1917-07-13

COLD STORAGE.

Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: I place on the Table the report of the investigation held into cold storage of commodities in Canada. I move that this report be printed and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 110, to incorporate Canadian Ukrainian Institute Prosvita.-Mr. J. J. Hughes. Read a first and second time.
\

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: I would like to give notice to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that on Monday next I purpose moving the resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper with regard to the extension of the parliamentary term.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service.-Sir Robert Borden (resumed from Thursday, July 12).
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 3-division into classes.
Mr J GIRARD (Chicoutimi-Saguenay):: (translation):	Mr. Chairman, I trust the
House will allow me to. draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the peculiar conditions, which owing to its immense area, exist in the district I have the honour to represent.
If I may judge from the explanations given us by the members of the Government, since this bill is under consideration, I do not think these particular circumstances have been absolutely met.
The hon. Minister knows that the- front line of the Chicoutimi-Saguenay county, between Chateau Bay, the intersection point between Labrador and my district, and Mistassini, extends over some 800 miles. From the Labrador coast down to Tadoussae, there is a population of 15,000 inhabitants divided into groups living,at distances of twenty-five, fifty and even one thousand miles respectively from one 'another. I may also point out that, for a certain portion of them, there is no regular means of communication between these communities, no boat service, and that the mail service is most irregular and slow. It is easy to realize what difficulties these people will have to contend with, in order to obey the law, on account of that very distance. Let us now suppose that they were called to the colours by a proclamation of the Governor^General; they would never hear of it, in all probability; and, by the terms of this Act, they should be considered as slackers and as deserters.
I therefore believe that these special cases should be provided for by the Act itself, for they might arise in some other parts of the country. The people I refer to, although
most honest, cannot afford to lose a cent, no more than a day's work. They are all fishermen who go, day after day, to make a living from the products of the sea -and as the returns are not always satisfactory, they are not well off. It is therefore necessary to save them every possible expense. It will then be seen how difficult, it is, not to say impossible, for them to navigate for three or four days, often under contrary winds, to reach a -place where a tribunal may be sitting, and then they would be liable to pay a fine for not appearing within the delay fixed by the Governor General. At Lake St. John, supposing the tribunals would be located where the court is held, either at Chicoutimi or at Roberval, the people called out under this Act, .may however have 75 or 100 miles to go in order to put in an appearance. I want it to be understood that the people of my district find themselves under most difficult circumstances to comply with the law and that they should not be held liable to any penalty if it is impossible for them to obey this law within 'a certain delay. It seems to me that the remarks I have just made are as much in the Government's interest as in that of that portion of the population. I know that my people are earnest; I will not say that they are partial to the Act, but I am positive that they will submit when it will be finally passed. My only object is to protect them against hardships which will surely arise.


Mr. H. BOULAY (translation):: I agree with _ .my hon. friend /of Chicoutimi and Saguenay in the remarks -he has made. I might say the same about a large portion of the people of Matane -county and also, seeing the absence of the hon. member for 'Gaspe (Mr. L. P. Gauthier) about that part of the -population living along -the -sea-cost in the county of Gaspe. All those people are subjected to the same inconveniences just -mentioned -by the -hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay. I hope the Government will also pay attention to them when the time -comes.


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY (translation):: I may assure -both hon. members that the -Government will take every possible means so that all can fill their due obligations.
As I stated yesterday in -answer to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), -we will try and put tribunals in sufficient numbers, -so they may be easily reached in every part of the country where a -community is found large enough to justify the location -of such a tribunal.

Now, as to the suggestion that some might be liable to penalties for not having reported upon the date fixed in the proclamation; I might first say that we will always consider those people's conditions and that different dates will chosen on account of the difficulties peculiar to each locality. At all events, according to the law, if the hon. members will look it over, they will see that no one is liable to -be sentenced for not having reported in due time, as long as there is a reasonable excuse, and the conditions set forth by the hon. members who cannot be suspected, would be, I believe, accepted as reasonable excuses.
If, on account of the physical conditions of the country he lives in, or from lack of facilities or of means of communication, a man found himself in the case of being utterly unable to atppear, I think I may safely say that -such would be considered a fair excuse; but, we will do every thing humanly possible in order to give every one the means of discharging his obligations.


Mr. GIRARD:: The hon. Minister states that the tribunals will -be as numerous as possible, according to population. With his leave, I will give him a few details as to these people's situation. Along the northern shore, there are villages of some 600 souls; others contain only a -score of -people and -some loealities where there would be only four or five families at -the -most. Without deprecating them, they are all fishermen who -are not wealthy, therefore the expense they will be -put to should -be reduced as -much as possible. It is for the cause's own success. Every thing is not accurately reported and I would like to have the interested parties absolutely satisfied as a result of the hon. minister's statements that they are fully protected. These small communities are sometimes scattered at a distance of some 60 miles from -quite an important centre; there -are some 75 and even 100 miles aw-ay. How are you going to reach those little villages very thinly populated; how do the Government intend to protect them, to save them from travelling expenses? Would it not be preferable for the tribunal to move from place to place?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Hon. Mr. MARCIL (Bon-aventure):: (translation) : I entirely approve the remarks made by the hon. members for Chicoutimi-Saguenay and for Rimouski. I am glad to hear that the hon. minister will give special attention to these regions. There is one point, however, which these hon. members have not mentioned and upon which I wish to call the Government's attention. About August or September, a large number of young men leave Bonaventure and Gaspe and the two other counties mentioned, to go-and pass- the whole- winter season in the lumber camps, -some in the Ottawa district and others around Tupper Lake, in the United States; they are then absent five or six months a year. Should the call be made during their -absence, the case of these young men should, I think, be taken into consideration, for they will be away from their -homes. I would like the hon. minister to consider this case in his regulations.


Mr. TURGEON (-Gloucester) (translation):: It is important, in my opinion, to consider the peculiar case of the fishermen who are in very large numbers in the Maritime Provinces. I second the remarks made by the members who have just spoken -and I must tell the hon. Minister of Justice that the county of Gloucester has a- fishing population perhaps larger than- that of the other neighboring counties. We have a fishing fleet of more than two hundred boats, schooners, manned by four or five fishermen each; the father with one or two of his sons, or with the hired help of neighbours, to develop the resources of the sea as well as those of the land; just as do all our Acadian families in Gloucester county and other districts.
For these reasons, I join the hon. members who have preceded me and I ask the hon. Minister of Justice to so fix the regulations that the tribunal which may sit in

Gloucester county as well as in the neighbouring ones, be duly notified of these special cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In
answer to the two members-it would be useless to repeat what I have just stated- but I can assure them we

 shall try and give every possible facility to everyone that he may fulfil his obligations.
It may not be out of order to ask the hon. members, when the time comes to apply the Act,-if there are any special circumstances in their counties or in their districts, to communicate them to us-if they have any suggestion to offer as to the best way of meeting such special difficulties, they may submit them to us and I may assure them that we will give their suggestions all due consideration.
Now, as to the possibility of the absence of persons called to serve, I may point out that, as provided in this Act, it is not necessary to apply to one's home tribunal; the application may just as well be made to the nearest tribunal to the place where one happens to be. Thus, for instance, if a young man residing in Gaspe should be in Ottawa when the Governor General's proclamation is issued, he may apply to the tribunal sitting in Ottawa and obtain an exemption certificate from that tribunal. We have no intention to make special provisions so that every young man be compelled to apply to his respective tribunal; I repeat it, the nearest tribunal shall be authorized to hear his case.


Charles Marcil: (translation) :	Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to
draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the conditions created by the lumber companies. These companies are often located at forty miles, fifty, seventy-five and sometimes at more than one hundred miles from any settlement; it is useless to add that there exists no means of communication. I do not suppose that the proclamation calling a certain class of men to the colours will be posted in the woods for these lumbermen in particular; it will, therefore, be entirely impossible for these men to know what is going on, their own relatives not knowing where to find them. These men go away in the fall and only come back in the spring and, during this whole period of time, it is almost impossible to communicate with them. Therefore, if the tribunal should sit in any of the months during which they are away, I cannot see how they will be able to. obey the law, unless an exemption be provided for in the Act itself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will do all we can in order that all classes of people may comply with that Act, and no one shall be held responsible for not having done what he could not do. The Act provides for a fine only against those who do not fulfil their obligations. Now, impossibility is the best of excuses and I do not believe it would be necessary to insert a special clause to declare not guilty the party who has not performed an impossibility.


Joseph Girard: Let us suppose a proclamation is issued during winter. As there is no possible means of communication with Clark City, on the island of Anticosti, it is therefore impossible to send them any news of this proclamation. Generally, there are between 600 and 1,000 men who work in the woods; these men come from almost everywhere and a large number of them -are from my district. I then understand, from the words of the hon. Minister of Justice, that this would he a case of impossibility, and there is no doing impossibilities.
Hon. 'Mr. DOHERTY (translation):	I
understand that, if lit is impossible for those people to reach a tribunal, or for a tribunal to reach them, that is 'a case of impossibility.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Section 3 has not yet
been passed by the committee. A suggestion by tlhe hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean.) as to subsection 2 stood over for consideration. Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Chambly and V erbheres (Mr. Rainville) urged very strongly that the date of the marriage, after Which the marriage should have no effect upon priority of call, should be changed to the date of the acceptance of the principle of the Bill by the House of Commons, instead of the date of the introduction of the Bill. The hon. member further urged that the Bill should take into account marriages that were contracted for prior to the introduction of the Bill. I think the suggestion of the hon. member will be met by adopting the date of the acceptance of the principle by this House. That date could not have been determined upon at the time of the introduction of the Bill, and it is in reality the more logical date of the two. Once the House of Commons accepts the principle of the Bill it is fair to assume that the people of the country will accept it as the law when passed. I therefore move that in place of the words " 11th " and " June " in sub-

clause 2, there be inserted the words " 6th '' and " July."


Mir. NEISBITT:: Did my hon. friend take into consideration the suggestion of imy hon. friend from New Westminster? (Mr. Taylor).


Arthur Meighen: We have all taken it
into very careful consideration from the beginning. The hon. member for New Westminster and the committee will agree that, after the grouping of the first, second and third classes together, and after the abolition of even the semblance of priority as to obligation between the former three classes of these two groups, no purpose will be served by making a further alteration in the Bill.


Mr. CURRIE:: I do not see why we should put any unmarried men in the third category. I think that every unmarried man should go before we call on any of the married men, regardless of age. It may be said that the older 'Unmarried men are not as fit for war service as the young married men. In that ease the medical certificate will let them out. There is no other country in the world where the unmarried men are hdld back and the married ones sent to the front. I do not think it is fair that unmarried men, many of them wealthy, driving their automobiles, men who are too mean to marry, should be left at home and the married ones sent.


Mr.   MARGIE@: Perhaps some of them
could not find a girl.


John Allister Currie: Yes. They constitute two classes, one class very wealthy, who drive automobiles, are selfish, and do not get married; and another class of fellows who are of no value to the community-perhaps marking in billiard rooms or holding horses in livery stables. That class, if physically fit, should go before the young married men, and I appeal to the justice of the House and of the minister in that respect. We have already sent too many married men, and the country will have gfeatly increased financial burdens in consequence.


Arthur Meighen: I think there is a great deal more to be said on the other side of this married men's- question than has yet been uttered, although I certainly do not wish to prolong the discussion. We cannot get 'over the necessity, from the point of view of national interest, of calling the single men before the married men. But there is a great deal to be said for the contention that the unmarried women of this country have to. be considered as well as the married women. The married

women, when their husbands go to the front, are entitled to separation and to consideration of one kind or another; but the unmarried -women have none of that. I do not want to pursue the matter further. No doubt the unmarried man, other things being equal, is freer, and his domestic position has not the same encumbrances. But we cannot shut out of consideration the other point of view, which I venture to suggest to the committee. I think, in a word, we have gone as far as we can in putting priority of obligation upon the unmarried men.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was it not suggested
that divorcees should be considered as unmarried?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Divorced men are not married, andi consequently come in as unmarried men here. Of course, if they have other domestic obligations, 'they can claim, exemption under section 11.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: The figures
showing the relative numbers of married and unmarried men given by the Prime Minister when introducing this Bill are six years old, and for the moment it is impossible to tell how many there are of'each class in Canada and how many of each class have enlisted.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Militia informs, me that we have no- figures of that.


Mr. PARDEE:: The ultimate cost of sending unmarried men is not as great as that of sending married men. I can only reiterate that, in my opinion, the unmarried men should be the first to go.


John Allister Currie: The one thing that has
brought the voluntary system into disrepute more than anything else is the tremendous amount of red tape that has surrounded the separation allowance. Under the King's Regulations, a soldier has to get the consent of his officer to marry. The common soldier is not allowed to address his officer on any matter of business or discipline unless he is	brought
before the officer by a non-com. That is the rule of the army. A young Canadian desires to get married, He asks his corporals or sergeant to bring him before liis officer. When brought there he states his ease. The officer is perhaps a young subaltern, who. says, " That is all right, I will tell the commanding officer." Then he forgets all about notifying the commanding officer, or goes off with the men to

Europe and the department is not notified that consent has been given to that marriage. Very many cases constantly come to my attention, and I am sure every member of this House is aware of cases of that kind, where no separation allowance was allowed, all through the carelessness of the officer not giving notice to the department that he had given consent. There is no form which the officer can fill in, showing that he had given his consent. This is an old army regulation made at the time when men were living in quarters, quarters had to be provided for the men, and only a certain number of men were allowed to get married in each regiment of the regular army. The regulation was framed to prevent a man marrying an undesirable. I think, as far as we in Canada are concerned, we can safely assume that every man who has joined the forces and married, has married a good woman, and no objection can be taken on that score. The next point is the obtaining of the consent of the commanding officer. In every case I have had occasion to investigate, I found the officer had given his consent, 'but neglected to notify the proper authorities. The result is that these women have suffered, and are suffering, great hardships, and the system has been brought into contempt. I submit that it is not too late for the department to adopt a regulation, which they can do at any moment by Order in Council, providing that every women married to a Canadian soldier is entitled to separation allowance, without hunting up the officer, and that, in no case, will the allowance be kept away from her, unless the commanding officer has notified the department that the man has married an undesirable. I think the members of this. House will consider such a regulation very fair and just, and it will prevent	a	lot	of red tape. These
conscripts will be getting married, and we may have a lot of difficulty. It will simplify matters if it is presumed the consent was given, and in no case should the separation allowance be withheld, unless the commanding officer notified the department that it was not in the interest of the state that the separation allowance should be paid.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: My hon. friend refers particularly to marriage in England?


John Allister Currie: No, in Canada. I have in mind two cases. ^


Albert Edward Kemp: So far as Canadian marriages are concerned, we need not worry very much, because there has been no great restriction placed upon young men marrying
in Canada, but there have been very great difficulties encountered in this regard in England, for reasons that are apparent to any one w-ho has studied the situation. An Order in Council has been passed to safeguard the public and to safeguard individuals. Our young men in this country have not been accustomed to all the conditions which exist in London and in other places in England, and it has been with a view of preventing a certain kind of marriage taking place in England that restrictions have 'been placed upon the soldiers marrying. It is not desirable that the young men of this country should contract hasty marriages in England, and marriages, perhaps, in some cases, with women who are not desirable wives for young Canadians, and, therefore, safeguards have 'been provided. After giving the matter a great deal of thought and consideration, an Order in Council was passed a short time ago, whereby a young man desiring to get married must obtain the consent of the officer commanding, and the officer commanding was directed to secure the best evidence he could to show that the woman was a desirable woman for the young man to marry. He was also directed to call to his assistance the clergyman of the parish, if possible, to certify as to the character of the woman whom the soldieT desired to marry.
I think these safeguards were necessary. Therefore, I am sure the course that has been adopted will be approved.


John Allister Currie: I .am not dealing with the question of marriages in England. That is a seperate matter altogether. I stated that the regulations should be such that it would be presumed that any young fellow who married in this country had received the consent of his commanding officer before being married. I have a case in mind of which I was notified the other day. I have the letter of the commanding officer, written some months ago, that he gave his consent in the town of Barrie to the man marrying a respectable woman, and her separation allowance has not been granted. Other cases have been brought to my attention all over the country. Men have been married, and the officers commanding have neglected to send the notice to the department. I believe, after the men go abroad, the regulations should be much stricter. My own experience in the matter bears out every word the minister has said, but I think a regulation should be made, dealing with conscripts and with those who have been married already in Canada, giving the separation allowance, without any

further red tape. I ask the minister to facilitate this, so that we will not have any question about the separation allowance to the wives. Many separation allowances have been standing for three years, and are not settled yet.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A month or so ago, I took up a case with the department. The young man claims his name was posted on the bulletin board at the barracks for two weeks previous to his getting married, and I have not had any satisfaction from the department. In that case, the woman is just as good as any woman in Canada.


Mr. SMITH:: I desire to emphasize the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Sim-coe. I think the line is drawn too tightly in connection with some of the separation allowances. I have a case in mind where a soldier in England had not only been reduced in rank, but his wages or earnings had been withheld from him, and the separation allowance was withheld from the mother. It appears to me that the poor mother in Canada should not have to bear any of these hardships, because of what takes place in England.


Mr. BARRETTE (translation):: Will the minister allow me a question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Are the
members of this House exempted from the operation of this Act and if not will the members who voted for the bill be the first called in the service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the provisions of this Act the members of the House of Commons axe not exempted from compulsory military service. I do not know, of course, who axe those who will have the honour of the first call. I am inclined to believe though, that all members of military age are anxious to serve.


Mr. THOBURN:: A peculiar case was
brought to my notice yesterday. A family living in my county, father and mother, had five sons at the front, and these sons had been the sole support of their parents. One of the sons was killed, and one of the remaining four was a married man, consequently there was a separation allowance for his wife. Unfortunately the mother *of these boys died. The three remaining boys had not made any provision for assigning their pay. Consequently, the father received nothing. No blame is to be attached to the Militia

Department because no provision has been made for such cases. But this is the case of a father and a mother whose five sons, their only support, are in the army, the father being in poverty. My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) says they should get the assigned pay accordingly. But it appears that when they do not get separation allowances, they are not entitled to assigned pay. Appeal has been made to the department in charge of such matters, and a remedy will, perhaps, be afforded. Under present conditions, however, if special provision is not made to cover such cases, the father will get nothing.


Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to give an instance somewhat similar to the one my hon.'friend has mentioned. A widow living in Inverness, Scotland, has four sons, one of whom is in the British service. Of the other three, who aTe living in Canada, two, being unmarried, volunteered in 1916. The other son in Canada was married. The three young men in Canada were jointly supporting their widowed mother in- Scotland. When the two unmarried men volunteered it was arranged that the third brother should assume the whole of the charge in respect of the mother that the three had previously been carrying. This brother afterwards applied to the department for a separation allowance for his mother so that he might volunteer and his mother still be protected in her support. The allowance has been refused to the mother, who is entitled to separation allowance for only one son. When application is made for separation allowance on behalf of that son the Teply is that he was not the sole support of his mother and that she is, therefore, not entitled to separation allowance on his account. If this widow had had only one son in the army and two others in civil life-married men-she would have been entitled to separation allowance, but having three sons in the army, she is not, according to the regulations, entitled to any consideration. I think that is a strange rule. The widow whose two sons in Canada have gone to the front, to say nothing of the one son in the British army, should not be penalized as the result of greater sacrifice on the part of members of her family.


Albert Edward Kemp: Many different
combinations arise in respect of the adjustment of separation allowances. The member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) mentioned one case and the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred to another that was

not on all fours with the case mentioned by the member for North Lanark. But they are both exceptional cases; I have no doubt that many other members have in mind similar cases of what might be called- well, not quite irregularities, but something of that kind. The rules have been amended over and over again in order to meet different conditions. As soon as those conditions are met, we hear no more about the difficulties which the regulations were designed to remove. But new combinations and new difficulties arise, and in order to meet these and to clean up some old claims which have been accumulating, I appointed a board of two officers-lawyers-who had returned from the front. I associated them with the Assigned Pay and Separation Allowance Branch. They have been going over these eases, but have not yet caught up 'with them all. It is the desire of the Department to cover all these cases and to endeavour to get them straightened out, but it is a very difficult task. I do' not think that it is possible to make rules and regulations which will cover every case which is bound to come up. At the same time, I admit that such cases of hardship as the hon. gentlemen has referred to ought to be covered in some way. I think that the board to which I have referred will be able to accomplish that.


Frank Oliver: I wish to complete the statement of the case to which I referred. The latest report I had from the Board was that inasmuch as the widow was receiving support from her married son in Canada, she was not entitled to separation allowance. I pointed out to the minister that the arrangement made by the son in Canada to enable his brothers to go to the front was not an ordinary family obligation. It was an exceptional obligation, assumed purely from patriotic motives, and should not debar the mother from the right to separation allowance, in respect, at any rate, of one son.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Has the
Minister of Justice thought of enlisting the inmates of the State penitentiaries and prisons and does he not believe it would be better to enrol them instead of enlisting our farmers. It would certainly be a saving to the country and it seems such a suggestion should meet the approval of the Minister of Justice.
iMr. DOHERTY (translation): In answer to my hon. friend, I may observe that the inmates of the State penitentiaries and prisons are not exempted under this Act. I think
they could claim exemption just now, for their answering the call would be found impossible unless we set them at liberty. As to what should be done towards those inmates, the question has been and will still be considered. There are a great many things to be' pondered over before we reach a definite conclusion as to the enlistment of those prisoners and inmates, and I have already had occasion of making some remarks in this House upon that matter. However, I do not think it would be possible, or desirable to send all of them to the front, without discrimination. There are many of them whose crimes and character would render such a move altogether undesirable, and who could not' be enlisted with the other respectable citizens forming part of our military forces under this Act. Therefore a choice would have to be made and the matter will be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Coming to section 5,
which is already carried, I beg to move:
That subsection 3 of section 16 be struck out of section 16 and be made subsection 6 of section 5.
This follows a suggestion made last nigh.t by the ihon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). The reading is just the same as it was in subsection 3 of section 16 except that in the .second line there is a word or two changed. There is no change in meaning. It now reads:
No proceeding authorized or pending before any of the tribunals described in section 5-
The rest is just the same.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Will the
Solicitor General read the subsection as amended?


Arthur Meighen: (Reading):
No proceeding authorized or pending before any of the tribunals described in section 5, and no decision of any such tribunal shall by means of injunction, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus or other process whether of the like kind or otherwise issuing out of any court be enjoined, restrained, stayed, removed or subjected to review or consideration upon any ground whether arising out of alleged absence of jurisdiction in the tribunal, nullity, defect or irregularity of the proceedings or any other cause whatsoever nor shall any such proceeding or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered collaterally in any aotion or proceeding, civil or criminal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: All the sections up to
section 13 are mow carried. In regard to section 13, I wish to have added as sub-

section 5 what was formerly subsection 4 of section 16 shortened a little. I therefore beg to move:
That the following be added as subsection 5 of section 13 :-
(5) Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to limit or affect punishment provided by any other Act or law for the offence of assisting the enemy nor the powers of the Governor in Council under the War Measures Act. 1914.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Sections 14 and 15 are .already carried. Section 16 has now removed' from it subsections 3 and 4. The remainder of the section has been abbreviated chiefly by combining what were formerly subsections 2 and 5. It
4 p.m. has also been abbreviated with a view to meeting the suggestion made last night by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames). This is what I propose as section 16:
16. (1) Any person who comes within any of the classes set out in section 3 and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or of regulations for which contravention no other penalty is herein provided, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of not less than ten dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both fine and imprisonment.
That is virtually the same as it was last night.
(2) Any person who by means of any written or printed communication or publication or article, or by any oral communication or by any public speech or utterance,
(a)	Advises or urged that men, described in section 3 shall contravene this Act or regulations, or
(b)	wilfully resists or impedes or attempts wilfully to resist or impede or persuade or induce or attempts to persuade or induce any person or class of persons to resist or impede the operation or enforcement of this Act, or
(c)	for the purpose of resisting or impeding the enforcement or operation of this Act, persuades or induces or attempts to persuade or induce any person or class of persons to refrain from making applications for certificates of exemption or submitting evidence in respect thereof,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than five years.
In subsection 3 the chief amendment is that a suggestion made by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), which I hope the committee will permit me to say is one of the most valuable we have received, is adopted. 'Subsection 3 will now read as follows:
(3) Any newspaper, hook, periodical, pamphlet or printed publication containing matter pro-

hibited by subsection (2) of this section, may whether the printer or publisher thereof be previously convicted or not, be summarily suppressed and further printing or publication thereof and of any subsequent issue of any newspaper or periodical containing such matter may he prohibited for any term not exceeding the duration of the present war; provided no action shall be taken under this subsection or under subsection (2) of this section without the approval of the Central Appeal Judge.
Mj*. OLIVER:	There is no doubt that
this section shows a vast improvement as a result of the discussion of last night. I am not going to find fault with the introduction of the provisions under theiir present limitations if the Government thinks it is necessary to have .such provisions in the Act. That is within their judgment. I must congratulate them on having decided not to insist on the very comprehensive .and indefinite provisions which appeared in the section as we were discussi'1 ' it last night and which the Minister of Ju stice seemed to consider so very. essential to the value of the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is all there still.


Frank Oliver: The minister's eyesight must be very much better than mine. I again desire to bring to the attention of the Government the view that I expressed last night with regard to the rights of property in newspapers, and to claim for the newspapers the same protection of the courts that even under this law is not taken away from the individual. This section provides that action shall not be taken to suppress a newspaper except with the approval of the Central Appeal Judge, and is a great improvement over the clause as it read last night; but it will be observed that under this provision the newspaper has no opportunity of justifying its position. There is no provision for consideration of the circumstances; no provision for the taking of evidence, no provision for the consideration of the case except such as the Central Appeal Judge may see fit to give. I claim as a newspaper publisher that a case of this kind, dealing with the administration of our own domestic affairs, is in a different class from the application of the censorship in. the matter of treasonable utterances or giving information to the enemy. This clearly and distinctly deals with a matter of internal administration-with the administration of the internal affairs of this country by a party government, and as such, is on the one hand entitled to be criticised in the public interest, and on the' other hand is subject, when power is given

as it is given here, to action being taken from motives of party prejudice rather than from motives of the public interest. All I ask is that the newspaper be treated as the individual is treated, and that those who. are responsible for its management have the same privilege of showing cause, under the same circumstances as the individual against whom proceedings are taken under the previous part of this section. I think the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice said last night that that was not practicable. I say that it is practicable absolutely, so far as civil matters are concerned. I have had some experience, and I am aware that a newspaper in actions for libel is dealt with as if it were a person; that is, the suit is against the owners of the paper. In the case of an accusation being made against a newspaper such as is contemplated in this section, there is no reason, from the point of view of the administration of law, why the newspaper should not be given the same rights and standing as the individual. I claim that the large investment in the newspapers of this country, the importance of their work, and the very difficult position that they have to fill in their service to the public, renders them essentially entitled to at least the same protection that the individual enjoys.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that the new section 16 which I have just read be substituted for the old section. I also move that subsection 6, which provided for the coming into force of the section under the sanction of the Governor in Council, be struck out. When we come to section 17, I will move that the second subsection also be struck out.
Mr. MARCH,: I presume that a newspaper proprietor will be given a hearing before action is taken by the Central Appeal Judge to suppress his newspaper. Newspapers employ quite a large number of men, and the sudden suppression of one without giving the proprietor an opportunity to be heard might not be in the public interest.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My hon. friend will realize that, except in a very flagrant and outrageous case, the suppression of a newspaper for one offence would not be probable at all. If any action were taken under this provision I should imagine the newspaper would be first warned, if it were publishing matter that came within the provisions of this Act; perhaps it would be warned more than once, unless its conduct was exceedingly outrageeous and detrimental to the public interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would point out to my hon. friend frcm Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that a newspaper cannot, be suppressed except with the approval of the Central Appeal Judge. He would not suppress a newspaper without just cause.


Charles Marcil: I have had some experience in reporting public speakers, and I have in mind a case in Montreal which went as far as the Privy Council. If members of this House, after listening to a speech, were asked what the speaker nad said there would be many different versions. Before action is taken against a newspaper will steps be taken to obtain an authentic report of what the speaker really said?


Arthur Meighen: Before a prosecution
was entered, the very best means of getting an authentic report would doubtless be adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be useless to bring a proposition otherwise.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am very glad to see that the provision, which I considered very anomalous, making it an offence to induce other people to embarrass the Government, has been struck out. The section is now very much more intelligible. Referring to what my hon. friend from Bonaventure has said, I would assume that the evidence necessary to prove the utterance of the speaker would be the same as to prove a fact in any other court. I might ask the Solicitor General if there are any provisions by which a newspaper is given any particular credence, or is the whole matter to be left as if it were the proving of any other fact?


Arthur Meighen: In the case of subsection i, the prosecution is on the same basis as any other prosecution. Section 14 is the only clause in the Act containing anything about the burden of proof.


Robert Laird Borden: Which does not relate to this.


Arthur Meighen: Which does not relate to this.
Section as amended agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that the last clause of new section 17 be struck out. In view of the fact that the section relating to defiances of the Act can be most usefully brought into operation when the Act itself is in operation, and of the further most important fact that there is really no executive

action taken under the Bill until the proclamation referred to in section 4 is issued, the object of this subsection is really obtained by the presence of section 4 of the Act.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It may be quite correct that it serves no useful purpose, inasmuch as the machinery putting the Act into operation must be proclaimed under another section, still, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate this section. I was in hopes that before the Bill came into operation there would be a further effort made for voluntary enlistment in this country, which might possibly obviate the necessity of ever putting this Act into force, and for that reason I would like to see this clause remain in the Act.


Arthur Meighen: I think it rather complicates matters to leave it in, for this reason: section 16 must be brought into effect as soon as the Act is sanctioned. It would not do to leave section 16 utterly wanting of operation until the Act was called into operation, because if that were allowed the Act might be made very difficult of operation in advance, by means that would be legal. With this clause in the Act, one requires a section calling section 16 into effect previous to calling the Act into effect. If my ho'n. friend will read section 16 he will find difficulty in getting a very decided or certain interpretation as to just what a court could do under it, if the rest of the Act were not in effect. I do not see any reason for retaining this section, and I can assure my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that the object he has in mind will be just as well attained with the Act in the form I moved it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would it be out of place to remark that I am very glad the Solicitor General has seen fit to take the view he .has of the anomaly that would have existed in asking the courts to impose a penalty on a man for contravening an Act which had not come into force. I pointed this out last night to my 'hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and he argued at some length that the view we took on the subject was not worthy of very much consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think I stated it exactly as my hon. friend says. On the contrary, I gave it a great deal of consideration, arid the . result has been very satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: All that remain are exceptions 6 and 7 of the schedule.


Robert Laird Borden: Following the precedent of the United States Act for compulsory service in that country, I would move that section 6 be amended by inserting after the word " including," in the first line, the words " divinity students and."


Wilfrid Laurier: The Militia
Act has numerous classes of exemptions. Section 10 says:-
10.	All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia; provided that the Governor General may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
Section 11 provides:-
11.	The following persons only shall be exempt from liability to service in the militia :-
Members of the King's Privy Council for Canada.
Judges of all courts of justice.
Members of the Executive Councils of Provinces.
Deputy Ministers of the Federal and Provincial Governments.
Clergy and ministers of all religious denominations.
Telegraph clerks in actual employment.
Officers and clerks regularly employed in the collection of the revenue.
Wardens and officers of all public prisons and lunatic asylums.
Members of the naval militia.
Members of the police force and fire brigade permanently employed in incorporated cities, towns and villages.
Professors in colleges and universities, and teachers in religious orders.
Persons disabled by bodily or mental infirmity.
The only son of a widow, being her only support.
Pilots and apprentice pilots during the season of navigation.
Persons who, from the doctrines of their religion, are averse to bearing arms or rendering personal military service, under such conditions as are prescribed.
This last provision is also included in this Act, but all the other classes of exemptions are not exempt under this Act. For instance, judges are not mentioned in. the Act, nor are members of the Executive Councils of the provinces, deputy ministers, telegraph clerks in actual employment, etc. What is the intention of the Bill? We have made the Militia Act a part of the Bill, and as I understand it, all the exemptions under 'section 11 of the Militia Act would apply under this Act. There is some confusion in my mind, because only one class mentioned in the Militia Act is included in this Bill. What is the explanation?


Arthur Meighen: The circumstances under which this Act is passed differ very

very radically from the circumstances under which the Militia Act was passed. Furthermore, the requirements of the country, the prospective circumstances, differed very radically from the corresponding circumstances in 1905. A great many classes are exempted under the Militia Act pf 1904, and I think I could name three or four times as many who' would be as well entitled to exemption from that standpoint as those who happen to be mentioned there. In the forming of this Act we endeavour to keep the exceptions down to the minimum, and, in a word, they include only the following. First, contractual exceptions; that is to say, exceptions that, as a nation, we have contracted to make, covered by exception 7; then we except those who are serving or have already served, that is an exception of those who have done their duty: then we make an exception under the heading of religion, having in mind the paramount necesssity of maintaining the mpral and religious strength of the community; that is an exception that I think appears in the military Acts of every nation. We have reduced to a minimum these classes of exceptions, and inasmuch as we have adopted the tribunal system or the judicial system of selection, we do not undertake to dictate to these tribunals or quasi-judiciary what should be their action. Under the Militia Act the selection is made purely by lot, and, unless there- were specific exceptions, those men would be as likely to go as any others. Consequently there was a necessity for specific exceptions, and I think that they might have gone further, for, in the operation ,of the Act, they would have run against the most marvellous results. With a system of 'ballot, the draftsman of the Act had to make specific exceptions; but where the selective system is adopted, it is best to leave discretion to the tribunals.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wanted to
know where we were. I do not object to the clause, far from it; I think it is very well conceived. If I had any suggestion to make it would be to make it wider. I would except religious orders from the operation of the Act. As to the contractual exemptions, I do not know that that is a good reason. The only contractual obligation entered into with the Mennonites, when they came here in 1877 or 1878 under the Government of Mr. McKenzie, was that the Government undertook that their religious scruples would be observed. There is no such contract with the Quakers, but they are exempted on the ground of religious conscience.


Robert Laird Borden: Not an absolute exemption.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman fails to distinguish between exemptions and exceptions. Exceptions are given only to those whom we contracted to except. Then there is another class, who may claim exemption if they can prove their case on the ground of conscientious objection. The Quakers would come under that if they could prove their case.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am quite sure that many of the parsons do not want to be excepted under this Act. Any I have heard from do not. I do not know why they should be if they are liable to go, any more than any one else. Then why select theological students as among those entitled to exemp* tion?


Arthur Meighen: It is all on the one principle.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are making them exceptions. I do not see any reason for that or any reason why the clergy should be exempt. In my section of the country they are not demanding to be exempted; in fact a good many of them have gone to the front voluntarily, some as chaplains and some as fighters-and some' of them can fight as well as any one. A good many of them have been preaching to every one else to go and fight, and I do not see why they should not go and fight as well as any one else, especially the theological students.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite true that a great many of the clergy have gone overseas in the Canadian Expeditionary Force and that they have rendered very fine service to the State in Great Britain and at the front. That is still entirely open; it is not proposed by this Act to take away that privilege of the clergy.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is not proposed to take away the privilege of volunteering?


Robert Laird Borden: Not by this Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is referred to in one clause.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite sure there is a specific clause to that effect. So far as the clergy are concerned, I Jihink it is proper to follow the precedent of our own Militia Act, which has been in the statute book for 49 years, and also the	precedents	in Great	Britainand	the United	States. So far as
divinity students are concerned, we are following the precedent of the neighbouring nation-and for this reason, as I under-



REV1SED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
stand it, that the absence of ep very large number of clergymen of various denominations has made it necessary, from time to time, in some of the churches at least, to utilize the services of divinity students, and in some of the churches the student becomes dedicated to the ministry almost from the time he commences his studies. So, under all these conditions,' with the precedents we have, with the varying arrangements of the different churches in the country, it seemed proper to make this slight addition to clause 6. May I say to my right hon. friend that members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character are, in terms, excepted.
Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I see
that.


Charles Marcil: My attention was called
by some members of a religious order yesterday to the fact that in January, 1916, when the third reading of the Military Service Bill was under debate in the English House, it was moved that the exemption to the clergy be struck out, and that this motion was opposed by Mr. Bonar Law and was withdrawn after a short debate. It also appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York both refused to give their clergy permission to enlist. As the Prime Minister has said, in the United States the law explicitly exempts them in these words:
Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, students who at the time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.
The words used in the English Act are:
Men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.
I may say that "A large number of the Roman Catholic clergy in Quebec have voluntarily enlisted as chaplains, and that all of those who belonged to the religious orders which have been expelled from France and who have taken up their residence in this country went back to assume their military duties in France. I think the Capuchins in this city lost three or four of their members on 'the firing line. None of them tried to evade service in any way. I think it a proper position to take that in the public and moral interest of the country these young students should remain at their calling.


Mr. MORPHY:: I decidedly dissent from the proposition that divinity students 
should be placed in the same category as the clergy. I fancy the colleges of this country up to date-at least in many places throughout Ontario-have sent to the front their young vigorous manhood, irrespective of what the future had in store. They have gone boldly to the front, under the voluntary system. I speak for myself only, but it seems to me quite improper that the young manhood attending universities throughout this country-where the universities have not, as universities, shown the same patriotic and loyal feeling that other universities have shown, where, in fact, divinity students have been requested in some cases practically not to go as volunteers-should be exempted under this section. It is incompatible with the dignity of this Parliament that any such exemption should be placed in this Bill. It is not fair to the young men of the country who are not divinity students. One man is as good as another before the law. Each has a duty to perform to the state, and to specialize and single out one body of students, because they may be denominated divinity students, is not to my mind compatible with the true spirit of democracy. We boast to-day about democracy that we all love so much and 1 do not think there is any distinction, when you come down to ordinary human flesh and blood. I do not think it is fair to the others, who may be conscripted under this Bill, that any ciass of students should be exempt. The Prime Minister, in my hearing, has given 'he only good reason that has been advanced why divinity students should be exempted, namely, that, owing to so many of the clergy having gone to the front, the services, in a religious way, of these students must be utilized. But I have never heard it stated that there was any shortage of clerics in any denomination. Consequently, I do not believe that the argument is a fair one, nor is it in the public interest that we should give weight to an argument that thousands of young men throughout this Dominion, who are attending the various universities or schools of a semi-religious nature, or purely and simply divinity schools, should be exempted from the operation of this Bill. I speak absolutely freely, without any sectarian feeling, and I enter a personal protest against any such legislation going upon the statute.


Frank Oliver: Does not subsection "C" of section 11 cover the case of all students?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, these are different.


Frank Oliver: Why are they different?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what 1 want to know.


Frank Oliver: Subsection "C" of section 11, reads:
That it is expedient in the national interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained.
I think 1 spoke on that point before, and, for my part, I do not see why there should be any special exemption_of those who are being educated or trained for any calling iD life in our educational institutions. I alluded to the fact that there has been a magnificent response from those institutions of higher education to the call for men, in spirit and in numbers, and in every other way, and of all our. population it seems to me that those in attendance at our educational institutions and our institutions of higher learning are the last who should be put on the Indian list.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I agree entirely with what the hon. gentleman from North Perth and the hon. member from Edmonton have stated. I think among all the classes of young men throughout Canada, no class has been more ready, and more willing, and has, to a greater extent, volunteered to go to the front than university students. I think that can be proved beyond doubt. But if it is intended to exclude or to exempt university students, I cannot see any argument for so doing. I wish to enter my protest, without any further argument. I cannot see any reason why the divinity students should be exempt. Some hon. gentleman thought we would be insulting the farmer by even offering to exempt him from service at the front. I think the divinity students would feel much more insulted, if they were exempted. They have shown that they are ready to go forward and serve their country, and I hope what has been said along this line will change the minds of those who have the Bill in hand, and that divinity students will not be exempted.


Robert Laird Borden: The conditions
in this country are very much like those in the United States and in this, we are following the precedent which has already been established by that country, and one to which I think there can be no reasonable exception taken.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the Premier is following the example of the United States, why
214*
did he not exempt the farmers, as they do in the United States?


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that they do not.	i


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand they do
exempt them.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not read the Act carefully, but if I am right, that answers the hon. gentleman's question. 1 have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it has been represented to me that divinity students have been called upon in this country to undertake duties such as are ordinarily performed by the clergy. In addition to that, there is another circumstance, which I think might fairly be taken into consideration, that in some of the churches of the country, one church at least, the divinity student is dedicated to the ministry from the time he commences his studies, or almost from that date, and, therefore, he is looked upon and regarded as, in effect, a member of the clerical order from that time. It has been admitted that it was a proper thing to exempt the clergy. I am well aware, because I have received telegrams and messages from gatherings of clergymen of some of the churches in the country, that they would be content not to be exempted- in fact in some cases tjhey rather suggested that they had rather not be exempted. '
I know that clergymen who have gone to the front have been animated by a sense of duty, and they have performed their duty well. But, if we admit that we ought to except the clergy-and they have been excepted in this country for forty-nine years-we are not taking a very pronounced or dangerous step in advance when we except divinity students as well. That is why the Government thought it advisable that this slight amendment Should be made in clause 6.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I cannot understand
why divinity students should be deprived of the privilege of going to the front.


Mr. PROULX:: They are not deprived
of it.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not believe that
they should be excepted or exempted. I have yet to find a divinity student who is better than any other man. As to his being dedicated, 'I think it is assumed that he is dedicated only when hands are laid upon him. Technically is peaking, that is itbe time of his dedication. After that, if he does not pass his examinations, he is not dedicated at all. After all, it is a very
*3366

mundane affair. I do. not agree that the clergy should be excepted. Certainly that provision will look very bad; it will make the clergy look as if they were a poor, miserable .lot of people.


Edmond Proulx: I agree with the views
of the Prime Minister on this point. Speaking in respect of the Catholic clergy, I know that many divinity students are engaged also in 'teaching in colleges and seminaries, and it would be a great handicap to those educational institutions if the divinity students were taken away and sent to the war. They have been exempted in the United States Act, the provision reading, in part:
Regularly or duly ordained ministers of religion, students who at the time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.
A similar exemption should be provided in thi3 Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If these students are teachers, they would be a proper class to exempt; why they should otherwise be specially considered, I do not understand. With reference to my suggestion that those engaged in agriculture in the United States are exempt, I do not find that provision in the United States Act; therefore I was misinformed. When the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) was speaking, I was reminded of a young man who went to college and had been well and sufficiently educated for the Church. When he came home, his father said: Well, John, you have the education, but you lack the grace of God; so you can go at something else.


Frank Oliver: In France, the clergy are not exempt. In 1914 or 1915 I met a priest of the Catholic Church, a native Frenchman, who at that time expected to be called as a reservist to France. The clergy there are subject to the same regulations as those applying to other people.


Charles Marcil: But French precedents do not go very far in this country; we generally follow British precedents. If the hon. gentleman goes far enough into French precedent, he will see that France has done a great many things in the religious domain during the last ten or fifteen years. For one thing, it has suppressed the Sundays- a highly respectable institution in this country.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend should be more familiar with the current history of the country of his forefathers. The obser-

vance of Sunday has been restored in France by recent authority.


Charles Marcil: There was an arrangement by which a man could choose one day in the week during which to take a day's rest -jour du repos hebdomadaire, as it was designated then. The day might be Saturday, Monday, or any other day in the week. All the emotions and other kinds of state business were carried out on Sunday. I think, therefore, that French precedent will not go very far in this country. I would point out to the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that Roman Catholic divinity students enter the Holy Orders at the age of about twenty or twenty-one. Although they do not receive full orders until they finally reach the priesthood, in the eyes of the Church they are part and parcel- of the Church from the time they receive their first minor orders. They are more than students, in the ordinary sense of the word; they form a part of the clergy, even though final degree of priesthood is not conferred.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then they are all the better prepared to die.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If divinity students are part of the clergy I see no reason why they should be specially mentioned-but I do not say that that is a proper interpretation of the meaning of the words as used in the Act. It is extraordinary that a matter of this kind should not appeal to the sense of the committee in a directly opposite manner. The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcii) has just told the committee that they have suppressed the Sunday in France. There is no question of that kind here. But, if I am correctly informed, over 11,000 of the priesthood of France are in the front line trenches doing the duty of soldiers. In Italy about 11,000 priests are fighting in the trenches for the cause of civilization and liberty. It is beyond my comprehension why, at a time when Canada is calling for
100,000	men, whom she 'badly needs, we should insert in this Bill a clause to withdraw from the young manhood of the country a large amount of splendid fighting material. I can scarcely conceive that such a thing is possible. Are these young men asking for this provision? Who has asked for it? Why is it put in? It seems to me most outrageous that this class should be specifically exempted-a class including men from 20 to 28, the very life-blood of the country that should go and support our soldiers at the front. I pro-

test most strongly against this invidious distinction, especially in yiew of the assertion of the member for Bonaventure that divinity students are part of the clergy. There are Protestant students who are not part of the clergy; let us get them. If, having regard to his assertion that divinity students are part of the clergy, my hon. friend wants to withdraw all his co-religionists from the operation of this Act, then it is time for us to define what "clergy" shall mean under this Act. If what the member for Bonaventure says is true, the Bill is radically wrong in its use of the word "clergy." If divinity students are included in the word "clergy," I would ask the committee to define the meaning of the word, and to provide that it does not include students who are liable to become clerics. If from the use of the word "clergy" we are to infer that students are part of the clergy, I most emphatically protest against the inclusion of the words "divinity students."


Frank Oliver: This is a Bill for military, not for religious purposes. While I, for one, would not agree to follow the precedent of France in matters of religion, I think we could not do better than follow the precedent of France in military matters.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I find myself in entire sympathy with the Bill as it stands on this question. Two considerations occur to me that will help us to a rapid decision. In the first place, the number affected as divinity students would be comparatively limited; the loss to the fighting forces would not be very great if we kept all the divinity students at home. I must say that it is strongly present to my mind that in all English-speaking countries the clergy have been held to occupy a special position. The second consideration that arises in that connection is this: That there is no intention, as I understand the Bill, of preventing them from enlisting voluntarily. They have full freedom to go voluntarily, as some of the 'best men in England and Scotland have gone, and have made the supreme sacrifice. But when the matter comes to compelling men to leave the spiritual avocation of the clergy of the community, then I think the sentiment of all English-speaking countries would be in favour of the Bill. From our youth up, we have rightly regarded, and been taught to regard, the clergy as being a special portion of the community dedicated to the most solemn work that can occupy human beings. They baptize us in childhood; they solemnize our marriages;
they console our relatives when we are dying and they say the last rites over our clay. For that reason, as I say, they have always been held in special regard, at least . in the countries that compose our Empire, and I certainly think that to compel them to leave what is the highest avocation that can occupy the minds and energies of men in order to fight would be an act which would not meet with the general approbation of our people.
As to the practical point raised by the Prime Minister in regard to students being used to occupy the position of clergymen who have gone to the front, once a student of divinity has embarked on his course and been given the mark of his calling, it would be a foolish act on the part of this Parliament to use compulsion to make him leave those studies and his high calling for the purpose of serving his country, at the front. For these reasons I endorse very strongly the Bill as it stands.


John Allister Currie: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the case of the medical students. There are a great number of medical students. Many medical students enlisted in the various contingents before completing their studies and went to the war. A number of them were sent back last fall to complete their studies so that they might later on return to the front to engage in work in the medi-oai service. I do not think it is fair to take .any student of .medicine. If you are going to exempt any class of students, you should exempt any student who desires to dedicate his services to the war. When h<- is called out, you should make some arrangement whereby he would, whilst a conscript, be permitted to finish his medical studies in his university, so that he may qualify himself to be of service in the war. Skilled medio'al men are very much needed in the war zone or in the hospitals behind the firing line. The last resources of medical men are being drawn upon, and hundreds of students have been allowed by the British Government and by our Government to return home in order to complete their studies.
So far as divinity students are concerned,
I have no hesitation in agreeing with the remarks of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). I think we have gone far enough in linking up this Parliament to the church. There is no Church and State in this country any more, but we are linking this Parliament up even with divinity students.. Mo=+ divinit.v students

never become clergymen. One-half of the students that I have known that have taken up a divinity course have finished in law or something else, so that whilst I have every deference to the desire of the Prime Minister to grant exemption to divinity students, there are divinity students and divinity students, and it would take us all night to make a distinction between the different classes. What about students of Christian Science, which is considered a form of religion, and various other beliefs? The gate for exemption would be very wide. When I hear of riots and troubles in various cities over this Bill, I find that the people raising most of the row are divinity students who are throwing bricks and other things of that sort. When you are not exempting the farmer, and not even giving an intimation to the 'tribunal that special consideration must be given to the claims of agriculturists-1


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That was ruled out.


John Allister Currie: -it is going too far to say that the tribunals shall not be allowed even to look in upon a divinity student. With all due-deference to the minister in charge of the Bill, I must say that my experience with tribunals of various kinds is that they will hew to the line, and unless you give them: some special intimation as to how you desire their decision, they will decide strictly according to the letter of the law. Whilst this is called a selective measure, there is not in it a single line which indicates that the agriculturist, the munitions maker, the shipbuilder, the man who transports food to the cities-men who are needed if anybody is needed- are to be exempted, and still we go to all the trouble to say that we will exempt a section of the community that, from a purely economic standpoint, is of no use to us. I respect the clergy; I think it is only right that men engaged in the avocation of clergyman should be exempted; but if you exempt divinity students, the div-
5 p.m. inity colleges will Hot be able to hold all the students. It is time that we drew the line somewhere, and if divinity students are to be exempted, we shall have to adopt some method of intimating to the tribunals that the agriculturists will have their claims considered when they come before the tribunals. Fancy a poor farmer's boy who has never been before a tribunal in his life, appearing before one to claim exemption. Who is to speak for him? Nobody. And these tribunals are composed not of farmers but of

professional men, and the professional classes of this country are-constantly saying: Oh, the farmers have not volunteered in sufficient numbers-and they will not let off the farmers. My experience of my county is that the farmer's son has gone to the front more readily than the young man from the town or village, and the farmer is therefore entitled to every consideration. He is giving his share to this war, and he is more entitled to consideration than the divinity student. But more especially is the medical student entitled to consideration, and I think the Prime Minister should insert in the Bill a provision that medical students shall not be conscripted until they get their degrees.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose it is understood that under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 11, medical students may be exempted.


John Allister Currie: They are not specifically exempted by the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The remarks made by the hon. member fo-r North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) are very applicable, and it might be satisfactory if the Solicitor General said, as a matter of record, that medical students would be exempted under that paragraph.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Also agricultural students.


Arthur Meighen: All students may apply for exemption under that paragraph.
Paragraph 6 agreed to.
On Schedule; paragraph 7:
Those persons exempted from military service by Order in Council of August 13, 1873, and by Order in Council of December 6, 1898.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are those persons?


Arthur Meighen: By the terms of each of those Orders m Council, there is specific exemption from military service. The first one refers to the Mennonites, who come from the slopes of the Caucasus in Russia.
Previous to their coming, certain representatives were sent to Canada, and the land was spied out and the conditions discussed. One of the conditions was that if they were to settle in Canada they would be exempt from all farms of military service. Practically similar provisions are inserted in the Order in Council which followed on the trip of inspection by these representatives. The Doukhobors, who came in 1898, were also promised exemp-

tion from military service by specific terms of an Order in Council. It was felt that as tbe honour of the nation was pledged to these people, they should not have to prove their ease before tribunals, and consequently they have been definitely exempted.
Mr. MAiRCIL: Are they very numerous?


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to say
that the Order in Council applies to all of them, but those to whom it does apply make up a substantial number.


Frank Oliver: Does the Order in Council carry the exemption down through succeeding generations, or is exemption guaranteed only to those who came to Canada under the terms of the original Order in Council?


Arthur Meighen: The point raised by the hon. member has been in my mind. The Order in Council does not in definite language carry the exemption to succeeding generations at -all. Whether or not it could be contended that was the intention of the Order in Council is a question that,
I think, we should not now determine. We should abide by our contract as it may be interpreted by the tribunals. The question may finally come before the Central Appeal Judge. The Order in Council simply says that these people are exempt from military service. It would appeal to me that the intention of the country was to exempt them as a community. I could scarcely argue before .this House that the intention was simply to exempt the actual .men who came originally, and not their children. However, I do not pretend to give a decision; it is not for me to do so. The Order in Council does not in specific terms exempt the children.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Mennonites, when they came to this country, followed the tribal system, living in villages and communities of their own. I suppose those who have adhered to that system will be entitled to' exemption, but that may not be the case with those who have gone to our cities and towns and have been absorbed into our population.


Arthur Meighen: That seems reasonable.


John Allister Currie: The Mennonites have been proselytizing all over the country, and have formed churches of their own amongst our Canadians. I have in mind a number of such churches. There are two in my riding formed by Mennonites, none of whom came from the Old Country. I do not think the exemption should be granted to them, just
because it is being granted to those who originally came from Europe.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Exemption will not be granted to all, but simply to those to whom the Order in Council applies.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Only to those who came at the time the Order in Council was passed? '


Arthur Meighen: That is the way tbe
Order in Council reads. I would not care to take the responsibility of deciding whether it applies to their descendants also.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In the western part of
Ontario there are communities of Mennonites in the counties of Waterloo, Huron, the two Perths, and part of Bruce. Many of the children and grandchildren of these men have left the Mennonite church as they grew up and joined some other, possibly the Evangelical Methodist. Where do they stand? The same answer, I suppose?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the Order in Council applies to any Mennonites in Ontario, but to those who came to this country and settled chiefly, if not altogether, in Southern Manitoba; perhaps some went further West. I would say with some deference that the Order in Council *could scarcely be held to apply to any whp left the Mennonite faith, no matter whether they were Mennonites originally or not.
Mr. MoCRANEY: I represent a considerable number of the Mennonites to whom this Order in Council applies. Briefly, their history is, I believe, that they originally lived in Germany and were put under military service by Frederick the Great. On the invitation of Catherine of Russia, about 125 years ago, they removed to tbe neighbourhood of Odessa, in Southern Russia and established themselves in large colonies there. They were allowed to use their own language-they speak Low German-and they grew up enjoying their own customs and living at peace with the Russian Government. Although they speak the German language I find that their sympathies in this wiar are with Russia, because, of the very friendly attitude which the Russian Government had always assumed towards them, and of the way in which their rights had been preserved in that country. About 1873 the Russian Government began to impose military service on the Mennonites, and in consequence they sent a delegation to Canada. I believe this delegation went to southern Manitoba, and, finding conditions satisfactory,

correspondence took place between the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the Mennonites in which they sat forth that they would like to come to this country if they could be guaranteed exemption from military service. It was because of opposition to military service that they had left Germany in the first place, and also why they wished to leave Russia. So the Order in Council was passed. My Mennonite friends tell me that they are not exempt in Russia to-day; they are not, however, engaged in combatant service, but work with the Red Cross and that sort of thing. Notwithstanding the fact that the Mennonites in this country are exempt from military service, a number of the young men of the Mennonite families in my constituency have volunteered and have lost their lives at the front in the defence of this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the Solicitor General be good enough to put on Hansard or lay on the table of the House these Orders in Council, because this question will undoubtedly come up in the enforcement of the Act, and it is very important that the exact terms of the Orders in Council be known?


Arthur Meighen: I will see that copies of the Orders in Council are laid on the Table. I might add to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon that these communities of Mennonites who are here exempted, including those in his own constituency, have expressed since the war began their very deep appreciation of the fidelity with which the bond given to them has been lived up to, and they have sent down very large sums of money indeed, collected amongst themselves for the Red Cross and other patriotic purposes.


Frank Oliver: For what purpose are the words "those persons exempted from military service by Order in Council of August 13th, 1873" inserted? The persons who were exempted from service by the Order in Council in 1873 must, by reason of the lapse of time, not be subject to military service at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: If the wording of this should be held to include the children, then the children are exempt from military service.


Frank Oliver: Does not the Government intend to reach a decision on its responsibility or on some other definite responsibility in regard to that matter? This is a question in which the honour of the country is involved, and I should think it is not wise to leave it to the decision of an 
inferior tribunal which might be appointed to hear appeals against the call for men. I would respectfully suggest the matter is of sufficient importance that a definite decision should be reached.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I hope there will be no question on the part of the Government as to the fact of these Orders in Council including all the members of the Mennonite sect to which the original arrangement applied, and to their children who are connected with the church.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen must remember that it is no light thing to exempt any section of the community from liability to military service or to any national service. It has already been done by Orders in Council. I think it is scarcely within the province of the Government to say the extent to which these Orders in Council went, if there is any doubt about it. It would appear to me better to leave the limitation of these Orders in Council to the determination of a competent tribunal. As the Act reads now, it would be for the Central Appeal Judge

who would be a member of the Supreme Court of Canada-to decide whether or not those Orders in Council should be applied to the protection of the children of the persons who came under them. For myself, speaking personally only, I would be disposed to agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon and the leader of the Opposition that the interpretation might well be put on them that they included children so long as those children remained members of a recognized Mennonite or Doukhobor community, holding like faith as to military services.


Frank Oliver: Does that mean the immediate children?


Arthur Meighen: The descendants.


Frank Oliver: For all time?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In my riding we have a sect called the Ornish, who are Mennonites. They are really German Quakers, and they certainly do not believe in fighting. They do not even believe in voting, let alone fighting.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you many of them ?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, we have a great number of them, and they are wonderful citizens. They are the best farmers in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Excepting the Scotchman.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not even excepting the Scotchman. Those people have been there for a number of yearSj and I was wondering if they would come under clause (f). They certainly conscientiously object to the undertaking of combatant service.


Arthur Meighen: They will come under clause (f) if they prove their case under it. As I understand, they disbelieve in military service.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Absolutely. If you were to strike them on the right cheek they would turn the left.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On the preamble:
Frank Oliver: Some days ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. McCurdy) for a statement of the number of men who had gone to England and had been declared unfit for service and returned to Canada. I assume it is in order to deal generally with the conditions which have led up to the necessity of the bringing in of this measure. In other words, that this ie the time and place when it is in order to discuss the general administration and policy of the Miltitia Department in connection with the war. In that connection I desire to have the information which I asked of the parliamentary under secretary, and which he promised to secure.


Arthur Meighen: If the information has not been furnished, it will be secured at the earliest possible date and an opportunity will be given for discussion, upon it.


Frank Oliver: When the Bill went into committee there arose .a general discussion in regard to the military policy and administration of the Government. That was diverted into the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. I then asked the Prime Minister if it would be in order at a later date, and when it would be more convenient to the minister, to resume the general discussion that had been initiated by the Prime Minister himself. I was told that it would be arranged for. I assume that this is the time and place when it would be in order to take up such a discussion.


Arthur Meighen: The Militia Estimates,
I understand, are not through, and the hon. gentleman might take up the discussion on them.' The parliamentary secretary is not here, and in his absence I cannot give a definite answer. The information may be almost ready. My hon. friend will lose nothing in the way of opportunity for discussion by permitting 'the preamble to go through.


Frank Oliver: I do not think it would
be-fair to allow the preamble to go through without some consideration or discussion. If it is not convenient or practicable to discuss the general question, I wish to draw attention to this statement in the preamble:
Whereas. enough men do not volunteer to provide such reinforcements.
I claim, on behalf of this House and this country, a statement from the Government from the authorities who are bringing in this Bill, as to why enough men do not volunteer to provide such reinforcements.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not precisely gather what my hon. friend intends by the question. Enlistment is voluntary under the system hitherto pursued, and every possible effort, so far as I am aware, has been made to induce enlistment in sufficient numbers. 1 have given statistics which indicate that not enough men are at present enlisting to provide for the wastage which is going on in the Canadian forces at the front.


Frank Oliver: So the only reason that the Prime Minister can give is simply that enough men do not volunteer. That is the reason why we must have this Bill. We have had discussions in the House between the Prime Minister and his ex-Minister of Militia in which it was stated very definitely by the ex-Minister of Militia that one reason why men did not volunteer was because the opportunity was not given them to volunteer owing to pressure brought to bear by friends of the Government upon the Government. I want to know how far that statement is justified.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already given my statement in regard to that in the House, and I have nothing to add. So far as I am aware, there was no such condition at any time. I read a letter which embodied my views on the subject, and I said that those views were reiterated some six or eight months afterwards.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member for
South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), who is a member of the expeditionary force, stated in the House that when he was assisting in recruiting for a certain battalion in that locality they were not allowed to hold recruiting meetings in the vicinity, I understood, of the Sydney Steel works, because it was not desired that men should he recruited from that vicinity. I should like

to know by what authority such meetings were prevented.


Robert Laird Borden: I really have not the slightest idea. I never heard of any such prohibition.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister is
aware, I presume, that the hon. member for Cape Breton made that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not at all aware of it, no.


Frank Oliver: He did make the statement, and I think it is a sufficiently grave statement to have either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Militia answer it, and either specifically deny it or show reasons why such instructions were issued.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is supposed to have issued them?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be
rather important to find that out in order to investigate it.


Frank Oliver: The gentleman who was
speaking is a member of this House; he is also a member of the Expeditionary Force; he was engaged in the work of recruiting. He made his statement on his responsibility as a member ot Parliament. I do noit think that any further steps need be taken to call the attention of the Government to the fact or ,to demand an answer in the interest of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says that-some investigations should be made. I asked who issued the instructions. Apparently the hon. member for South Cape Breton did not give that information.


Frank Oliver: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Until he does
give that information I do not see how any investigation could be made.


John Allister Currie: About that time complaint was made by munition .plants that unauthorized persons were holding recruiting meetings dm the munition plants while the plants were in operation. That was becoming an abuse, because ia lot of these chaps, instead of confining their energies to recruiting idle men on the street, were going into the munition plants and stopping the work, holding meetings, like revival meetings, on the floors of these plants. I understand that an intimation was about that time sent by the Munitions Board to these plants

that unauthorized persons were not to be allowed into these plants to hold meetings. I know something about this war; I know how great the necessity for munitions was about a year ago, for steel for shells even more than for men. There were lots of men at the front, but we need more than tirawn and muscle to hold the Germans back. I think it is altogether illogical for any person who wanted to enlist soldiers to hold recruiting meetings on the floors of munition plants, as they did a year and a half ago. But that was not what stopped recruiting. It was the great volume of political meetings that were being held all over the country by hon. gentlemen, with the call at once to put up candidates against the Conservatives. In my own case, I was not taking any part in politics, but. an 'hon. gentleman, who shed crocodile tears over his leader in this House because recruiting had fallen off, and who had to part with his leader and vote for conscription, was up in my riding, nominating a candidate against me, who was of military age and should have volunteered. That checked recruiting far more than the preventing of recruiting in munition plants. Too much politics caused the trouble. If politics had been thrown aside, it would have been all right. Voluntary recruiting was progressing, and when it was at its height, immediately after the House clo'sed last year, there was a wild rush to get candidates in the field, because it was said there was to be an immediate election. The public mind was diverted from the war to politics. I confess my own mind, after a while, was taken from the war, and I had to take part in a political campaign, in which we soundly trimmed our opponents.


Frank Oliver: What my hon. friend has said bears out my contention that a great deal more attention was given to the interests of the munition plant than to the interests of recruiting.


John Allister Currie: I did not say so.


Frank Oliver: That is what I gathered.


John Allister Currie: It was to the interest of the British Government, who had placed the orders, to have munitions turned out, but all these mattters delayed the manufacture of munitions. Clergymen were trying to stop munition work on Sundays. Recruiting agents were wanting to get into the munition plants, to get men away from the machines, and send them to the war. Necessarily, those in authority endeavoured- to stop that practice. There is no change politically to be got out of that phase of the question.


Frank Oliver: I do not know why my hon. friend objects to political talk, when he uses so much of it himself, and when he claims to be so successful in its use. This is not a matter of political talk. We are dealing with a measure whose importance I need not attempt to exaggerate, a measure which, in its terms, in its introduction, in every argument that is used for it, is a slur against the patriotism of the people of Canada. I want to say that, in my humble judgment, the patriotism of the common people of Canada, as shown by the service they have rendered in this war, does not warrant a slur by anybody, whether they hold a high or a low position, and when this Government declares, in the preamble of the Bill, that it is rendered necessary because our people have not shown a sufficiently enthusiastic military spirit, I claim it is for them to justify that assertion, and not merely to declare it. They throw that slur against the people of the country, and demand the passage of this measure. There are other industries in this country, besides munition making. We have heard a great deal about the industry of agriculture. The district I come from is one of the leaders of this country in the matter of agriculture and production. To-day the need of food is as great as the need of munitions. The production of food is the great demand of all the Allies. But there was never any protest from the food producers of Alberta against enlistment in Alberta, and there was no slackening of enlistment in Alberta, because of politics, or because of anything else.


John Allister Currie: I would agree that in
Alberta they did keep out of politics, and that they did more than any other section of the country on that account, but that statement did not hold good down in Ontario and other parts of the country, and that is one of the reasons why recruiting did not go on as it should have last year. I agree with the hon. member thoroughly. I should like to ask him, in all kindness, does he . not know a number of men, even in Alberta, who should have volunteered, and did not do so, whom this law will take?


Frank Oliver: I know very few.


John Allister Currie: Everybody knows that he himself and all belonging to him have done their share in the war. His heart and soul have been in the voluntary system, and are -in the national conscription law to-day, because he has said so in this House two or three times. He has been most urgent in favour of that system. We have tried to frame a Bill as nearly perfect as possible, although many features of it have been criticised by the hon. gentleman. Every man whose heart is in this war will pay deference to the hon. gentleman's province for its splendid record in recruiting. It hae done better than any other province- because there were no politics there.


Frank Oliver: For myself and my province, I resent 'the spirit in which this Bill has been introduced and placed before the country. It is not warranted, and I am asking for justification, if justification can be given. In the province of Alberta, the production of food is the ..great industry. That production is more important in the winning of the war than anything else, except the supply of fighting men; yet there was no slackening of recruiting in that country, and no consideration was given to food production. Nobody in Alberta, so far as I know, has ever challenged the most extreme efforts of the military authorities to secure men in that province. I shall read a statement of the different corps of men enlisted from the city of Edmonton and surrounding country, to show how little regard was paid to food production, the basic industry of the country, in connection with voluntary enlistment. No such consideration was given to it as was given to the industrial enterprises mentioned by my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: Any munition works
there?


Frank Oliver: Yes, two small places
where they machine shells. I will give the enlistments up to August 6, 1916. These are not men who enlisted and were discharged as unfit; these are men who went forward from Edmonton, as being fit at that time, whatever happened to them afterwards. The enlistments were as follows:
Number
Name of Unit.	of Men.
Princess Pats	  310
101st Fusiliers, Col., Osborne . .	. . 1,358
19th Alberta Dragoons,	Col. Jamieson 20S
31st Infantry, Calgary	 400
23rd Infantry, Montreal	 200
28th Infantry, Quebec	 200
13th C.M.R., Medicine	Hat	
492University drafts, Princess	Pats	..	25061st Artillery, Lethbridge	
603rd C.M.R., Major Fane	
1643r.d C.M.R., Major Whittaker, Medicine Hat	
164113th Highlanders, Lethbridge	....	508th Field Ambulance, Calgary . . . .	35
Number
Name of Unit.	of Men.
University Field Ambulance	 150
49th Infantry, Col. Griesbach	..	..	1,30051st Infantry, Col. Harwood	..	..	1,167Three drafts from 51st	
7501st Pioneers	
19563rd Infantry	1,150One draft from 63rd	
252.66th Infantry, Col. McKinnery	. .	.	.	1,176Two drafts from 66th	
500French Canadians	
9750th Battalion	
22827th Battalion, Winnipeg	
1397th American Legion	
10 O'53rd Battalion, Saskatoon	
14138th Infantry, Col. Belcher	1,140143rd Bantams, Victoria	
112151st Infantry, Col. Arnott	
1,250	.187th Infantry, Red Deer	
350194th Infantry, Col. Craig	1,350196th University Infantry	
300197th Vikings, Winnipeg	
250202nd Infantry, Col. Bowen	
800210th Frontiersmen, Moosejaw. .	..	150211th American Legion	
150218th Irish Guards, Col. Cornwall..	850223rd Scandinavians, Saskatoon. .	.	.	250233rd French Canadian, Col. Leprohon	560239th Railway Construction	
22238th Forestry, Ottawa	
200Queen's Artillery, Kingston	
50Engineers	
6004th Canadian Pioneers	
150Army Service Corps	
50Army Medical Corps	
Tie men of the 13t'h Canadian Mounted Rifles enlisted at Edmonton, but joined the unit at Medicine Hat. Those of the 61st Artillery, Lethbridge, enlisted at Edmonton for the Lethbridge Artillery. That gives a total of -about 19,512 men who enlisted at Edmonton from August 4, 1914 to August 6, 1916. I read this list not only to show the number of men who enlisted, but to point out that the Government or the Militia Department in recruiting .made .absolutely no allowance for the condition of -any industry in that country. They .provided for the raising of ten full battalions; besides, everybody who wanted to secure enlistment for any form of service in any part of Canada was permitted to go to Edmonton and enlist-and no man in Edmonton complained or found fault. I mentioned this on a former occasion to show that the multiplicity of the demands for men in a certain locality tended against rather than in favour of successful recruiting. But no such condition prevailed at any time in Edmonton as certainly prevailed in and about those indust"ial centres in eastern Canada. Since it has become necessary to enforce conscription in the country at large, I desire to say that no necessity existed in the part of the country from which I come for compulsory service in order to secure a response.

to any reasonable demand that could be made upon that country for men.


John Allister Currie: I do not think the hon.
member would say that half a dozen recruiting speakers and aboiuit a hundred of the riffraff of the .streets should be .allowed to go into * munition plants that are under guard and hold meetings at the noon hour. That is what w.as objected to.. Munition plants were being burned and blown up in the United States, and even, in Canada. I think that the action taken by the British .authorities in asking the imanufaetureirs of munitions not to permit the holding of those irresponsible gatherings in the factories was amply justified. I do not think that that had any influence upon recruiting.


Frank Oliver: I do not know anything
at all about what was done in .munition plants. I have been alluding to the passage between the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the ex-Miinister (of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). The latter has made certain definite statements which have been contradicted by the Prime Minister. But, the drop in recruiting synchronized-to us; the expression of the Minister of Finance -with the dates given by the ex-Minister of Militia as to the official stoppage of recruiting.


John Allister Currie: In the .section of the
country in the vicinity of Parry Sound a large number of men were being rapidly recruited. The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) raised a fine regiment there and after he had gone to Niagara for training, recruiting was .proceeded with. The member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) the Chief Liberal Whip, called a meeting at Emsdale and proceeded to put a candidate in the field against the member for Parry .Sound while he was on his way across the ocean with his battalion. Everybody asked:	Is the
war over? I happened to be in that section of the country at the time, and I heard the remark made: Do they want to defeat Colonel Arthurs, who is doing his duty, who has not taken any part in politics? This occurred not only in that district, but in the majority of the ridings in Ontario. The party press became violent, and everybody holding a view opposite to theirs suffered more or less from their attacks. One would have thought that the question bothering some people was not, win the war, but win an election. That was the chief cause of the stopping of recruiting in Ontario.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what my hon. friend has in his mind. There may have been isolated instances such as he speaks about.


John Allister Currie: They prove the rule. They were not isolated cases; there were a great many cases of that kind.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman must be aware that when the Prime Minister made the announcement that 500,000 men would be raised, Parliament unanimously agreed to an extension of time so that there would be no need or reasonable ground for political action. That was the only ground upon which I, for one, agreed to the extension of the term of Parliament, so that political activities might be avoided and so that a fair opportunity would be given of fulfilling the pledge that I felt had been made-not only on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the country. So that if there was political activity, it must have been of an isolated character; it could not have been general. The members on this side unanimously voted to extend the term of Parliament for one year-contrary to fundamental Liberal principles-simply in order that there should not be need for political activity until the promise made by the Prime Minister should have had reasonable opportunity of fulfilment.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is absolutely correct in that.
At six o'clock, the House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and the Children of the Empire (Junior Branch).- Mr. Macdonnell.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rozilla Lamb. (Without amendment.)-Mr. Douglas.

Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth):: I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong):
That the Order of the Day for House in Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 96, (Letter E2 of the Senate), intituled "An Act to incorporate the Dominion Good Roads Association," be discharged and the Bill referred back to the Select Standing Committee on
Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.
He said: After the committee rose yesterday information was received from the representatives of the Ontario Government in Ottawa that they desired to make some representations on this Bill, and in order that those representations may be made to the committee I make this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109, for the relief of John Newton Salter.-Mr. Northrup.


[Stage Direction]
The order for Private Bills having been exhausted, the House went into committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service.- Sir Robert Borden.
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: When the House rose at six o'clock I was discussing the success of voluntary enlistment in the province of Alberta, and comparing the efforts made there on behalf of military service-the unrestricted efforts that were made to get men not only for the battalions that were being raised in that part of the country, but for every branch of the service and in every part of the country, these men being taken from a centre of agricultural production, which agricultural production is at the very foundation of our success in the war-with the restriction of efforts that were made in the collection of men from other parts of the country, especially in the eastern provinces and in those parts where industrial occupations are generally followed. It is a fact beyond all question that the Government in securing men to represent this country on the other side of the water was willing to take the men wherever they could most easily be got it followed the line of least resistance and took the men from those districts where they could most easily be got, without regard to the proportion taken from the population, and without regard to the basic importance of the industries thereby affected. That being a fact, I think, beyond all argument, when the conscription Bill is brought in, and when, so far from finding in the Bill any provision for equality of service I find that every provision is framed especially to avoid that essential principle, I am compelled to come to the conclusion that the policy of the Government in framing the Bill, and

its policy in giving effect to it, will again * be to follow the line of least resistance, taking the men where they can most easily be got. So that in this so-called selective system which jmy thon. friend calls conscription, and which he expects those who believe in compulsory military service to support, I find that the principle is the very same that was objectionable in the system of voluntary enlistment, namely, the principle of requiring the willing horse to carry the whole 'load. As it happens, our section of the country has played the part of the willing horse, and had voluntary enlistment been continued we were still willing to play that part. But when la compulsory service Bill is brought in, recognizing that the basis of any proper compulsory Bill is equality of service, we protest against this Bill, which most certainly does not provide for equality of service.
We must admit that enlistment had decreased, in our part of the country as in other parts, and there are many reasons for that. One reason which I propose to touch on here to-night concerns the peo-people of the western provinces very intimately, and I think it will be found to concern the people of many other parts of the country as well. In Edmonton, up to the 6th of August, 1916, we had enlisted altogether ten battalions, fully organized, with additional contributions to other units comprising almost 20,000. These battalions went forward from Edmonton as battalions, but to-day we have only one battalion at the front out of those 20,000 men. Every other battalion when it got overseas was broken up; the men were drafted into other units, and the officers who had organized the battalion were left without occupation, or at any rate without the position which they had expected to retain. Although we are through with voluntary service- the honour and glory that belonged to that service have been taken from us by the Bill now before the House-may I say that those who had charge of our military affairs, and who without the slightest compunction broke up battalion after battalion from every part of the country, seem to have been so utterly unable to understand those forces of the mind which cause men to offer for military service, and which accompany that offer, that it is almost inconceivable that they could have taken the action they did as they did. Men join the military forces in the expectation of risking their lives in military operations, and in those military operations 
it is a rule of war as old-as the world itself that a man's welfare and safety depend upon his comrades. Comradeship and mutual confidence is the greatest security a soldier can have, and when men enlisted for military service have knowledge of each other's personality, character and antecedents, when they are really friends, they know they ean depend on each other and they will go into the horrors of battle with all the greater confidence because they are fighting with .men they know. But when these men who have enlisted in the expectation that they will go to the front under those circumstances are scattered hither and thither without any regard to promises or expectations, when they are compelled to go to the front with men they never saw before, and of whom they have no intimate knowledge


John Hampden Burnham: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? If under the very circumstances he has supposed he found a request calling on him to send a draft immediately, would he refuse that draft in order to carry out and complete the conditions he is now urging?


Frank Oliver: If I had charge of our military affairs I would not allow such a condition to arise.


John Hampden Burnham: It is the generals at the front, and the enemy, who cause those conditions to arise. They are not caused by the people at home.


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. BLAIN:: Does my hon. friend suggest that Colonel Harwood was singled out more than any other colonel of other battalions in Canada? In, my own county of Peel such a history may be written as my hon. friend has stated. When the Peel battalion arrived in England it was broken up also, and so were many others. Therefore Colonel Harwood was not singled out by the military authorities. I am quite sure that the officer commanding the Peel battalion, Colonel Hamilton, who has returned home, never thought that the breaking up of his battalion was any stain upon his military record. It was a policy adopted for military reasons, and a great many battalions had to come urder the rule.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend would have avoided the interruption if he had followed what I said, that we have sent ten battalions from Edmonton, and only one of them is now maintained as a unit.


Richard Blain: I gathered that my hon. friend had said that the Edmonton battalion was singled out from others in this respect.


Frank Oliver: I did not suggest that,
I was giving instances of how this impolicy of, the department operated.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend suggest that the breaking up of the battalions in the Old Country was a wrong policy? They either had to go over and go into the trenches as units or else be broken up. Those in military authority, who knew most about the war, decided that the best policy was to have them broken up. Does my hon. friend differ from that policy?


Frank Oliver: I certainly do in this way, that we should not have organized battalions that we did not intend should go overseas and remain as battalions. We should have had enough business administration to recognize how many battalions were intended to be kept , in the field, and having organized those battalions and sent them forward, then it was our business to find sufficient men to keep those battalions up to strength. That is the policy that should have been pursued.


Richard Blain: But it was found to be in the best interest for the prosecution of the war that they should not be continued as units, but rather that they should be 'broken up.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has a wrong understanding.


Richard Blain: It is my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) who has the wrong understanding.


Frank Oliver: Is it my hon. friend's suggestion that there was any advantage or merit in breaking up battalions?


Richard Blain: I do not think that my hon. friend, with all his knowledge, would set up his opinion and say that it should prevail in preference to the opinion of those who are controlling the prosecution of the war on the other side of the water.


Frank Oliver: It was not the people on the other side of the water who were to blame, but the people on this side, who authorized the raising of battalions that, if they knew anything, they knew could not remain as embodied battalions after they went overseas. They selected men-I am glad to say most of them their friends, but men generally of character and standing- authorized them to raise battalions, gave them to believe that they would serve over-

seas as officers of those battalions. I myself heard a Lieut.-Colonel appeal for recruits on the ground that he could assure the relatives of the men who would join his battalion that he would be in a position to see that they got justice wherever they went.


Richard Blain: Granting that; were all correct-and I rather agree that possibly in some parts of Canada such a promise was given, although, for my own part, I know parts of Canada where no such promise *was given-but suppose it be correct, does it follow that if, after a battalion went overseas, they found it was in the best interest for the prosecution of the war to change that policy, my hon. friend would say that the change should not be made, simply in order to carry out the promise made to the men when they enlisted?


Frank Oliver: I say the promise should not have been given to the men unless it was to be carried out, and it was the duty of this Government-if we had a Government-to know what promises they could make to the men and the officers before they made it. Heaven knows we have had enough officers on both sides of the Atlantic, enough men in supposed authority, carrying all kinds of titles and drawing all sorts of flay, who ought to have known, and if they did not know theirs must be. the responsibility. That is one responsibility which they cannot shoulder on the British authorities. We have sent battalion after battalion of men. who were enlisted on the promise that they would remain as parts of an embodied battalion under officers who were promised that they would have command of the battalion on active 'service, and when they got over there, without the slightest regard to promises of any kind, the battalion was broken up, the men were separated from their friends, and the officers were stranded, so far as their proper military occupation was concerned. We undertook to raise 500,000 men and attempted to do so, and it may be that in order to raise men quickly it was thought to be a good plan to make these promises, to establish battalions all over the country, to give Edmonton and other cities the idea that they were each to be represented at the front by eight or ten battalions, to give the gentlemen who would undertake to raise the battalions the same idea. But when the battalions were raised, when the men were overseas, when the battalions were broken up and the officers discredited, and when news of all that came back to Canada, what happened? Only one

thing could happen: voluntary enlistment died a natural death-no it did not die a natural death, it was murdered by the policy or impolicy of the administration of our military affairs under our friends who are in control of them.


Arthur Meighen: I thought my hon.
friend said it was a magnificent success in that same province where he has discredited it.


Frank Oliver: Surely it was when we sent 20,000 men. But it came to a finish in that province, as it did in other provinces where they did not recruit, in proportion to population, as they did in Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing could be very
much more than "a magnificent success."


Frank Oliver: It could continue to be a magnificent success, instead of a tremendous failure.


Arthur Meighen: There is a limit to
everything.


Frank Oliver: While in the province of
Alberta there was that measure of success in enlistments, it is not remarkable that in the province of Ontario, of Quebec, or in the Maritime Provinces, where the people are more rooted to the soil, and where they are more closely interwoven in their social relationship, such a policy, whatever effect it may have had in Alberta, had certainly an absolutely destructive effect. We have enlisted probably as many men as we can afford to enlist and carry on our productive industry.


Arthur Meighen: How could the voluntary system 'continue to be a magnificent success, if you have enlisted as many as you can afford to enlist?


Frank Oliver: It was a magnificent success as long as it continued.


Arthur Meighen: If all the men are gone, how could it continue longer?


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of conditions throughout the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: I am speaking of Alberta.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of Alberta also.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
*said it was a magnificent success.


Frank Oliver: So it was.


Arthur Meighen: Until all the men who
could be taken enlisted.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How could it continue any longer?


Frank Oliver: It did not have ts be a
magnificent success in Alberta any longer, but it could have been a magnificent success in other parts of the country, where there were plenty of men.
* Mr. MEIGHEN:	The hon. gentleman
said it was murdered in Alberta.


Frank Oliver: Beg pardon.


Arthur Meighen: That is where all the crimes were committed.


Frank Oliver: I have instanced the crimes that were committed in Alberta, but I do not pretend that those were all that were committed, or that the commission of those crimes killed recruiting in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia.


Arthur Meighen: It could not have done any harm in Alberta, if all the men were got by voluntary enlistment.


Frank Oliver: I will admit it could not have prevented the enlistment of another
20,000	men, because the men were not there to enlist.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that it killed recruiting in Quebec?


Frank Oliver: I certainly think recruiting in Quebec could not be expected to succeed, under those circumstances. Perhaps there was some other reason for it. But I say, that being the fact, I would consider it would be little less than a miracle if recruiting had not failed in Quebec, or if it were a success in Ontario. It will be admitted-if my hon. friend is so anxious to get down to details-that there are a great many more available men in Ontario, and the Bill says the men are not coming forward in Ontario.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Would the hon. gentleman be surprised to know that I have actually seen letters from soldiers who went over there, who were in a battalion that was broken up, who were very pleased, that, instead of being kept together, they had been distributed among seasoned men, who had been a long time in the trenches and under officers who had been there for some years. They were well pleased that the change rvas made.


Frank Oliver: They may have been. I do not know in what estimation my hon. friends's constituents hold each other, but



that is not the attitude of my constituents, so far as I have heard from them. They prefer to remain with those of their own acquaintance.


William Humphrey Bennett: My constituents went over there to fight-not to have a convivial time.
< Mr. OLIVER: I do not think the hon. ' gentleman need draw any comparison between his constituents and mine. Perhaps my constituents have been a little more unfortunate than the hon. gentleman's, and got a little closer to the front, and consequently have had more casualties to report. I have stated a certain case, according to my understanding of it, but I will not ask the House to depend on my word in the matter. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of June 30. It reads as follows:
(Special Correspondence to The Evening
Telegram from Douglas S. Robertson.)
London, June 12.-England contains many dissatisfied Canadian officers to-day, and no doubt many have arrived in Canada with grievances. These are the senior officers, who, there being no vacancies for them, have under the now more stringently enforced regulations, either to revert to lieutenancies or go home.
It does seem hard, and it is hard, that captains, majors and lieutenant-colonels who have recruited enthusiastically in Canada, and rallied thousands of men to the colors, should on arrival find themselves in such plight. Many a colonel has told me his story. After gathering what he deemed with proper pride "one of the finest battalions in Canada" about him, spent much of his own hard cash on it, learned to know his men personally, and generally put his whole soul into the work, he is told that the battalion must be broken up for drafts, and stands broken-heartedly by as company after company is sent off to reinforce other regiments.
As for himself, failing some job at the base, there is only one finale. After a brief sojourn in England, perhaps a two-weeks' tour of the front, if he be lucky, and a taste of the real thing in the trenches, he must go home. A lieutenant-colonel cannot become a subaltern.
. With the majors it , is scarcely less hard. A lieutenancy is no small step down in pay, and for married men with families a positive financial barrier forbids the reversion. Majors, too, are generally on the elderly side for lieutenants' work. So they, too, unless one of the rare base jobs comes their way, must, after an interval, take ship hack to Canada.'
For captains there is less excuse. Most of them are youthful enough for subaltern duties, though in the case of captains with families the consequent reduction in pay is also a serious, matter.
"They put it up to me," declared a Toronto captain not long over with a battalion which has been broken up. "They told me I would have to revert to lieutenant or go home. Well,
I told them that I would revert if they could assure me that I would be sent to France at once, but they couldn't. Now, scores of lieutenants are waiting to go over, and soma

have been waiting months. I guess I will go home. I can't afford the long reduction in pay." This captain is a young married man with a wife and two children.
"Just picture me going back to Canada, back to the town where I recruited a battalion, and facing the mothers whose sons they thought would be under me at the front! What am I to tell these people? What will they think of me for not going to France?" Such was the lament of one lieutenant-colonel I talked to.
He goes on to say:
The whole iniquitous system of raising battalion after battalion in Canada with full complements of officers, in face of what was happening on their arrival in England, was the [DOT] fault of the old regime at Ottawa. The reserve battalion system should have been adopted long ago.
I have a clipping from the Montreal Star which quotes an article from the New York Evening Post from Lieut.-Colonel Henry J. Trihey, who commanded the now disbanded regiment of Irish Canadian Rangers. He says in part:
At the end of 1916 the Canadian Government having given evidence of its desire to feature battalions representing different shades of national sentiment in Canada, with a view to encouraging voluntary enlistment, was asked by me for authority to raise an Irish Canadian regiment for overseas service. This authority having been granted, patriotic Irish Canadian citizens provided a fund of $40,000 to defray the cost of recruiting and of organizing.
In February, 1916, the organizing of the Irish Canadian Rangers was begun. The first poster issued bore the legend "Small nations must toe free." The particular appeal was to those who desired to share in the honor of representing, in this unit, Irish Canadian loyalty to Canada, at the front/ fighting for the principle proclaimed on the poster.
Two members of Sir Robert	Borden's
Cabinet-one of them Minister of Militia_________
from platforms, in the city of Montreal, stated that the Government of Canada pledged itself that the Irish Canadian Rangers would go to France as a unit representing Irish Canadians. This statement was made at recruiting meetings as a special inducement to Irish Canadians to enlist in this regiment. Relying on this pledge and animated by loyalty to Canada, Irish Canadians volunteered, despite the aftermath of the Irish rebellion of Easter, 1916. The Irish Canadian Rangers, fully organized, arrived in England on December 26, 1916. On January 3, 1917, I learned that the disbandment of the regiment had been officially decreed in England, but that it was the intention of the English Government first to send the Irish Canadian Rangers to parade through Ireland. On confirming this I tendered my resignation as officer commanding and returned to Canada. All efforts from Canada were unavailing; the parade through Ireland occurred and the regiment was disbanded May 23, 1917.
The disbanded men were scattered among English Canadian regiments.
Not one of the Irish Canadian officers, not even our Catholic chaplain was sent with the

men. The officers were not used; they were simply ignored.
This is a case in the province of Quebec.


Richard Blain: What authority made the
change?


Frank Oliver: The military authority.


Richard Blain: Where?


Frank Oliver: In England.


Richard Blain: In spite of protests from
this side of the water?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
IMr. BLAIN: And now my hon. friend is making an effort to place the responsibility wholly upon the Government in power here?


Frank Oliver: Surely.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend say that the officials in Ottawa knew more about the conditions in England than the military authorities .over there?


Frank Oliver: We had a Minister of Militia in England; I do not know whether he is there to carry out any duties-I suppose he must be; at any rate this transaction would take place under his administration. I think, therefore, that the responsibility may easily be properly placed. There is no argument as to why- voluntary enlistment could not go further in Canada; the miracle is that it went as far as it did. The reason why it did not go further was the maladministration of our military forces by the Government now in power, which, having failed in administering our military forces on a voluntary system, now comes forward to enforce a conscription without the authority of the people.
I have touched on what strikes me as being the most outstanding fact in connection with the failure of voluntary enlistment. But I have during the discussions on the Bill gone over, in my mind, the events that have taken place since the wax broke out and since Canada undertook - to take part in that war, and I have taken the trouble to put down a list of the factors that, it seemed to me, militated against the success of voluntary -enlistment and brought about the conditions .which the Prime Minister and his colleagues declare to have existed and upon which they found this conscription Bill.
1.	Party considerations taking precedence of military needs.
2.	Officers appointed for political, not military, reasons.
3.	Men offering service in earlier stages of the war treated as trespassers or as 'applicants for bounty.
4.	Carnival of graft in outfitting contingents and in war contracts.
* 5. Unfit men enlisted to make a record in filling battalions and then discharged without consideration when fit men were secured.
6.	Insufficient provision for and insulting treatment of dependents.
7.	Inconsiderate treatment of disabled returned men.
8.	Inadequate pensions and unsatisfactory administration by Pension Board.
9.	Inadequate provision for totally disabled men.
10.	Inefficient rifles and insufficient field equipment.
11.	Refusal to allow recruiting effort in vicinity of certain industrial centres.
12.	Breach of faith with officers and men in breaking up battalions.
13.	Inefficient men taken overseas and carried on strength in England.
14.	Officers kept on strength when useless or unfit.
15.	The safety first brigade.
16.	Censored and untrue reports of field operations.
17.	Talk of preparation for peace by prominent public men and newspapers.
18.	Talk of compulsory service a year before introduction of measure.
19.	Favouritism, graft and inefficiency in all lines of military administration.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend has gone the limit in his criticism of the Government in respect to the conduct of the war. I do not think that I ever heard him say, on any single occasion in this House, since the war commenced that the Government have done properly one single thing in connection with the prosecution of the war. I do not expect him ever to say anything like that. This country-not this Government-has done a magnificent thing in sending overseas such a large number of troops; between 330,000 and 335,000 men. If my hon. friend had been in power; if he had been in a position to control all matters connected with the training, equipping and transportation of these men overseas, would everything that he did have been perfect? Would no one have had occasion for criticism? Does he take that position?


Frank Oliver: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then I think he should be a little more generous in respect to those who have conscientiously tried to perform a service to their country. My hon. friend has sat an the House from week to week and from month to month during the sessions that have been held since 1914. We started out to recruit by battalions. The member for Edmonton knew that that was the system upon which we were working, but I never heard him say in this House at any time, as a military expert, that we were not pursuing the proper course. But we did pursue that course; for a long time after the war started, recruiting by battalions was considered to be the proper method. No one is more sympathetic than I, with the officers who have from a spirit of great patriotism recruited battalions, who expected to go to the front, and who were told that they could not do so owing to military conditions which were unforeseen at the beginning of the war. Among those officers are men just as brave as men who. have been in the trenches for one or two years; if they had been able to get to the front they would have done just as good service, I believe, as the men who were fortunate 9 p.m. enough to get there. Why were they not able to get to the front? Immediately after the .outbreak of the war we started to obtain recruits. Prominent men were asked to organize battalions; others offered their services, and the work proceeded in that way. It never occurred to those men, nor did it occur to the member for Edmonton, that many things that have since happened would have happened during the course of the war. These officers, with their men, commenced to go forward after their battalions had been completed. They went to Valoartier, to Quebec to board ship, to England; gradually some, of them got to France. As they got into the fight, their battalions became depleted. The morale of a battalion decreases in proportion as the battalion becomes smaller by wastage; this emphasizes the necessity of keeping the battalions up to strength. 'The military authorities in France adopted a policy designed to accomplish that end. They sent to England for reinforcements. I am sure that every hon. member was deeply impressed by the .story told by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) one evening in this House. He was asked to send over 400 or 500 men, owing to a battalion, I think from Vancouver, having met w'ith tremendous losses. He was the colonel of a battalion; he would 
have been glad to go to the front and do his duty just as other officers from Vancouver, Edmonton, or any other part of Canada did. Did he hold back? Did he say: No, I will not allow my battalion to be broken up? It is true that he might not have been able to control the situation even if he had said that, but he did not say it. He said: these men are needed to reinforce the magnificent battalion from Vancouver-and his battalion was broken up. Who can .accuse the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) or any of those Canadian officers who did their (best to assist recruiting and who did all the country asked them to do, with not having fulfilled their duty? I shall always contend that those who were not enabled to go to the front and who bad to come back to this country did their duty just as well and just as honourably as the men who were fortunate enough to get to the trenches. They need not ask, in those parts of the country whence they came: what will the people say to me? Many of these officers have come back and I have met them and talked with them and I know how badly they feel about it. An officer came into my office yesterday, a splendid man; he complained because he had been asked to go back into private life for the reason that there was nothing further for him to do.
He said, "I do not know why I should have -been written to in such an unceremonious *way." I knew that he had been at the front, although he did not say so. He is one of those officers who have been overseas and at the front. He won the Military Cross. He asked his boy not to go to the front, but after this officer went away with the battalion of which he was colonel, his son enlisted contrary to his wish, and his son won the Military Cross and later was killed. This officer said to me: "I am back here, and my fate is to be relegated to private life again. I thought that perhaps a more sympathetic letter might have been written to me in regard to this matter by the officer commanding the district in which I reside." I talked with him for half-an-hour regarding the situation. I said, "There are many surplus officers in England and in Canada, and they must of necessity revert to private life at some time, and the proper time seems to be now before demobilization of the whole force takes place." Finally he said to me: "I never looked at the matter in the way I do now." He thanked me for my explanation, and he said: "I am perfectly satisfied; I

a333
have no fault whatever to find with your explanation." That is the attitude of 49 out of .50 officers who have come back from overseas, many of whom have not been so fortunate in getting to the front as was this particular officer. We have done the best we could, and those officers, from the colonels down to the lieutenants, have done the best they could to serve their country. 'There are, proportionately to total enlistments, more casualties amongst the rank and file than amongst the officers, and as the gaps in the battalions had to be filled out, drafts had to be sent over. My hon. friend from Edmonton should have put himself on record earlier in the war in order to justify the criticism he has made here to-night in respect to the question of returned officers. He did not point out these things to us before, and he could not do so because he did not know, any more than any of us knew, that this situation would arise. Nor did any other hon. gentleman say to us: You are pursuing an improper course in raising a voluntary force by the battalion system. In my judgment, our course was the proper one because it enabled the voluntary system to be the success it has proven, and I believe that had we at the outset tried to recruit by drafts, as the hon. gentleman says we should have done, we could not have made the success of voluntary recruiting that we did, and we would not have been of such service in the war as we have been. I do not know that I need say any more on 'this particular point, but I want to repeat that the officers who were not fortunate in getting to the front, but who did all they could do and all that the country asked them to do, are in just as honourable a light before their fellow-eoun-trymen as the officers who did get to the front.


Frank Oliver: I hope my hon. friend does not expect, by the strength of his voice, to place upon me the idea that I made any suggestion against these officers. I was making my suggestion against the administration of the Government that left these officers in that position. I made no suggestion against the otficers. I quite agree with my hon. friend that those officers did the best they could. They offered themselves in good faith; they offered all they had and all they were in the service of the country. The fact that they did not get to the front was not their fault, but their misfortune, and that misfortune lies at the door of the administration of this Government.
My hon. friend asks me why I did not tell this Government in years gone by how to carry on its 'administration. That was not my business; it was their business. If I had undertaken to instruct them as to how to conduct their military affairs I am sure they would have resented my action, and they would have told me that I was tampering with recruiting, and that I was interfering with the winning of the war. Therefore I did not offer any criticism. I am criticising now only in defence of the people of this country against the accusation made against them by the Government that they have failed in patriotic enthusiasm to the, extent that they must be made subject to a measure of conscription, and be made to do that duty that they were doing enthusiastically and well and would be doing to-day if they had had the benefit of a sane and reasonable administration of military affairs.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not intend to take up the time of the House. I really do not know what good the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) thinks he is going to accomplish by *a speech of this kind at this stage of the history of this Bill. The most important measure, perhaps, that has ever come before this House is before us at the present momen,. The country is waiting to see	this Bill put into
force; the men at the front are 'waiting for recruits, and my hon. friend, hour after .hour, and day after day, is taking up the time of the House in regard to matters that I consider utterly irrelevant to the question before us. As one of the officers, whose fate my hon. friend is bemoaning, who took a battalion across the seas and saw it broken up, I confess frankly that at the moment when I was informed that my battalion was to be broken up and my men were to be taken from me to go to the front, I felt hurt; I felt it was an injustice to myself and to my battalion. But as soon as I received an explanation from those in command, who knew more than I did, I immediately acquiesced in their decision, realizing that it was the only thing that could be done at the time. What were the conditions? When I reached England we had three divisions at the front, all that we could maintain. When those divisions went into action, serious casualties occurred from time to time. It was impossible to send out fresh divisions; it was not the policy of the British Government that such should be done. We were doing our best to maintain those three divisions, and recruits had

to come from somewhere. The authorities did not want a whole battalion; they only -wanted part of a battalion.' Would my hon. friend expect that the officer commanding a battalion would be so unpatriotic as to say to the military authorities: You cannot have 500 of my men to send to the front; if you want any you must take my whole battalion. So far as I heard, not an officer in England, after he understood the circumstances, made any serious complaint in regard to what took place.


Frank Oliver: Would it have made any difference if he had?


George Henry Bradbury: 
Mr. MOLLOY:: So they were.


George Henry Bradbury: 
Frank Oliver: An honorary colonel.


George Henry Bradbury: An honorary colonel
who was always glad to parade himself in uniform and show his magnificent form.


Frank Oliver: An honorary colonel is not a combatant colonel.


George Henry Bradbury: He might easily become a combatant colonel.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I might say to my hon. friend that my boy went in my place.


George Henry Bradbury: I give his son all the honour that is coming to him, but I might say that.it would have been better if his son had gone a year sooner than he did, as he would have gone had he been allowed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about, and his statement is untrue. My boy was ready to go at the very beginning of the war, but he declined to go in the 17th Battalion, commanded by a political colonel, who, being a major in the 78th, asked the colonel of the 78th Regiment to give up his place, and told him that he could not go as a colonel because he was a Grit, and that he would take him as his major if he would agree to the change.


George Henry Bradbury: People who live in glass houses should never throw stones. My hon. friend threw a slur across the floor of this House about my services when I happened to interject a remark in the discussion. I only want to say to him that with his experience-he was in uniform long before I was, and is seven or eight years younger than I am -he would have been in a much better position to criticise others if he had raised the battalion which he might have raised, and taken it across the seas in the defence of his country.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask my hon. friend what would be the chances of himself or some other gentleman recruiting another battalion in the district from which he raised his battalion?


George Henry Bradbury: We have sent five battalions from that district and have drained it pretty well, but I know the feeling amongst the British and the Canadians there, and if a call comes I know there will be no hesitation on the part of our young men in responding again. I could raise half a battalion in that district in a very short time.


Frank Oliver: If that is a fact-and I certainly will not question the hon. member's word-he proves there was absolutely no necessity for this conscription Bill. If my hon. friend is correct, the statement that is made on the face of the Bill must be incorrect,; and the Bill has no proper foundation. In regard to myself and the proper time to speak, the minister complained that I did not criticise the Government or give them the benefit of my views in the early stages of the war. And now my hon. friend complains because I venture to speak at this particular stage, when voluntary enlistment has ceased and is to be replaced toy compulsory service. Surely this is the time and place and occasion to settle the responsibility for that change of conditions, and I have been rendering what little help I can towards the settlements of that question.
Would it be agreeable to the Government to allow the Bill to remain in committee until we get a reprint of the Bill? It could be reconsidered in its reprinted form tomorrow. I have been asked by the leader of the Opposition to make this request.


Arthur Meighen: We are anxious to have the Bill reported, but we will not oppose the request the hon. member makes on behalf of the leader of the Opposition.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Canadian Government Railways:	Construction and betterments, $6,500,000; Dartmouth to Deans branch line, $65,000 ; to provide car ferry-construction terminals, etc., $310,000.
['We will do it as soon as possible.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.\nSaturday, July 14, 1917.']
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will that complete this road?


Mr. COCHRANE:: This $6,500,000 is on capital account. It is not to complete any road. It is .a betterment.


John Howard Sinclair: I was referring to the Dartmouth to Deans branch line.


Francis Cochrane: That is the secopd
item. It will complete that road, hut that is not the item under discussion now.


John Howard Sinclair: As I understand, if is
supposed to be sufficient to complete the road.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister fell us something about that road? Is it turning out profitably?
a386


Francis Cochrane: I cannot say it is paying very well, but still for a branch line it is doing better than we anticipated.


John Howard Sinclair: For a good many years it has been a question in the province of Nova Scotia whether the Intercolonial should not undertake the building of certain branch lines, and take control of the traffic in those localities. This was one of the branch lines that was put forward, and it would be very interesting to know how it has turned out. I have heard that it has been very successful and that it has been a profitable feeder to the Intercolonial railway. If this be so, it might be a reason why the minister should continue the good policy of opening up some other branches which are very much needed in our province, especially one in my own constituency which was projected at the same time as this. If the minister has the information as to how traffic has grown on this road, it will be very interesting to the House and to the people of Nova Scotia.


Francis Cochrane: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has there been a telegraph line installed on that branch?


Francis Cochrane: I think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to bring the matter of the naming of the stations on this railway to the attention of the minister. The line runs through what is known as the Musquodoboit valley, and there are three places in that valley of the same name, Musquodoboit Harbour, Middle Musquodoboit, and Upper Musquodoboit. For probably three-quarters of a century those places have been known by 'the names I have given. Some time last year the names of the sta/tions were changed and it is very confusing to the public. I think protests have been registered with the department against the changes. I know personally of very serious inconveniences caused to travellers by reason of these changes, because the travellers did not associate their destination points with the new names of the stations. I know of no reason why these stations should not have 
the name of the locality. Very strong representations have been tnade to the minister to revert to the old names, and I think it should be done.


Francis Cochrane: It was to avoid confusion that the changes were made. Having three Musquodoboits was liable to cause trouble in orders, and so on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A good way to
avoid confusion among the people who know a locality is to allow old places to retain their old names. Who suggested the change in the first place?


Francis Cochrane: The railway people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So far as I can gather from the correspondence, the whole matter was put in the hands of Mr. Hector Mclnnes of Halifax to determine.


Francis Cochrane: He was asked to make the change, ,as an old official.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But he does not belong to Halifax county, he is from Pictou.


Francis Cochrane: He has not been in
Pictou for some time has he?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
that Mr. Mclnnes should be consulted as to the names to be given to railway stations in Halifax county. He wanted the name of a place in Halifax county named Chezzetcook changed to Joffre. The department did not carry that out.


Francis Cochrane: It was not in the interest of the railway that we should have three Musquodoboits.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would not diminish traffic or hurt the business of the road.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What special function had Mr. Mclnnes that would enable him to select the name?


Francis Cochrane: The change was made to avoid confusion, as I have said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did not the
minister consult my friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean)? Mr. Molnnes is an estimable man and a good lawyer, but what he does not know about Musquodoboit would fill a good many books. My hon. friend from Halifax could have given better advice.


John Howard Sinclair: He might have asked
the Ptrirne Minister.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the Prime
Minister, my colleague, concur in this?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You never asked him?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Has >the minister given
any consideration recently to the taking over of the Ca.raq.uet and South Shore railway?


Francis Cochrane: I have not given any consideration to taking over any Toad during the war. It has been well understood that Canada cannot borrow money except within her own borders, and how long we can continue to finance, even without buying railways, is hard to say.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I admit that the reason given by the minister is a plausible one under present conditions. Meanwhile we must not neglect our home trade and commerce, but should endeavour to do what is right in the interest of our internal trade. The taking over of that road would mean a considerable increase of trade to the Intercolonial. It already furnishes quite a quantity, but with a good service much more would be provided and the people would be better served. I hope that, notwithstanding what the minister says about financing, 'he will still look into the question.


John Howard Sinclair: 'This'is a very large
item, $6,500,000 for construction and betterments. If the minister is going to spend all that in waT time, he is evidently not very short of money. What is it proposed to do with this very large sum?


Francis Cochrane: This $65,000 is one
of the items. The next -item is to complete the car ferry between New Brunswick and Prince Edwiard Island; that will take $310,000 more. Then the Halifax terminals alone will take $3,000,000 out of this vote. It is felt that with the need for overseas shipments we could not discontinue that work or I would certainly have closed it down before now. Last winter we were seriously crowded as we had not enough berths there. We hope to have the first unit finished this fall.


John Howard Sinclair: Will this amount complete it?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. It may not complete the station, but it will complete the harbour end of it.


Francis Cochrane: The total amount
under Government railways is as follows:
Construction and betterment, $6,500,000 ; Dartmouth to Deans branch line, $65,000; to provide car ferry, $310,000 ; total, $6,875,000.
The first item for construction and betterment, is subdivided as follows:
Intercolonial-Buildings, $571,000 ; roadbed and track, $333,000; bridges, $365,200; miscellaneous, which includes $3,000,000 for Halifax terminals, $4,158,000 ; total for the, Intercolonial, $5,426,2-00.
Prince Edward Island-Roadbed and track, $7,600'; bridges, $900; miscellaneous, $2,200; total, $10,700.
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway-Buildings, $14,500; roadbed and track, $64,000; bridges, $55,600 ; miscellaneous, $4,000 ; total, $138,100.
International Railway-Roadbed and track, $5,390; bridges, $1,010; total, $6,400.
National Transcontinental-Buildings, $118,900 ; roadbed and track, $151,100; bridges, $74,000; miscellaneous, $22,700; Winnipeg elevator, $425,000 ; total, $791,700.
Lake Superior Branch-Buildings, $3,800 ; roadbed and track, $15,400; bridges, $87,700 ; miscellaneous, $2-0,000*, total, $126,900.


Mr. COPP:: I think the hon. gentleman told me that $14,000 was provided for betterment on the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway?


Francis Cochrane: $14,000 for buildings; roadbed and track, $64,000; bridges, $55,000; and miscellaneous, $4,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If I recollect correctly,
$14,000 for buildings was for the round house or . repair shop at Sackville, which was recently burned. The road running from Sackville to Cape Tormentine is 36 or 37 miles in length. When that road was operated by the company, it was pretty well run down, as the hon. minister well knows, and at a. number of the villages through which the road runs and serves the public there were no station houses. Some places there would be a shed-way, where a person could get shelter in a storm. Would it not be possible to provide small station houses in these localities, to give the people an opportunity to patronize the road? There is a number of villages along the road, and it is an important part of the community. I think -there are only two station houses, one at Baie Verte and one at Port Elgin. Of course, there is a station house at each end of the line, but there are a number of stopping places where we should have some accommodation for the travelling public. I hope the hon. gentleman will see that the much needed accommodation for the travelling public is provided.


Francis Cochrane: It is better, first, to get the road in shape, so that we can run trains over it. We hope this season to have it completed and re-railed. We are getting 12,000 tons of rail rolled at Sydney, and intend to relay it with rails taken from the

main line, and we want to get that in shape, so that when the ear ferry is completed, which will be done in a short time, we can establish a proper service. I understand what the hon. gentleman has said in reference to the stations, and I thoroughly agree with him. If he will let me out this year, I will try to have the. stations in proper shape next year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When we were in Supply before, the minister promised to give me some information in reference to the coal question.	,


Francis Cochrane: I have it ready. The hon. gentleman will remember that he got most of this information once before. The statement is as follows *
Bituminous Coal.
Orders have been given for coal required on Canadian Government railways for the year 1917-18 as follows:
American Coal.
W. H. Bradford & Co., Philadelphia-95,000 gross tons at $3.45 f.o.b. cars, mine; 50,000 gross tons at $3.25 f.o.b. cars, mine.
Buffalo & Susquehanna Coal & Coke Co., Buffalo-16,000 gross tons at $3.75 f.o.b. cars, mine.
Andrew Bailie Ltd., Montreal-50,000 net tons at $6.70 f.o.b. cars, St. Lambert.
Canadian Import Co., Montreal-50,000 net tons at $3 f.o.b. cars, mine.
Century Coal & Coke Co., Montreal-100,000 net tons at $6.55 f.o.b. cars, St. Hyacinthe.
Gano Moore & Co., Philadelphia-9,360 net tons at $5.50 f.o.b. pier, Philadelphia and Newport News.
Valley Camp Coal Co., Cleveland-20,000 to
40.000	net tons at $2.50 f.o.b. cars, mine.
Canadian Coal.	*	,
Dominion Coal Co., Sydney-160,000 net tons at $3.79 f.o.b. cars, Sydney; 50,000' net tons at $4.60 (plus trimming if required), f.o.b. vessel, Sydney or Louisburg; 50,000 net tons screened at $4.02 f.o.b. cars, C. G. Ry., Springhill Jet.; 30,000 net tons at $3.79 f.o.b. cars, C. G. Ry., Springhill Jet.; 20,000 net tons slack at $3.79 f.o.b. cars, C. G. Ry., Spring-hill Jet.
Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Co., New Glasgow -3,010 gross tons at $4.25 f.o.b. vessel, N. Sydney.
Bras d'Or Coal Co., North Sydney.-10,000 gross tons at $4.25 f.o.b. cars, Bras d'Or.
Milford Coal Co., Coalburn-5,000 gross tons at $4.25 f.o.b. cars, C. G. Ry.
Intercolonial Coal Mining Co., Westville-
90.000	net tons screened at $4.02' f.o.b. cars,
C. G. Ry. (what coal shipped to P.E.I. at $4.25 f.o.b. cars, their shipping pier, Pictou Harbour) ; 3,000 net tons slack at $3.73 f.o.b. cars, their shipping pier.
Acadia Coal Co., Stellarton-25,000 gross tons at $4.25 in pile.
Maritime Coal, Railway & Power Co., Jog-gins-100,000 gross tons at $4.25 f.o.b. cars,
C. G. Ry., Caccan.
Minudie Coal Co., River Hebert-5,000 gross tons screened at $4.50 f.o.b. cars, Macean.

Jones & McKinnon, Caccan-8,000 gross tons screened at $4.50 f.o.b. cars, Maccan.
Sterling Coal Co., River Hebert-Small quantity at $3.79 net ton f.o.b. cars, Maccan.
Dr. M, F. Keith, Moncton-7,200 gross tons screened at $4.50 f.o.b. cars, Adamsville.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The department
paid the freight from the Pennsylvania mines?


Francis Cochrane: In some cases.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume that the figures that the minister has given as to the prices of c-oal delivered ait some point on his road indicate the amount that would be added to the cost of the coal f.o.b. cars in United States.


Francis Cochrane: I can give the hon gentleman the cases in- which the freight's were prepaid, and the prices. The Andrew Bailie Company, for instance, 50,000 tons, delivered -at St. Lambert, $6.70. Century Coal'Company, Montreal, 100,000 tons, $6.55. The others, I think, are at prices which include freight and duty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister has
given us in certain cases the prices paid for coal at St. Lambert or St. Hyacinthe, delivered. The difference between that amount and the amount which he has given under other contracts for coal f.o.b. cars in Pennsylvania would indicate the amount of freight paid and thus give us some idea of the cost of coal delivered in Canada as compared with the cost of Nova Scotia coal.


Francis Cochrane: I think that the prices would be a litle cheaper on the American coal, including the freight from the mines to those places in Quebec. As I stated when we were oni the Estimates before, we bought two boats for running coal up to Chaudiere and other places. We had to put one of them in the dry-dock, hut it will be ready in a day or two. The other has made about six trips.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister explain the changes that have taken place in the Intercolonial consequent upon the resignation of Mr. Gutelius? Did Mr. Gutelius leave of his own accord? There is some misapprehension about that.


Francis Cochrane: He left of his own accord; he is getting $5,000 -a year more than we were giving him. The people with whom he has gone knew him; they had worked together before.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the
changes that have been made? Who has taken his place?


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Hayes has been appointed general manager of the Eastern Division and Mr. Brady of the Western.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is Mr. Mc-Neilly?


Francis Cochrane: He is general superintendent. There has been no change in his position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is Mr. L. F. Brown's position?


Francis Cochrane: Assistant to Mr. Mc-Neilly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Over what territory has he jurisdiction?


Francis Cochrane: Over the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental east of Quebec.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister expect to take over this autumn the operation of the connection between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island by the use of the car ferry between Carleton Head and Cape Tormentine?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister discontinue the connection between Pictou and Charlottetown and between Summerside and Point du Chene when he does that?


Francis Cochrane: We have not decided that; the matter is under consideration. Perhaps we shall have to operate that service as well as the ear ferry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the opinion of the people of Prince Edward Island is that it would be better to maintain steamboat connection between those points than to centralize the whole service in the car ferry. The car ferry is a very satisfactory steamer; it is a good boat and has done very well, particularly in winter. The minister has told us that naturally no one could expect during war time the tremendous expenditure that would be necessary for the changing of the grade of the Prince Edward Island railway. To make the connection 10 p.m. between Price Edward Island and the mainland dependent upon the one link between Cape Tormentine and Carleton Head would, I am sure, not be satisfactory to Prince Edward Island; certainly it would not be satisfactory to the mainland. Although the adoption of a standard gauge on the Prince Edward Island railway would result in convenience in the moving of cars across the straits, the inconvenience and the dislocation of trade that would be occasioned in a province such as that province is, with its seaports at every part and with the well-settled lines of travel from Charlottetown and Summerside, by attempting to divert it to this particular point until new conditions had arisen, would be very great, and I suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I would like to suggest to the Minister of Railways, having regard to conditions during the war, the advisability of maintaining the communications by the old line until the time arises, if it ever does arise, when the standard gauge will be put on the Prince Edward Island railway. I hope the minister will take that course. It will be in the interest of the country, and there does not seem to be any reason why, under existing conditions', there should be any dislocation of the old passenger routes when you have not the facilities which you would have if the gauge were changed.


Francis Cochrane: As I have said before, the matter is under consideration, and we will certainly remember what the hon. gentleman has said in reference to it.


Herménégilde Boulay: Is there anything in this estimate for a tunnel or subway at St. Fa-bien?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Herménégilde Boulay: Is there anything provided for a new station on the division between Campbellton and Rivifsre du Loup?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Herménégilde Boulay: Is there anything provided for the building of a tank near St. Leon le Grand on the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: There is not any in the Estimates, but if there was a tank there before, a renewal would have to be made out of earnings instead of out of capital.


Herménégilde Boulay: In regard to St. Fabien,
of course, while the war is on, I have not been insisting on that improvement, but it is such a dangerous place, and the people there have been annoyed for so many years by the trains crossing at that station, that as soon as possible after the war is over, I would like if the minister would provide a subway for the people to cross. I have travelled from Montreal to Halifax over the Intercolonial railway, and I have not seen another crossing where the people are so much bothered by the trains. During the winter they are compelled to wait half an hour or forty-five minutes, and any one who is accustomed to deal with trainmen

knows that they are not always obliging enough to afford facilities for the people to cross. The poor farmers have to wait with loads for about half an hour before crossing on account of the road being blocked by the trains. I have complained to the superintendent several times, but the reply has always been that the matter will be seen to. There are many trains passing through every day, and the people, from, the beginning to the end of the year, and principally in the winter time, suffer considerable inconveniences. This subway should havg-been constructed long ago. Some time in 1910 one was built, but it was not at the proper place, and we could have done without that subway for a few years more. The one that it wanted is at the station. I understand that some large expenditures are to be made at Halifax. I do not know much about the circumstances there, but from the criticism of my horn, friends opposite, I think perhaps it would not hurt them very much if a few thousand dollars were cut out of that amount and expended in my county. In regard to the tank at St. Leonard, it is greatly required. Nearly every -day during last winter trains were kept about two hours behind time just on account of being obliged to take in water from- a hose instead of from a tank. There is another improvement that should be made on the International railway, and that is that waiting rooms should be provided at two important stations, that is, Kedgewick and Anderson. The first village has a population of about 2,000, and the second about 3,000. The waiting room at each is only about eight feet square, and is for both ladies and gentlemen. For a small expense something could be done to improve the situation so that the people would have more convenience while waiting for train-s. I have already spoken and perhaps I have annoyed the minister-in regard to the personnel on the Intercolonial railway on the division between Campbellton and Mont Joli. I wan-t to come back to his matter again, and I will do so until I get satisfaction. I see that there h-as^ been a change on, the Intercolonial since the last .time we discussed it in the House, but this change does not give me any more satisfaction than I had 'before.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have heard it stated that the hon. member himself was slated for the general managership of the
Canadian Government Railway system. Is 
that correct? If it is, I do not wonder that he is not satisfied. [DOT]


Herménégilde Boulay: I do not know where the hon. gentleman got the information, but it is not correct. I never asked for any position on the Intercolonial railway. I see that- Mr. Louis Brown has been appointed assistant to the general manager. The poor Frenchmen in Quebec are no good for anything; they cannot be superintendents; they cannot be assistant superin-tendente. When there is a vacancy on the Intercolonial, officers to fill it are sought in New Brunswick or Nova S-coti-a. I am not jealous of my friends from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, but what I want is justice for my province. It is all right for the Frenchmen to go to the front, to shoulder a rifle, but when- we come to ask for positions on the Intercolonial, we do not get fair treatment. Other hon-. gentlemen from the province of Quebec as well as myself have given plenty of reasons why the French Canadians are not as fond of enlisting as are the * people of the other provinces. One reason is because we are not treated fairly.
We are not treated fairly as regards such positions as superintendent and assistant general manager, which positions our men could easily fill. I do not want to -say anything against Mr. Louis Brown. -I have knp-wn him for 33 ye-ars, and I was employed on the Intercolonial railway -at the same time he was, but because he comes from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and does not speak French, is no reason why he should be given the position in preference to a French 'Canadian from the province of Quebec. The county of Bonaven-ture and p-ar-t of the county of Rimouski have always been under the rule of New Brunswick. Why is it that the people of Quebec are not allowed to run their own affairs? When I spoke on behalf of some of my friends some time ago I was told that men qualified for the position could not be got in [DOT] the province of Quebec. The Government never even tried these men; they did not even know who they were. In the province of Quebec we have men just as well qualified as the men of the provinces of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and we are just as jealous of our rights as the people of any other province. It was a good chance to give us fair play when the change was made in the management of the road, I do not see why justice is not done to our province, at least as regards these -minor positions.
Only twelve miles of the r-oad from Mont Joli to Campbellton is in the province of

New Brunswick; the rest of the 105 miles is in the province of Quebec, and yet the des-patcher's office is in New Brunswick. The line between Levis and Riviere du Loup is controlled by the despatching office at Levis. Every one who is familiar with this district knows what is the situation from Levis to Riviere du Loup. The despatching office is at Levis. For the section between Riviere du Loup and Mont Joli, the despatcher's office is at Riviere du Loup. Why is not the despatcher's office at Mont Joii for the division Mont Joli to Campbellton? Why not do justice to our province? Our men are quite competent to fill these positions. The despatches know nothing about the condition of the road in the province of Quebec. Sometimes they do not even know the distance between the stations, except by referring to the sheets; they do not know the agents, and they do not know the grades. This is not in the interests of the road, because being unfamiliar with the grades they will put trains in the sidings needlessly for two or three hours. If the despatching was done from Mont Joli by men who knew the road this would not happen. It would be better for the railway, and it would only be doing justice to the population of the counties of Rimouski, Bonaventure and Matane.
Some justice has been done to our province as regards the less important positions. The conditions have improved in that respect since Mr. Gutelius became manager of the road. Previous to that, masons, foremen, carpenters, bridge repairers and so on would be sent from Moncton to repair our bridges and do the ordinary labouring work on the road. I spoke to Mr. Gutelius about this, and he agreed that it was only fair that the work west of Campbellton should be done by men from the province of Quebec. But the big positions are not given to the men of our province, and it is high time that we got satisfaction in this respect.
If it is impossible to make two divisions of the road between Montreal and Campbellton- the distance is 475 miles and the divisions in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are a good deal shorter than that- let us have one division, and let the superintendent at Levis have charge of the whole line from Montreal to Campbellton with an assistant superintendent, chosen from amongst the French Canadians of our own province. Let us have a board of telegraph despatchere at Mont Joli, as they have at other places, and we will be satisfied.


Francis Cochrane: There is no doubt that the subway is very much needed. I am very glad that my hon. friend is willing to put up with the present conditions until finances are a little easier. I have given some attention to having an assistant superintendent at Mont Joli, and I hope to accomplish something in that direction before long.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think there is a great deal in the complaint made by my hon. friend from Rimouski in regajd to the appoint- . ment of officials on the Intercolonial railway. I do not know that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are to blame as regards the officials on that portion of the road running through the constituency of my hon. friend. The complaint I would make is that the high salaried positions on the road are filled by men from outside the Dominion. I am sure the minister will agree that we have men on the Intercolonial whose training and experience makes them quite competent to fill these positions. But this matter has been discussed in the House several times, and I do not propose going into it now. I understand that the Government systems of railways has been divided into two portions with a manager for the eastern section and another for the western section. Does this involve any increased cost, and what are the salaries of the managers?


Francis Cochrane: So far, the two men are receiving the salaries they got before, but there has been a demand for an increase in the salaries of both managers. Even if the proposed increase is granted, the total cost of the management will be less than it was before.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is a matter for congratulation. I am sure that the promotion of Mr. Hayes from general traffic manager to general manager meets with the approval of the people along the eastern section of the road. Of course, he is a new man, and has not had much experience as a general manager, but his promotion is very gratifying to the people down there. I think that his salary as traffic manager- was $10,000 a year with free house rent. I would suggest to the minister that, in keeping with the policy of economy which the Government has pronounced in favour of so very often, Mr. Hayes might very well get along on his present salary, especially during these war times.


Francis Cochrane: As a matter of fact he does pay rent.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then, I beg your pardon. I understood the house was furnished him free by the Government.


Francis Cochrane: No, they all pay rent.


Arthur Bliss Copp: During the past few years,
efforts have been.' made to avoid the grade between Sackville and Dorchester. Many surveying panties have been over that section of (tihe line, but I have never heard of any conclusion being arrived at. Has the minister any report on the matter? [DOT]	-


Francis Cochrane: We have spent considerable money in surveying to get the best route possible, and had it not been for the war I have no doubt we would have made the change before this. Of course the hon. gentleman understands we will have to build nearly 100 miles to get around the grade he speaks of. Last winter the line from Truro to Halifax was exceedingly busy. There is certainly not in Canada, and I question whether there is on the continent, a single track line that did as much business as that line last year. We would be very glad indeed if we could go on with the work, but it is impossible now. I think we have a grade there that will give satisfaction; it is four-tenths grade both ways.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand the Government has located a road that will eliminate the grade.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Coming back for a moment to the Halifax expenditure, I have turned up the minister's speech of June 11th, and I find he did not give any estimate of the cost of the improvements made at the Halifax terminals. I notice the minister has his officers with him, and I have no doubt he has the information.


Francis Cochrane: $3,400,000, up to
February last.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that include the
branch railway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister tell
us how much that railroad cost per mile, or what was the total cost of the branch railroad.


Francis Cochrane: I have not the information to-night. I will get it for my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: Are we fo understand that the $3,000,000 we are voting now, in

addition to the expenditure already made, will complete the terminals at Halifax?


Francis Cochrane: Complete that unit,
which is all we propose going on with at present. It will not complete the station.. It will complete the hydraulic work and the docks, but the station will have to be built afterwards.


John Howard Sinclair: What will the station cost?


Francis Cochrane: I believe the estimate for the station and train shed is something over $1,000,000.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is the station at Halifax to be near the docks?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And, I suppose the old station will be abandoned?


Francis Cochrane: We will make use of it for something.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the minister was last before the committee on his estimates, I made a request for certain information in regard to cost of maintenance on the Intercolonial railway beyond the Strait of Canso and to Sydney, in two different years, for the purpose of comparison. Has the minister the information?


Francis Cochrane: The amount spent for betterments between Point Tupper and Sydney, both inclusive, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, was $180,600.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wrote the hon. minister a letter which is no doubt on his file. If he will consult it, he will find I asked for a good deal more information than he has given. Possibly the information may be forthcoming at some other time. I presume the figures just mentioned includes the building of the new bridge across the Grand Narrows.


Francis Cochrane: No, I do not think it would.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister had any request from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to improve the appliances for the transportation of fresh fish from Nova Scotia to Montreal and Toronto?


Francis Cochrane: No, I have not had any request. In what way would the hon. gentleman suggest improvements should be made?


John Howard Sinclair: No doubt the minister is aware that a very lengthy and import-

ant investigation was held last year before a committee of this House on this question of improving the transportation of fresh fish. In the course of that inquiry we discovered that the business between the Eastern seaboard and the market is in a very backward state, and that it is not growing as satisfactorily as we would like.
Everybody knows that fresh fish is the most perishable of all products, and that if it is not quickly placed on the market it becomes useless. The Canadian Pacific railway have developed a very large trade from the Pacific coast to the eastern markets by means of improved facilities for carrying fish, which we have not yet in eastern Canada. It is a reproach to the Intercolonial that, after it has been running for forty years we are to-day npt able to send a box of fresh fish in ice from the eastern seaboard to Montreal in an express train.


Francis Cochrane: You would not 'be able to dp that from Vancouver.


John Howard Sinclair: I think so, they are doing it now.


Francis Cochrane: You can send a car,
hut not a box.


John Howard Sinclair: We will never be able
[DOT]to develop the trade in eastern Canada until we can do that. 'The western trade is carried on because it is handled in very large quantities. The fish is taken in refrigerator cars and the minister will find, if he looks into it, that it is delivered at proportionately a very much cheaper rate from western Canada to the eastern markets than it is delivered over the short haul from the eastern seaboard to the markets of Montreal and Toronto. Surely we can get some system by which small quantities of fresh fish can be sent in ice from the Atlantic cpast to the cities in Canada. The system exists in all other civilized coun-'tries. In the United States, fish that is landed at Boston, one of the largest fish markets in the world, is distributed over the eastern states as far west as Chicago and delivered in good condition in express trains.


Francis Cochrane: By carloads.


John Howard Sinclair: Not all by carloads,
by smaller lots also. The evidence in the investigation was that it was sent in small lots as well as in carloads and I do not think there can be any good reason why that cannot be done.


Francis Cochrane: Can you get fish now anyway? Is not the overseas demand so great that there is no surplus?


John Howard Sinclair: Of course the trade is a little abnormal at present on account of the war and the demand for fresh fish on the Atlantic coast is so large that it can hardly be met and the prices are good. But that will not last very long. That has been going on for the last year or so because frozen fish is being sent over to the troops on the other side. But we have to develop one or other market; we must get into the American market or into the Canadian market if we are to build up a large fish industry. We are depending on the Intercolonial to get into the Canadian market, and it is up to the minister to find some means of doing this. As it is at present, if you want to send a ton or half a ton of fresh fish from Halifax or Mulgrave to Montreal, you have to send it in a heated car. You put your fish in the box with the ice and put it on board a car where there are steam pipes, and by the time it gets half way the is ice is melted, the fish is soft and unfit for use. That is the present condition with small lots of fish. With a great railway system of that kind there must be some method of overcoming that difficulty. One proposal was what is called a peddler car by which these small lots could be delivered at various points along the road on some express trains. I am not able to propose a system to the minister, but if he will read the evidence taken by that committee he will find that the present conditions are not satisfactory. The Intercolonial should take that matter up and deal with it so as to enable us in Eastern Canada to get into the Canadian market with good fish. It is needed in those cities; it is the best kind of food, and it would be appreciated if the people could get it in good condition. Why is it that we cannot get a nice piece of fresh fish from Eastern Canada in any restaurant or hotel in the city of Ottawa?


Francis Cochrane: You cannot get it in Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: Generally you can. I do not think it is the experience of the people of Ontario that they get the fish from the seaboard in good shape.


Francis Cochrane: I think that is quite right.


John Howard Sinclair: I mean the ordinary every-day fish such as mackerel, cod and haddock. Cod and haddock are caught practically the year round, and it should

be delivered in such shape that you could depend upon getting it in prime- condition in any hotel. The whole trouble lies with our transportation system.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad not only to read the report of that committee myself, but to send it to my officers and have them read it and see if some system cannot be devised before the war ceases which will help out in the fish business, because there is no doubt that fish is an excellent food which is quite unfit for use if not in good condition.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the vote for the car ferry and construction of terminals for the Prince Edward Island ferry be part of the contract price, or is that an extra?


Francis Cochrane: That is to complete the work; it is part of the contract.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital.
Hudson Bay Railway-Construction of railway terminals and elevators, $-3,000,000.


Mr. ROBB:: Can the minister inform the committee if the National Transcontinental has an interchange of rates with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern railway at points to and from the Northwest?
. Mr. COCHRANE: There are through rates on each road. I do not suppose the Canadian Pacific would turn us over -any freight, nor will the Canadian Northern. We have to depend on getting our freight from Winnipeg through the Grand Trunk Pacific.


James Alexander Robb: I think the minister should have an official to look into the question.
I understand the National Transcontinental railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, like all railways in Canada, are very arbitrary in their dealings with other roads. I will give the minister a concrete case. They quote a rate on flour from Portage la Prairie of 36 cents -a hundred pounds to Manuan, a short distance west of Quebec. The rate would be 34 cents from St. Boniface, hut a mill situated 100 miles south on the Canadian Pacific, or Canadian Northern line, cannot get this particular rate unless they pay an extra ten cents, pay the local rate from the point of shipment to the nearest Grand Trunk Pacific point, plus the through rate from there. I suggest to the minister that this sort of thing should be stopped on -all the railways in Canada, and it is up to the Government railways to compel the other roads to make a fair exchange of rates. It will help them to get business, and it will help the National Transcon-

tinental railway, because they will have reciprocal advantages.


Francis Cochrane: That matter is under the Railway Commission.


James Alexander Robb: The minister should see that the grievance is remedied. Another matter in which the railways are very arbitrary is in regard to the exchange of cars on their different roads. All last winter, as the minister knows, traffic throughout Canada was practically tied up, and the railways were so arbitrary that you could not get stuff delivered from Montreal. I must say that the Canadian Northern gave as good service as any of them, but they arbitrarily stated, "You must take delivery of this stuff on our tracks. You cannot ship it out on any branch lines." I think that should be corrected. A shipper does'not want to go to the expense of transferring from one car to another, and the railway should be compelled to have an interchange of business, so that we would not be tied up, as we were last winter.


Francis Cochrane: The trouble last winter was that pretty nearly every railroad on the continent was tied up for the want of cars, and it was practically, I won't say stealing, but getting hold of the cars, and keeping them as long as they could. I have tried this year to get our own road in such shape that we will be more independent of them in the lower provinces. We are in bad shape in that respect. There is so much pulpwood shipped down there that it takes our oars over to the United States, and it is almost impossible to get them back. We scarcely ever have less than five or six thousand cars over there, and it makes a big hole in our system of cars. It became so had last year on all roads that we had to put an embargo oil it. I will brin-g it to Sir Henry Drayton's attention and see what can he done.


James Alexander Robb: Part of this -congestion was caused by the railways themselves, -and they would admit it when you went to them. They had an inefficient staff in their offices. Their good men had gone away, and they were taking whatever men they could get. They were using very arbitrary methods, not allowing ears to go off their own tracks, because of the congestion, and it tied up their own yards. The minister should see that this practice is stopped, and that the railways shall -allow traffic to flow freely. Let them look after their own cars.


John Howard Sinclair: The trouble was that there were too many cars. All the sidings

were filled with cars from Montreal to Nova Scotia.


Francis Cochrane: That was after the embargo in Montreal. The Grand Trunk put an embargo on the cars, and would not allow a car to be taken away, and we had to run trains from Halifax to Montreal empty, on account of our overseas traffic.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope it will not occur this year. It was a great loss to the business people of Eastern Canada. I have known men who were getting a carload of pig iron to send a man to stay with the car, and when the car was placed on the siding, the man got off the train, and waited for days, till he managed, by giving tips and all kinds of schemes, to get the car on the track again, and finally, after several weeks' delay, he reached home with his carload of pig iron. If he had not been able to do that, his factory would have been closed down, and his hands idle. Those were the difficulties people had last year. I hope that if there is any way of preventing it, the minister will take care that it shall not occur this winter.


Francis Cochrane: I hope not.


Frank Oliver: I wish to bring to the minister's attention a condition that arose in Edmonton last winter, or last fall. It is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, but we have no means of reaching that body. The three railroad systems, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern all run to Edmonton and radiate from there. There are coal mines on all three lines in the neighbourhood of Edmonton, but it happens that there is only one of these mines, if I remember correctly, on the Canadian Pacific Railway line. The others are on the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern. It also happens that the Canadian Pacific railway has the largest system of distributing lines in the prairies. The coal mines sell their own coal, and the coal mine that is on the Grand Trunk line, we will say, sells coal on the Canadian Pacific Railway line or on the Canadian Northern, as the case may be. It is desirable that it should be so, and up to last fall there was no difficulty in getting the necessary cars, I do not know what the arrangement was previous to the time the condition complained of arose, but it was about the time of the coal strike in southern Alberta, when there was a pinch of cold weather. The coal mines in Edmonton had plenty of labour, and plenty of demands for their coal, and all of a sudden one
bright day an order was issued by the railroads that they would not exchange cars. That is to say, the Grand Trunk would not supply cars to take coal from a point on their line to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway.


Francis Cochrane: How many miles is
it from the mine to the Canadian Pacific railway?


Frank Oliver: From three to five miles; it is only a short haul. The mines that I speak of are within a few miles of t'he city. It had simply been a matter of shunting, and the companies had been co-operating amicably, with great benefit to the coal trade. Suddenly the companies refused to exchange cars. The Canadian Northern railway would take coal from one point to. another on their own line, but they would not give .a oar to take coal from a mine on their line to a point on another line. It was the .same alii round, and business^ was shut out at once. The coal miners appealed to the Railway Commission, and an order was issued by that body. But even after the issuing of that order, the railways had apparently made up their minds to be ugly-why, I do not know. They obeyed the order of the Railway Commission, but so grudgingly as to make the order not as of much benefit as it should have been. I cannot understand why an enterprise like a railroad should take an attitude which is detrimental to their own business. The railroads should understand, great enterprises though they be, that their business is to serve the people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I saw in the press
not long ago a report that 5,000 box cars had been ordered by the Railway Department. Where were they ordered, and when is delivery expected?


Francis Cochrane: 1,000 were ordered
from the Eastern Oar Company of New Glasgow, 1,000 from the Rhodes Currie Company, 3,000 from the Canada Car Company, Fort William, and 1,000 from the National Car Company of Hamilton-6,000 in all. We hope to get the greater portion of them before the end of the year. As my hon. friend knows, we are often disapppoint-ed in these deliveries, but they have promised delivery and have agreed to pay a penalty of 75 cents a day for each day of non-fulfilment of contract for delivery.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there a standard
price?


Francis Cochrane: The price is whatever we can get the cars for. During the



last month there has been a raise of nearly $300 on each car.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Are these steel cars?


Francis Cochrane: Steel frame. It is impossible to get a steel car now.


James Alexander Robb: Are the railways making
provision to get a sufficient supply of coal for next year's operations?


Francis Cochrane: I have been trying
hard to get a good supply, but it is coming in very slowly. We are pressing the matter as hard as we possibly can. The Government has brought the matter to the attention of the Fuel Controller, and we have appointed a man, on the other side to follow up the shipments and see that they come over. The Railway Commission has undertaken to keep the cars moving when they get on this side. We are directing our efforte to securing a supply not only for the railways but for the general public as well.


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether
I havie discussed with the minister the embargo that was placed by the railroads of Alberta last winter upon the shipment of grain east. From time to time the railroads refused to haul grain, and we were told that an embargo had been placed on the carrying of grain to Fort William. Can the minister give any reason why that condition existed and tell us whether it is within the law for a railway company to refuse to haul grain?


Francis Cochrane: Congestion on the railways or in the elevators is the only reason I can see for the placing of an embargo upon the carrying of grain to Fort William,. Two years ago the Canadian Pacific railway absolutely refused to take grain shipped by the Grand Trunk Pacific, although there was room in their elevators. They controlled the elevator space as well as the tracks running to the elevators; so much so that in some cases we had to haul grain back from Fort William to Quebec or Montreal.


Frank Oliver: I can appreciate the difficulties of the year before last, when the crop was abnormally large. But last year there was no such crop to block the roads. According to the records in the Trade and Commerce reports, the elevators at Fort William were neveT in a condition that they could not receive grain. Nevertheless, the railroads refused to haul grain there.

They would accept grain to be deliv-11 p.m. ered at the interior storage elevators at certain times, but they would not furnish cars to be delivered at Fort William. A railroad, being a common carrier, must carry to order, subject to its ability to do so; but in this case there was a public announcement that the railroad had placed an embargo upon-that is, had refused to carry-grain from the local elevators to Fort William. Does the minister *believe that the railroad is within its rights in doing that?


Francis Cochrane: I agree that if it is within their power to carry the grain, they must carry it. However, owing to my illness last winter I am not as familiar with the matter as I should be. I hope that this year there will be no such difficulties.


Frank Oliver: I desire, then, formally to bring the matter to the minister's attention and to ask his protection in the future, so that the railroads shall be required to discharge their duty to the public, subject to the ordinary limitations of possibility. It struck me as a most arbitrary action that they should publicly announce their intention not to haul grain after a certain date from one point on their system to another.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is the minister going to get his coal for the Hudson Bay railway? I assume that he intends to run it this winter.


Francis Cochrane: I am afraid that we will not


John Howard Sinclair: It is absurd that we
should vote $3,000,000 to spend on the Hudson Bay railway when it will be of no use to anybody even if it is completed in November. At all events, it will be of no use during the winter season. It is an insane proceeding to spend money on a project of that kind at a time like this, especially in view of the fact that if it were ready, there would be no traffic and no possibility of getting coal to run the road.


Francis Cochrane: I do not agree that there is no possibility of getting coal to run the road after it is finished. I think the road will certainly justify its construction. In any case, the contracts were all let before the war, and it is sometimes hard to get out of a contract. The penalty is too heavy.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not take the ground that the road will never be of any use. I

do not know. But my point is that at the present time when the minister is very properly saving money in other directions, this is a case in which he ought to save money.


Francis Cochrane: The contractors have their plant and a quantity of material pn the road, and the penalty on us, if we were to shut down the work would he very severe. I admit that if we could shut down [DOT] the work without too much expense, that matter would be well worth considering, but I am afraid the expense would be too great. The contractor would be justified, if we did so, in demanding a heavy bill of damages. I think the hon. member will understand that.
* Mr. SINCLAIR:	Does the minister intend to work the road this winter?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think we
shall.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood, in the
statement made to the House some weeks ago, that in November it would be ready to Port Nelson.


Francis Cochrane: That is true.


James Alexander Robb: Are many men employed at present in the construction of the Hudspn Bay railway?
Mr. CQ.CHRANE:	I understand there
are more men this year than there were a year ago. The contractor got the men early this year and he was more successful in getting them. The road was delayed considerably a year ago.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose he will get
some soldiers up there.


Francis Cochrane: No, I think the men are regular railroaders.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister
give -us the last figures he has in regard to the cost of operation of the Transcontinental railway and the receipts?


Francis Cochrane: I gave a very full
account of both the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental some weeks ago. The hon. member will find the figures on page 2296 of Hansard.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister
tell us whether he has been hauling grain on that road?


Francis Cochrane: We did not haul much last year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has he hauled some?
216i


Francis Cochrane: Yes, we hauled some oats to Quebec.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What has been the general character pf the traffic? Has it been mostly from West to East or from East to West?


Francis Cochrane: At certain seasons of.
the year the traffic is mostly from East to-West, and at other seasons from West to-East.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have the terminals pf the Transcontinental at Quebec been completed, and is the minister in a position *to ship from the cars which he sends East?.'


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Will the lifting of the'
rails on the east end of the road interfere in any degree with traffic facilities?


Francis Cochrane: If I remember aright,
I informed the hon. member that we replaced the sidings with second-hand rails.. Of course, the facilities are not as satisfactory as they were ibefpre, because we bad so much room not only at the sidings but at divisional points. The traffic is somewhat impeded, but we hope to overcome that as soon as the war is over.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister
settled all the claims in connection with the construction of the railway?


Francis Cochrane: No. There are still
some at Winnipeg and some in Quebec, and, I think, at one or two other places. It seems almost impossible to get them settled. Some people do not want to go into the Exchequer Court, and I do not want to pay the big prices they are asking. [DOT] The case of Mackenzie and Mann at Winnipeg went into the Exchequer Court, and then it was appealed. It has not yet been decided whether they will take it to the Privy Council or not. The claim is for quite an amount.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A number of claims have not gone to court for adjudication?


Francis Cochrane: A number have not.
Outside of Mackenzie and Mann's claim, the others are all small.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mackenzie and
Mann's claim would be in regard to terminals, not construction.


Francis Cochrane: For right of way and terminals also.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister is asking for an appropriation for claims for right

of way of $500,000. Will that amount pay all the claims for the right of way?
Mr. -COCHRANE:	I hope so, but I am
mot sure. As I say, there has been great ^difficulty in getting proper .settlement with the claimants. As my hon. friend knows, if any person has a claim against the Government he wants to salt it.. I want to do what is fair and right, and I hope this amount will cover all the claims.


Frank Oliver: Did I understand the minister to say that the lifting of the rails would not interfere with traffic?


Francis Cochrane: Not on the Transcontinental.


Frank Oliver: That is what I mean. Perhaps the minister has available the information in regard to the lifting of the rails west of Edmonton. I notice in the Edmonton papers that some of the Edmonton -settlers who are on the Canadian Northern, the rails of which have been lifted to be transferred to the Grand Trunk, -are making very serious complaints. Have those complaints, reached the minister?


Francis Cochrane: Some of them have
and we -are -investigating the olai-m of each settler to see whit crop he has and what the damage to him will be. In some oases we .are offering, if necessary, to take them out and put them in -some other place.


Frank Oliver: The department is prepared to pay damages to these people.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, we shall have to do w-hat is right with them in every ease.
Mr. MA-CDONALD: Where does the minister get the recompenses for the rails and for the dam-ages? Do they -form part of the war expenditure, o-r are they paid by the Imperial Government?


Francis Cochrane: By the Imperial Government.
M-r. OLIVER: In the statement I saw in the newspapers there are some small timber limits which were operated by small local mills and which are affected by the moving of the track.


Francis Cochrane: There is one.


Frank Oliver: The timber will be taken into consideration also.
M-r. COCHRANE: Yes.


Frank Oliver: These people are my
constituents, and I feel somewhat strongly

in regard to their situation. They are pioneers. Their improvements, of course, are not very valuable from a money point of vderw, but they are all these people have, and they have been made in the expectation of railroad facilities. Although the distance between the track that has been lifted and the track that remains is in some cases short in miles, I want to impress on the minister that in the greater part of the country affected there is a very great deal of 'muskeg, and in many cases the building of a number of miles of road is involved in order that the settler may travel from the point he expected to reach on the old track to the point he is to reach on the new track. What I desire to impress on the minister is that the map does not tell the story of the difficulty that has been placed upon the settler by the lifting of the track. There should be taken into consideration not only the distance, but the actual difficulty of traversing that distance or of getting a permanent and suitable way of traversing it. The provincial government will ultimately provide the road, but they have a great many roads to provide, and they can hardly be expected to provide for the expenditure on this road which the people need, and need so suddenly by reason of the action of the Government. 1 hope that in dealing with this matter the Government will treat these people generously, having regard to their pioneer conditions, the enterprise that took them there, and the actual difficulties that face them as a result of the moving of the track


Francis Cochrane: I do not propose to be niggardly at all. I appreciate what my hon. friend has said about these people being pioneers with their all invested in that part of the country, and we shall bear that in mind in dealing with this matter.


Frank Oliver: There is a fairly large
settlement called the Carrot Creek settlement.


Francis Cochrane: They get their mail from the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank Oliver: Yes, at Peers. The distance is six or seven miles, but the map shows it to be only five, and I fancy it is a pretty bad road. There must be quite a number of settler-s in that settlement, because they were there before -the railway, I do not know what -representations have been made to the minister, but I am just drawing to his attention that the pioneers of

this settlement were there before the railroad.


Francis Cochrane: I think the mill was there before the railroad.


Frank Oliver: Very likely. I never travelled through that country before the railroad was built, but I have been on the railroad since.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Referring to a
previous item, last year and the year before a survey was made for a proposed short line leaving the Intercolonial at some point about Glengarry and making for the straits of Canso. Has anything been done in regard to the matter?


Francis Cochrane: Nothing has been done, and it is not likely that anything will be done until after the war.


Arthur Bliss Copp: About a month ago I drew the minister's attention to the taking up of the tracks leading to the Sackville wharf. The minister replied, reasonably enough, that the tracks had been taken up for shipment to France to be used by the Imperial Government. It is a matter of only a few hundred yards, and I think the officials of the road were a little panic stricken when they took up these rails, for they are pretty old, having been there for a number of years, and weigh 56 pounds. I have been home since last speaking to the minister about this, and I find that the people are absolutely held up because of the lack of this little piece of track. Is it not possible for the minister to give the people of that section this wharf accommodation?


Francis Cochrane: I hope to be able to do it very soon. We are getting 12,000 tons of rails rolled at Sydney, and I think most of them are ready now. As soon as we can get the rails out of the main line and put these in, we shall attend to this matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In the fall coal comes in by schooner, and it would be a very great convenience to the people of that section if the minister could get the rails put down at as early a date as possible.


Francis Cochrane: We will do it as soon as possible.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Saturday, July 14, 1917.