail merchants throughout western Canada, stating that as the Merchants' Consolidated, Limited, they are not allowed to buy a great many goods because they will not sign these price-maintenance agreements, which are dictated to them by the manuacturers. The letter, which is addressed to myself, is as follows:-
Dear Sir:
We have before us copy of a Bill introduced by you before the House of Commons at Ottawa, and marked "Bill No. 21'', an Act to

amend the Criminal Code No. 498 and also the comments on this Bill in a Bulletin issued by the Retail Merchants Association of Canada.
Our company, Merchants Consolidated Limited, is a joint stock company, incorporated under the laws of the province of Manitoba, registered in the province of Saskatchewan and also the province of Alberta. This Company is composed of some 500 retail merchants and we have reason to believe that they do not concur in the statements made in the Bulletin issued by the Retail Merchants Association of the Dominion of Canada.
They state that they do not like this bill.
Merchants Consolidated Limited is desirous of having just such legislation enacted as your Bill provides for, for the very reason that there are a number of Associations, such as the Grocer's Guild, and the Hardware Jobbers Association, etc, in the Dominion of Canada, who seek to have a re-sale price or price maintenance contract kept by the manufacturers, and the reason for this seems to be that they do not wish the manufacturers to sell to any Organization or Association who may not maintain that re-sale price, and in nearly every case that re-sale price carries with it an excessive middleman's profit.
Merchants Consolidated Limited has only been organized some eighteen months and already this Company has saved to its shareholders in discounts many times over their investment in the Capital Stock of the Company. The object for the formation of this Company was to enable the retail merchants of Western Canada to buy in a consolidated way to meet Mail Order competition by going direct to the manufacturers and buying goods in large quantities and for cash.
The next paragraph is unimportant, and I shall not read it. Then it goes on:-
We contend that there should be no price maintenance contract existing between the manufacturers and the jobbers. We believe if the manufacturer was left to his own discretion that he would sell to any organization properly constituted and allow such Organization to resell at any price bearing a fair margin of profit for so doing business. We think that the price maintenance contract as between the jobber and manufacturer is fully in protection of the jobber. We would be glad to go further into the matter upon request.
There was a house in Moosejaw called the Assiniboia Music Company which had signed one of these agreements with the Berliner Company, a long thing of six and a third closely written pages of typewriting, tying a man up as tightly as he could be tied in this world. It happened that the Assiniboia Music Company had on hand at a certain date a large stock of Victor records, all with labeled prices below which the records must not be sold. The labeled notice further stated that buying the record was an acceptance of the terms of sale. The Berliner Company arbitrarily took away the agency from the Assiniboia Music Company because that firm handled the

Edison records as well, and left them with many hundred Victor records which they must not sell below the labeled price. They held on to the old records for quite a while. They could not sell them as people knew they no longer had the agency and would not come into their store to hear them, and by the terms of their agreement they could not sell them below the labeled price. At last they unloaded them on a jobber who took chances, and that jobber sold them to another and they to another, who then started retailing them out at a somewhat reduced rate, which was the only way in which he could sell them as they were very old records, some of them twelve and fifteen years old,' quite old stock. And what did they do? The Berliner ComDanv came to this company, the fourth holder from them, and sued them for, I think, $20,000 damages, a very large sum, and got an injunction forbidding them to deal in Berliner gramophone records except at the duly authorized prices. Let us suppose they were right in this, what an outrage it is that the law should permit a contract to be made that would enable the vendor to say to a man : Because you have signed a contract and we have your name, even if the records are 15 years old, you may not sell for less than the labeled price or we will get an injunction against you. That is a fair illustration of the wav in which these people, who talk about using customers right, treat people when they get them under their thumb. They got an injunction and carried the case right to the eve of the court, with their bu'lleydmg methods, because they have any amount of money to fight such cases. I have here a report of the withdrawal of the case 24 hours before the trial, taken from the daily paper in Moosejaw, which I shall read because it shows the spirit in which these people dictate and bully when they have a man under their thumb on one of these price agreements. The report is as follows:
There came before Judge Lamont in Supreme Court yesterday the action of Berliner Gram-o-phone Company, Limited, against Canadian Specialities Limited.
The plaintiff about two years ago had sold a large quantity of records to the Assiniboia Music Store and had secured from the Assiniboia Music Store a hard-and-fast contract that the records should not be sold less than the price dictated by the Berliner Company.
In the course of time the Berliner Company cancelled the agency of the Assiniboia Music Store and afterwards the records which were then in stock, came eventually into the possession of the Canadian Specialties Limited, who were selling them regardless of the dictated price.
The case is of especial interest inasmuch as there is at present before the House of Com mons what is known as "The Knowles Bill," forbidding price fixing contracts, and in this case the Berliner Company sued on the contract '<* nd obtained art injunction some four months ago prohibiting the Canadian Specialties from disposing of the records at less than the dictated price.
When it came to the eve of the trial the Berliner Company abandoned its position, and yesterday moved before Judge Lamont for leave to have the action dismissed with the Berliner Company paying all costs. Mr. Knowles, K.C., on behalf of the defendant opposed this, maintaining that it should be subject to a condition that the damages incurred by the defendant should be paid by the plaintiff. Judge Lamont sustained this point, and entered a direction that the damages should be assessed by himself at a later date, to be appointed.
During the course of the argument an evidence point of interest came out, and there was read the examination of the Vice-President of the plaintiff company, in which he was forced to admit that the patent on which he sued was absolutely valueless inasmuch as it had expired two years before the issue of the writ. It was further valueless because the plaintiff had used the wrong patent number, and the number in question, which they had inserted on their records, was a patent of a device for cutting thistles, apparently some agricultural implement, and Judge Lamont jocularly asked the plaintiff's counsel if he would contend that his records had a practical use for the purpose of eradicating this well-known weed. It was further shown that the patent, which the plaintiff said should be inserted on the record, was not only one which had expired but was one which was made of entirely different material (hard rubber) than that used in the records in question, and according to the evidence even this patent was not the property of the plaintiff. The evidence of Mr. Berliner also admitted that the contract, which the Assiniboia Music Store had signed, might by the arbitrary conduct of the Plaintiff Company, leave the purchaser of records high and dry with a large stock of records which he would be unable to sell unless by special permission of the Berliner Company.
Mr. Knowles made the remark that the plaintiff's case was even tedious in the fact that one constantly searched and found nothing but foundationless points in the plaintiff's case, and Judge Lamont from the bench made the inquiry as to whether the Berliner Company's whole case was not a case of bluff, to which Mr. Knowles replied that his clients were positively of that opinion.
The Canadian Specialties' case had been carefully prepared by a special patent expert, whom they had engaged in the matter, and it was manifest that the whole case of the plaintiff must necessarily fall to the ground, and this, no doubt, explains the application of the Plaintiff Company for leave to have the whole action abandoned
I refer to that case because it was largely through it that I became impressed with the fact that an injustice is done to men who sign these agreements, and the public suffer in consequence.
I have here next the agreement of the Henry K. Wampole Company, Limited,

manufacturers of all kinds of .medicines and chemicals, out in South Lanark, a riding we all know so well. I shall not read it as it is a long agreement in small type; but it ties the purchaser up completely.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What do they deal in?


William Erskine Knowles: They are well known
wholesale druggists. I think a man should be protected if he has stomach ache, and that he has a right to get a remedy to relieve it at the lowest possible rate.
Then I have the agreement of the Nyal remedies.
Every Nyal remedy on this invoice has the selling price plainly printed thereon. In accepting the goods (whether charged or free) covered by this invoice, the purchaser for himself and his employees hereby agrees with Frederick Stearns & Company of Canada, Limited, Windsor, Ontario, not to sell any of said goods or permit the same to be sold at a less price than that printed upon the package.
I have another, in very much the same terms, of the National Drug and Chemical Company, commonly called the Na-Dru-Co. That is in the form of a regular contract in which they call upon a purchaser not to sell their products at less than the stipulated prices and terms set forth in the price lists of the company. The company reserve the right to change the prices, and the purchaser must agree not to sell the products of the company to any person who has -violated their agreement, and to give a sworn declaration at any time that he has adhered to the agreement. It is like the treatment of a ticket-of-leave man. I have here our old friend the E. B. Eddy Company, Limited. That beats them all. That company has a wonderful system. It does not let the man who buys matches get his profit until he gets all through selling the matches and then it makes him give a sworn declaration that he has kept the faith, held the fort and been a good soldier of the cross with it, and then it gives him his 17J per cent profit.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Surely he is a soldier of Lucifer if he sells matches.


William Erskine Knowles: In the grocery and provision trade 8 per cent or 9 per cent is a legitimate profit, and he is forced to exact just twice that amount as his regular selling profit. The agreement reads:
Nor are you or your agents or employees to buy, sell, barter, trade or deal in any matches other than those of our brands bought from us or from our agents or travellers, except in so far as, and to the extent that, we are unable from any unforeseen cause, to All your orders from time to time, of which you will be promptly advised.

It is like letting a man out on parole and requiring him to report every six months. If he reports faithfully, he is allowed to retain his freedom. The agreement continues :
We will, on the 15th of January and July in each year, or as soon as possible thereafter, credit you in account with a further special Loyalty Quantity Discount equal to twelve and a half per cent on the net amount (after deducting all other discounts, freights and allowances), of all invoices of our matches.
First they give him a discount of 5 per cent; then they give him a special loyalty quantity discount of 12J per cent for keeping faith. A copy of the affidavit required by Mr. Eddy is attached. They agree to give Macdonald, Crawford, Limited, 5 per cent before they give them the 12J per cent-and they make them sign a contract before they sell them the matches.
I have contracts here along the same line, issued by the Aylmer Condensed Milk Company, Limited, and the Welch Grape Juice Company. Then there is one from the Channell Chemical Company, Limited. 1 do not know who the president is, or whether he was born in Hanover, Germany, or not, but he has quite a system. The letter reads:
1.	We will not sell or offer for sale any of the said products to the retail trade or any person, firm or corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "customer") at a price other than thirty-three and one-third per cent off that appearing on the package in which the product is sold.
2.	We will not give to any customer any cash or other discount or advantage reducing said price.
3.	We will not sell or offer for sale any of the said products to any customer after receipt of written notice from you that you have suspended the supplies of such customer on account of underselling said products or otherwise.
4.	We will not export any of said products supplied hereunder to any country outside of Canada without your written consent first had and obtained.
5.	We agree to pay you the sum of one dollar for each and every article sold or offered for sale in breach of this agreement as and by way of liquidated damages (this being a careful pre-estimate thereof) and not as a penalty but without prejudice to any other rights or remedies you may have hereunder.
I have here a letter signed by the Channell Chemical Company, who deal in the O-Cedar products. Any person who keeps house knows what O-Cedar products are.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where are they manufactured?


William Erskine Knowles: In Toronto. This letter, which is dated April 13, 1917, is addressed to Macdonald, Crawford, Limited, a Moose-
MAY 21, 1917	[DOT]
jaw wholesale house, and gives a list of dealers who are not to be supplied with O-Cedar products because they would not behave themselves. The list includes the following names: E. G. West, Perrah Drug Company, H. & S. Smythe, Mr. Rosenberg, of Toronto; Binning's Pair, of Mooaejaw; J. H. Morris & Company, Edmonton, and two in Montreal.


Frank Oliver: They are on the black list?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes. The first paragraph of the letter reads:
We beg to advise that the following is a complete list of those dealers who are not to be supplied with O-Cedar products owing to their persistence in cutting the price.
I have a letter dated April 18, from Mr. Binning, of Binning's Pair, Limited, in which he mentions having been struck off the book of life by the Ohannell Chemical Company. This is the letter:
We have just been advised by Messrs. McDonald, Crawford, Limited, that the Channell Chemical Co., Limited, have instructed them not to sell us any more O-Cedar goods. We presume this is on account of our refusing to sign their contract.
We beg to enclose herein two letters from them which still remain unanswered also the agreement in duplicate which they sent us to sign. We have not broken their price for one year, but do not care to sign a drastic agreement.
They were removed from the list, therefore, not because they cut prices, but because they refused to sign the Channell Chemical Company's contract.
I have here a copy of the contract covering the sale of the Proctor and Gamble Distributing Company's products. This company manufactures in Cincinnati, but does business also in Canada. The contract provides that in case a charge for violation of contract shall be made, the persons signing the contract shall give the name of the person who made the sale in question, and furnish other necessary particulars. Refusal on the part of the signors to do this shall be conclusive evidence that the charge is true, and will render them liable to the payment of $50 to the Proctor and Gamble Distributing Company as liquidated damages, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may have. This company manufactures soaps, washing powders and crisco.
Here is another contract sent out by Lever Brothers, Limited, the Sunlight Soap people. It provides for the usual affidavit which must be sworn to by any member of the firm designated by the Lever Brothers,
Limited, covering the details of any sale of Lever Brothers' soaps.
Another contract in similar terms is that between the Canadian Postusi Cereal Company, Limited, of Windsor, Ontario, and the Macdonald, Crawford Company, Moose-jaw, in which the same penalty is provided as liquidated damages if conclusive evidence is not furnished upon request of the name of the person or persons who made sales in contravention of the agreement.
In a letter to Macdonald, Crawford Limited, the Canadian Shredded Wheat Company, Limited, quotes the following paragraph from an agreement previously made:
And we further agree not to sell shredded whole wheat biscuit, triscuit or other preparations of the said company at any price to any person or corporation who has not signed and conformed to an agreement in the form B-2 below written.
I have here a letter concerning the Gillette Razor Company, but I shall not trouble the House by reading it. I may say in passing, however, that the House may be interested in the case of the Gillette Razor Company vs. Rea, which will be found in No. 1 Ontario Weekly Notes. The Rea people of the city of Ottawa had bought the goods from another party, who had really bought from the Gillette Company, and the Gillette Company tried to get an injunction against the Rea people, although they were not really the signors of the contract. In the volume above named Mr. Chancellor Boyd gives the reason why he refused that injunction.
This is the letter written by Macdonald-Chapman, Limited, wholesale grocers, with which Mr. Alexander Macdonald, a member of Macdonald, Crawford, Limited, is connected. It is dated Winnipeg, January 16, 1917, and is as follows:
P. A. Macdonald, Esq., Commissioner for the
Government investigating the H. C. of L.,
Parliament Buildings, City.
Dear Sir:-
There are to-day in Canada certain firms who take what we think to be not only a very high handed but iLlegal stand in the policy of distributing their goods. For instance, there is the E. B. Eddy Company, manufacturers of matches. These people compel every wholesale grocer to sell their matches at a fixed price, giving the wholesaler a profit of from 17 to 20 per cent or twice as much as any well conducted wholesale grocery business needs. If any wholesale grocer will not keep to this price Eddy refuses to sell them. Also refuses to sell any jobber who will handle matches made by any other firm either Canadian or American except those made by them-

nate that and allow the price at which the merchant can sell to toe dictated, the consumer gets no benefit, and I say the consumer has a right to freedom of trade. If the Macdonald CrawfoTd Company, to use as an illustration, or any other great wholesale house in Montreal or Toronto, desire to eell a little cheaper than other wholesale houses, why should not the consumer be allowed the (benefit of that? Surely some merchants can sell cheaper than others. The clevier merchant who- attends to his business and is frugal can sell cheaper than the extravagant man who is not attending so closely to his business. If the price of all commodities is to- be dictated like the price of a postage stamp, the consumer will get no benefit at all, and I repeat the consumer has the right to the benefit of competition in every article of trade. I have had resolutions from a great many labour organizations approving of this Bill. I believe the dictating of prices has 'been carried on to such an extent in this Dominion that it has became a source of peril. These price-dictators think they have a right divine, and that anybody who: touches them is laying his hands on the Ark or something of that kind. I hope the House will 'be an iconoclast in that respect, and will see as I do that the dictating of prices is becoming a vicious system in this country. I therefore movie the second reading.


Richard Blain: Does the information that
my hon. friend has go to show that the fixing of prices is carried on in Canada to any great extent?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, it is very general.


Richard Blain: I differ from my hon. friend. I think it is caried on only to a limited extent, particularly in the province of Ontario.


William Erskine Knowles: It is carried on very
extensively, not always by way of signed contract, but by way of understanding. Take, for instance, the Jaegar Wool Company or any other large clothing house. I am told by merchants, and I have talked with many, that they get a list of the prices at which the articles are to be sold, and if they deviate in any way from those prices, they will lose the agency, and the same thing applies to a great
11 p.m. many kind of boots and hats and other articles of clothing. The way the price of sugar is dictated is an outrage. In Mooseja/w we can buy sugar made in Vancouver cheaper than the people

of Vancouver themselves. In Calgary the price is dearer than in tMooseljaw, but cheaper than in Vancouver. The farther you get away from Redpafth sugar the cheaper you can buy it. Some of these people seem to think they own the earth, and I feel it is my duty to dp what I can to smash the system.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I 'have followed the argument of the hon. gentleman with a great deal of interest, and if I have correctly grasped it he seeks to have this legislation enacted because he looks upon any agreement for the fixing of a resale price as unreasonably restraining or interfering with competition. As I understand the law as it stands at the present time, any contract that unreasonably restrains trade is already an unlawful contract, and is already covered by a provision of the Criminal Code, so that if the different agreements which the hon. member has read do, as he contends they do, unreasonably restrain competition in the sale of the goods concerned, why then the parties entering into them are under the law as it stands at present guilty of an offence. If I understand the effect of his amendment it will be to withdraw from the consideration pi the court to whom the matter might toe referred the question whether any particular agreement in which a resale price is fixed does or does not unduly or unreasonably operate in restraint of trade or to reduce competition-in other words, to prejudice the consumer and to determine absolutely by the law itself that the mere fact of a stipulation under any circumstances whatsoever fixing a resale price being contained in a contract makes the entering into that agreement an offence.


William Erskine Knowles: What is the section my hon. friend refers to?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 498, which says that every one is guilty of an indictable offence who does a variety of things, and the last one mentioned is the one I think under which my hon. friend's Bill would come, if it be true that any agreement under any imaginable circumstances for the fixing of a resale price operates to produce the consequences which he asserts it does. The section says that every one is guilty of an indictable offence who combines, agrees or arranges with any other person,
(d) to unduly prevent or lessen competition In the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity.

Now, if I followed the hon. gentleman's argument rightly, he contends that any stipulation fixing the re-sale price of an article should be prohibited because it does unduly lessen competition in the sale of that article. If he is right in that contention, then the law already deals with the case that he has in mind. If I point that out, it is not because I desire to proceed to say that he is right in this contention; or, on the other hand, that he is wrong in that contention; I do not want this evening to discuss that question. But I would like to put quite clearly what the proposed legislation is. It asks this House to determine that in all cases, without regard to circumstances or conditions, the mere stipulation by a vendor when he sells his goods that the purchaser shall not re-sell them at less than a fixed price is something that unduly and unreasonably lessens competition and prejudices the consumer, and therefore should be prohibited, and the person who enters into such an agreement should be treated as a criminal. The question, therefore, that this House has to pass upon in considering this legislation, is whether it is justified in enacting that the stipulation of a fixed price is in all cases one which prejudices the consumer by unduly lessening competition or by unduly enhancing the price. If we pass this legislation, Parliament will hold that to be the case without regard to circumstances and conditions. The difference between the law as it stands to-day and as it would be should this Bill become an Act would be that, whereas to-day a man may be convicted of a criminal offence if he stipulates a sale price and this produces the result indicated by the hon. gentleman, after this law is passed he would be liable to punishment even though in that particular instance he could show that the stipulation of a resale price did not produce an injurious consequence. To justify the proposed legislation, therefore, Parliament ought to be convinced that in all cases, without distinction of circumstances, the mere stipulation of a fixed resale price operates wrong to the general public.
Now, I am not prepared to say that it does. The hon. gentleman seems to think that it does.	I am not going to
say this evening that he is not correct in saying that, but I have endeavoured to make it clear just what it is that Parliament is asked to do, for the purpose of impressing upon all who have to deal with it the importance of this proposition. This question, which the
hon. gentleman dealt with in introducing the Bill, even before he introduced his Bill, had been engaging the attention of the Government in connection with the consideration of the general questions bearing upon the high cost of living. I think the Minister of Labour has given the matter very special attention, and I have given it some little consideration and some little study myself. Of course, like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles), I labour under the disadvantage of- being a solicitor, and therefore in a class that, according to some people, cannot be expected to know anything about business. But I have endeavoured to look into this question, both into the question of how the law stands at the present moment upon the subject, and the question whether or not the mere stipulation of a resale price necessarily and in all cases unreasonably enhances the price to the consumer, or unreasonably lessens competition in the sale of the article. I am free to admit that I have not been able to reach as clear and definite a conclusion on this subject as the hon. member seems to have reached. I do not wish to convey the idea that his proposal does not meet with a sympathetic reception on my part, so far as its purpose is to prevent unreasonable or undue enhancement of prices, or to prevent the doing of anything which will hinder or lessen competition in the sale of goods. If I could satisfy myself that in all cases and without distinction a stipulation to fix a re-sale price produces either of these results, I should be prepared to accept the principle of the tnoveT of this Bill. I have not been able yet to reach that conclusion, nor have I been able to reach the contrary conclusion either. The matter is one which, in my judgment, calls for careful consideration. And, as I have said, it has been receiving that consideration. In considering the matter, one question has struck me as worthy of serious thought, and it is this-whether the best way to deal with such evils as may result from contracts of the kind the hon. gentleman has cited is to deal with them as matters of criminal law. What we want to get, after all, is the prevention of such evils as may result from contracts of that kind, and it is not quite clear to me that the best way to secure that prevention is to make the person who enters into a contract of this kind a criminal, and the entering into that contract a crime. Because, immediately your remedy is in the criminal law, that is when you depend upon means operating by the deterrent effect of

punishment of particular people, you must depend upon public feeling against the man who enters into a contract of the kind that is prohibited. I think I am safe in saying that the practical experience of the criminal law as it stands, which makes it an offence to combine or enter into an agreement to unduly enhance prices or prevent or lessen competition, has not been of a kind to-encourage people to have recourse to that method of correcting the evil. Juries, naturally, are apt to be slow to find guilty of crime persons who have entered into agreements of this kind, which by many, at all events a certain class of people, are looked upon as perfectly legitimate. It is not clear to me that it would not be better to legislate looking to the prevention of the carrying-out of agreements of this kind. That is a question which I only put folrward for consideration. It is one in regard to which I will not go farther than to say that it seems to me that there is a good deal to be said in support of the proposition that it imight 'be better to look to legislation to regulate and control the effects of agreements of this kind for the remedy of the evils which might result from them rather than to criminal legislation. It is perhaps true that it might be well to provide both remedies. I am not for the moment presenting any absolute opinion upon the question 'but I think it is a question that calls for careful consideration in connection with this legislation. I would like to say further that quite a number of people, representative of the different classes of the business community in this country, have, since the hon. gentleman introduced his Bill, in writing to me, asked for an opportunity to be heard. Probably a committee of this House would be the best method of hearing what they have to say upon the practical results which they'believe would follow upon the enactment of this legislation. It is not unfair that that opportunity should be given to them. I fancy that all hon. gentlemen would agree in thinking that it would be fair that before we proceed to enact this legislation, which is going to create a new crime, we should give an opportunity to those who may be affected by it to be heard upon the question. Both because I and my colleagues would like to give some further consideration to the subject matter of this Bill, more particularly to the evils which the hon. gentleman thinks he is going to remedy, and to the question of remedying the evils in so far as they exist, and furthermore in order that we may have an oppor-
tunity of providing means by which the parties who may be affected by this legislation may have an opportunity of being heard, I would desire to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Erskine Knowles: May I ask when we will hear anything more of it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not with a desire
to prevent the matter 'being dealt with. It is not impossible-I make no promise in that regard

 that legislation will be introduced to deal with this matter on the lines which I suggested a few moments ago and which will perhaps, even in the judgment of the hon. gentleman, meet the evils that he seeks to meet. If it proves to he so, perhaps his Bill might give place to that. But, if, on the other hand, it does not, I am quite prepared to assure him that I am not seeking to get nid ,of his Bill in any indirect way and in moving the adjournment of the debate, it is not for the purpose of getting rid of this question. It is sincerely for the purpose of enabling us to give it the study that it deserves and to give those who may be affected by the proposed lgislation the opportunity which they have asked for to be heard. If no other legislation is proposed and no other method is found of dealing with the matter in a manner that may be 'satisfactory, I (would be disposed1 to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to go on (with his Bill again. There is no desire to get rid of his Bill otherwise than by having the question involved in the submission of this Bill passed upon by Parliament.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not suggest that the minister is endeavouring to delay me in any manner at all. The only point is that I do not know whether I shall be here In the future. I may not be here after a week from now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will be very glad to meet the hon. gentleman and do my best to arrange that he will have an opportunity at a time convenient to himself. But, frankly, I do not think the House will proceed to pass this into law without giving-


William Erskine Knowles: The second reading is not law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will not take a very long time to pass it through its second reading. We will not he very much farther advanced because it has had its second reading. The passing of the second reading is supposed to involve the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. The whole principle of this Bill is that under no conditions or circumstances-


William Erskine Knowles: It is not the principle.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There-is a motion to adjourn the debate and it is not debatable. I had hoped that it might be terminated bynatural process.


George Perry Graham: If it could be understood that this matter would be taken up again it would be satisfactory to adjourn it, but without an understanding of that kind it disappears. As I understand, it is probable that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) will have a Bill on this line. If we could have an understanding that these two Bills would be referred to a special committee of the House when the Bill of the Minister of Labour came up, in order to give the people that the Minister of Justice mentioned a chance to be heard, there would be no difficulty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there will be any objection in agreeing to that. If the Minister of Labour should not deal with the matter by any other Bill, this Bill might be referred to the committee to be dealt with. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) will look at the Order in Council that deals with the high cost of living he will find that, at all events with regard to the necessaries of life, the provision contained in his Bill is in effect 'contained in that Order in Council. I beig to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Mr. PUGSLEY:: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that there are several orders standing * upon 'the paper and among them this one:-
Resuming the adjourned Debate on the proposed Resolution of Mr. Sutherland,-That in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session, and the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden in amendment thereto, and the amendment to the amendment thereto of Mr. Pugsley.
Unless this resolution is disposed of this evening it goes into the dead pile, to-day being the last day-for the consideration of motions by private members. I would like to say that I am not a believer at all in this practice of shutting off private members from discussion. I think that one day should he left for the entire session. It simply stifles all independent thought or action by private members of this House. I would be sorry to have this resolution go into the bone pile. The ladies of the country are extremely interested, and it should be either discussed to-night or some day should be fixed for its consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman had been present earlier in the afternoon he would have had an opportunity of disposing of his motion. This motion was called in its regular order. There can be no suggestion of it being choked off.


William Pugsley: This was not called.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but the resolution of the hon. gentleman himself on the subject was called and he would have had an opportunity of speaking on that motion when it was called in its regular turn. I do not think it is quite fair to talk about choking off the private members. This resolution was fully debated the other day, and while I am not in a position at the present, moment to give any absolute undertaking on the subject, I think it is not at all improbable that if the hon. gentleman attaches so much importance to it, some arrangement may be made to allow it to be proceeded with on some future occasion. But if it is unfair to members to choke off resolutions, it is not quite fair to members to ask them to sit here all night.


William Pugsley: Even for the sake of
the ladies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the ladies ought to be so gratified with what they heard the other day that perhaps they might be just as well pleased that it should rest the way it is. After all, I think the ladies had a pretty satisfactory assurance the other evening, those who are desirous that votes should be granted to them, and that their minds are probably not in a very great state of anxiety at this moment.


William Pugsley: The minister says that
if I had been here this afternoon I should have had an opportunity of bringing up the question again. I am sorry I was not able to be here, I had an engagement in the Supreme Court; but owing to the ingenuity pf -the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in getting his motion in ahead of mine, it has been under consideration and I should have been debarred this afternoon from proceeding with my resolution as it would have been out of order. I think the Speaker will agree in that. Therefore, my absence would not make any difference. It was only this evening that the resolution we are considering would be reached, and I am very sorry that the Minister of Justice will not proceed with it so that we may have the opinion of this House upon it.

The women of this country want to know if the members of the House are prepared by a vote to say that the suffrage shall be .granted to them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt the
hon. member will readily pardon me for its not having entered my mind to conceive that he ever could have been out of order, and that explains why I said he might have been here this afternoon.


William Pugsley: I was put out of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Still, less would I
imagine that if he was not out of order there existed any power in this world that would put him out of order. So I think 1 might be still more pardoned. However, as I said, while, without consultation with the leader of the House, I perhaps could not make any absolute undertaking on the subject, I think the hon. gentleman need not be unduly anxious as to there being an opportunity afforded to dispose of the motion to which he refers. I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the Prime Minister.
On (motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Tuesday, May 22, 1917.