1917-08-13

[Stage Direction]
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Agriculture. Experimental Farms. Reports from the Director; Division of Chemistry; Division of Field Husbandry; Division of Animal Husbandry-for the year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Agriculture. Experimental Farms. Reports from the Division of Botany; Division of Bees; Division of Forage Plants; Division of Poultry; Division of Tobacco; Division of Illustration Stations; Division of Extension and Publicity-for the year ended March 31, 1916-Hon. Mr. Burrell.
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Agriculture. Experimental Farms. Reports from the Division of Horticulture. Division of Cereals-for the year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance):: On Friday last the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) asked for information as to payments made by the Canadian Northern Railway Company on interest account under section 29 of the Act of 1914. I beg to lay upon the Table a statement showing that the interest has been paid in full to March 1, 1917, and that the next payment of interest is due on September 1, 1917. I also beg to lay upon the Table the following statements in respect of the Canadian Northern railway:
1.	Interim Condensed Balance Sheet as at April 30, 1917.

2.	Statement of estimate of cost to complete lines and terminals under construction, and financial provision for same.
3.	Statement of contractors' and other construction accounts outstanding, 30th June, 1917.
4.	Memorandum re unsold lands.
5.	Estimate of amount required for betterments and rolling stock for three years.
These statements were all enclosed in a letter from the assistant to vice-president Canadian Northern Railway system. I also lay this letter upon the Table.



THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 127, The Military Voters' Act, 1917. He said:
The purpose of this Bill is to make more adequate and complete provision for the taking of the votes of our soldiers during the present war than is found to exist under the present legislation for that purpose. The House will realize that, since the enactment of the legislation of 1915, conditions have very materially altered, and that what might have proved workable at that time is to-day difficult, at all events, of being so carried out as to afford full opportunity for the recording of the soldiers' votes while at the same time providing those safeguards which the conditions make possible. I have said that conditions have very materially altered. For instance, today in taking an overseas soldiers' vote, you are concerned with something like five or six times the number of votes that were in contemplation at the time of the passing of the legislation already on the statute book. In the second place conditions with regard to facilities and safety of communication between this country and the overseas countries have been very seriously modified. These changes in conditions .make necessary very important modifications in the legislation as it exists, modifications SO' important that it has been thought better to remodel the Act entirely rather than to endeavour ^to proceed by way of amendments to particular sections. I do not think I need dwell upon those differences of conditions because they are perfectly obvious to everybody.
The Bill, apart from making changes to meet the altered conditions, makes some changes in the qualifications of the military voter. It is proposed to include all persons in the service, not only soldiers,

but those in the naval service of Canada, and those who are in the Imperial service, but who have been enrolled therein in Canada and whose position with regard to the services they are rendering is such as to enable us to deal with them as groups. For instance, the Aviation Corps is the principal one.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Why not let the Canadian who has taken service in the Imperial Army also have the vote?


Mr. DOHERTY:: That matter has had very careful consideration.


Samuel Hughes: There are thousands of them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not merely a matter of giving a vote, but one of providing the means for taking that vote. Where you are dealing with an individual who may be found somewhere in the Imperial forces', it would certainly not be easy to provide a method by which he could be sought out and dealt with here, there and elsewhere.


Samuel Hughes: You might afford him an opportunity of voting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might say, however, just at this stage, seeing that this suggestion has been made, that while I am putting this measure before the House, and while it has had very considerable thought and a very earnest endeavour has been made to provide a law that would afford opportunity for every Canadian who is serving in this war to record his vote, we -and I am speaking certainly for the Government-are quite open for any suggestion looking for the more perfect attainment of that end. If a method can be produced to work out that result, I think I can say even now that we would certainly be prepared to give every consideration to a suggested method of doing it. It is not lack of disposition to extend the vote to every Canadian who is serving, that stands in the way of every Canadian getting the vote. If there be any with regard to whom it may not be possible that they should exorcise the franchise, it will be only by reason of that impossibility that they will fail to do so.
It is proposed to do away with any distinction between the soldier who is of age and the soldier who may be under 21. It is furthermore proposed to do away with . any distinction of sex as regards persons engaged in the service of Canada. Nurses, for instance, will be included, even though they

be, as they are in most cases, women. We have sought to make the measure applicable to everybody who is doing service for Canada and for the cause for which Canada is fighting in this war. By way of removing all doubts which seem to exist, we have specifically mentioned the fact that a person's being an Indian, if he be a soldier, will not exclude him from the vote. My own belief was that even under the statute as it stood, an Indian who was a soldier could vote, but there seems to have been some doubt on the subject, and that doubt is removed.


Mr. MARCIL:: Has the minister considered the case of the reservists who enlisted in the French and Belgian armies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question was considered in connection with a similar one in regard to Canadians in the Imperial army. The Bill, as it is presently drafted, does not provide for their vote. As I said in regard to the other question, this is not because I do not quite recognize the desirability of their being enabled to vote if it were practically possible, but because, notwithstanding consideration of different methods of getting at it, We were reluctantly forced to the conclusion that we could not find the machinery to carry it out, without creating machinery altogether out of proportion to the number of persons who would be in a position to avail themselves of it. With regard to that, as with regard to all details of the Bill, we shall be very glad of suggestions looking to improvement.
As to the method of proceeding to the election, the principal change is that this Bill proposes to provide a complete machinery overseas for the taking of the soldiers' vote, practically as though you were conducting an election over there. The results, of course, at the end of the proceeding will be communicated over here to the proper officers, and those results, combined with the results of the election as held under the ordinary provisions in Canada, will determine the result of the election. The reason for this is found, in the first place, in the increased magnitude of the work to be done over there, and in the second place, and perhaps principally, in the difficulties and the unsafety in many respects surrounding transportation between Canada and the Old Country. Under the law as it stood, for example, provision was made for the returning by each officer who took votes upon the other side to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in this country of the votes so taken, and
the assorting of those votes as between constituencies by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery over here, and the forwarding of those votes to the returning officers of the different electoral districts to be counted. That might have been quite feasible in dealing with a relatively small number of votes, and if conditions with regard to transportation were such as they were at-the time of the passing of the Act. Under present conditions, the carrying out of the Act would be attended with the serious objection that the ballots taken on the other side, before they could be counted at all, would be exposed to the risk of being lost in transit. In view of these considerations, we have provided for the carrying out of the election from the initial proceedings the providing and distribution of ballots and all necessary documents, down to the counting of the votes overseas. This will necessitate' the provision of an officer whose tenure of office shall last for the election only, who shall exercise overseas 'the functions belonging in connection with an election to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It is intended he shall be appointed as an Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and shall exercise overseas the powers exercised generally speaking by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in connection with a general election.
Sir SAM HUGHES. He will have independent powers?
. Mr. DOHERTY: For the purposes of the election operations, he shall be the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery over there. This method of dealing with the subject also calls for provision for the counting of the ballots overseas. This is a matter which has had considerable thought. It is certainly very important that there should be provided competent and reliable officers with regard to whose impartiality we should have every guarantee. As meeting those requirements the proposal of the Bill is that there should be appointed a certain number of officers who are designated as "special returning officers," and that each of these special returning officers shall have a clerk assigned to him. After the ballots have been returned respectively to the Commissioner of Canada to France; and the secretary of the High Commissioner in London, and, in this country, to an officer to be known as the general returning officer; these special returning officers with their clerks shall proceed to the sorting of the envelopes and counting of the" ballots, and shall furnish statements of the results to the commissioner to France and the secre-

tary to the High Commissioner in London respectively. The latter shall communicate by telegraph the contents of the statements, and subsequently forward by registered mail the statements themselves to the general returning officer, who is to be appointed [DOT]and act in this country to receive all returns and declare final results.


Samuel Hughes: What am I to understand the Commissioner of Canada in Paris, and the Commissioner of Canada in England, to mean?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are to receive and transmit. It was necessary that we should have some central place in France and in England to which all of those boxes or receptacles could be forwarded for distribution to the special returning officers called upon to do the counting. We called them " ballot boxes " but by definition, we make it clear that any suitable receptacle shall answer the requirement of a "ballot box."


Samuel Hughes: Why not send them to the Deputy Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my hon. friend will allow me, he will see it is merely to secure a proper location to which all the boxes can be sent. The secretary of the High Commissioner in London-because the High Commissioner himself does not figure in the matter at all-and the commissioner to France, have no function to perform with regard to the counting of the ballots. The provision is that the receptacles or boxes shall be forwarded to them closed and sealed in the best manner that can be found. Their function is limited to fixing a time and place after the expiry of a delay fixed in the Act, when they will hand those boxes over, unopened and still sealed, into the custody of the special returning officers who are to do the counting. When those special returning officers have done the counting, and the assortment also- because that would be an important part of the operation, inasmuch as the ballots will not come already assorted in boxes belonging to particular constituencies; and we have endeavoured to surround the operation of counting and assortment with every precaution that seems reasonably possible- they shall establish the result and communicate it to the commissioner in France and to the secretary of the commissioner in England for transmission to the General Returning Officer in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: The minister said
that these would come in special ballot

boxes by constituencies. How is it possible to have them by constituencies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
misunderstood me. I pointed out that one very important operation would be necessary, namely, assortment, because returns could not possibly come by constituencies. The assorting as well as the counting would come within the duty of the special returning officers and their clerks. They would furnish statements of the results to the commissioner in Paris and to the commissioner in London for transmission to Canada. So far as the secretary of the High Commissioner, or the commissioner to Paris is used, he is used simply as affording a convenient method of gathering together at one point the result of the operation and transmitting it over here.
I have referred to an officer to be known as the general returning officer. This is an officer whose services are made necessary by the fact that we shall have going on an election overseas and an election upon this side of the Atlantic. It is necessary that somebody should gather together the results of those two different subdivisions of the election and, adding them together, ascertain and return the general result. For that purpose we provide for the appointment of a general returning officer to whom shall come all of the returns from overseas, from Bermuda, and from the military voting in Canada-because we have to make provision for the taking of the votes of military voters in Canada who may, in large numbers, be absent from their constituencies. This general returning officer shall receive the returns from all these sources, and it will be his duty, adding the returns so received to those of the general voting ip Canada to annonce the result and proclaim therefrom the candidate elected in each constituency.
The provisions for the taking of the soldiers' vote obviously make it impossible for a returning officer in a particular constituency to make a return that a man has been elected, because he has before him only the votes of the people voting at home. We provide in the general returning officer an officer who shall receive these results and make return with regard to each constituency, after the information from all these different sources has come in to him.
Mr. MA.RCIL:	What becomes of the
Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery performs all his ordinary functions; but it is not part of the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to first determine who is elected for a particular constituency. Under the machinery as it exists at present, the returning officer of that constituency makes return that So-and-So is elected. That is now rendered impossible by the fact that the returning officer of that particular constituency has not the necessary information to determine who is returned. The only way that that information could be got to him would be by making the people on the other side in some way transmit all information with regard to each particular constituency to these 230 or 240 officers scattered all over the Dominion, and it would necessitate sending information to those officers for the mere purpose of having them send it back again. It seemed a more reasonable and practical method to provide some one to whom all of the results of these elections held in this way in different sections should be transmitted, and who should establish and announce the final result.


Samuel Hughes: Will it be made legal to transmit it by cable in case the document is lose in transmission?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision is that as <soon as the information is obtained, that is, as soon as the result is ascertained, the High Commissioner and the 'Commissioner in Paris shall transmit the information by cable. Then there is provision that he shall follow that by written communication which is to be registered, and so forth, and the intention is that before officially declaring the result the written communication should be awaited, but in the meantime the information would be here, and if any accident should happen as to subsequent transmission, no doubt it would be available as a method of establishing the fact.


Charles Marcil: Do the ballots overseas
contain the names of the candidates or only of the political parties?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not intended that
the ballots overseas should contain the names of the candidates; the ballot as provided by the present Soldiers' Voting Act is retained. That is to say, a ballot upon which a man may vote for the Government or for the Opposition or foT an independent candidate, if there be any, or may vote for a particular person, so that wherever the elector knows who the candidates in his constituency are he has an opportunity
to vote for the particular candidate, and incidentally to that,- I may say we have made very full provision for creating a condition wherein, so far as it is possible,	opportunity will
be afforded to the overseas soldiers to know who the candidates are. There is difficulty, apart from the knowledge of who the canqi-dates are, in the way of providing just such a ballot as is had upon this side; that is, that, if you sought to do that, you would have to have printed upon the other side of the Atlantic, necessarily after the nomination and before the voting, ballots for each particular constituency, containing, of *course, different names-ballots such as we have on this side of the Atlantic. By retaining the form of ballot provided for in the Soldiers' Voting Act, we enable preparation to be made upon the other side of the ocean of all ballots that are needed, because all of the ballots to be used, without regard to the constituency, will be in the same form. You get that advantage in preparation. Then you avoid what would be an obvious impossibility, you avoid the necessity oif every presiding officer being provided with specific ballots for each constituency in the Dominion.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What is the difficulty about doing that, by making the interval between nomination and election day two or three weeks longer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We propose to prolong the delay between nomination day and voting day, and we have made provision for communicating and disseminating the knowledge as to who the candidates are in each constituency by every possible method, and we do hope that the soldiers as a whole will know who the candidates are. But there is the other difficulty, that if you were to hand to the soldier a ballot for his <'on-stituency such as we have over here, then every officer-and, of course, the officer cannot take the votes by constituencies, but is taking the vote of a group of soldiers-every officer taking the vote would have to have with him ballots for each of the 230 constituencies in Canada. While that might be an extreme case, undoubtedly there would be in every group of soldiers men voting as for different constituencies.
It is to be borne in mind that this operation is to be carried on practically in the field and if you load up the people who are going to take the votes with an assortment of ballots for each of the 234 constituencies, you will have to send a man

around loaded with a trunk. I do not see that any conceivable injury results from our having the one form of ballot applicable to every constituency so long as we take every possible means to let the soldier know who the candidates are in his constituency and to permit him to vote for a candidate by name. That, of course, also is a matter of detail with regard to which, iif an improved system can be suggested, it certainly will be welcome. But, as a result of the best thought that we have been able to give to the matter, that latter objection seemed to be an insuperable objection to the providing of specific ballots available for each man for the particular constituency in which he is entitled to vote.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: How would it be if the ballot papers were left blank so that a soldier might vote for any person for whom he saw fit to vote? I think the classification in the printed ballot may be very unfair to some hon. members now sitting in this House. As I understand, the ballot is printed, " for the Government,-' or " for the Opposition." I have no doubt that in the coming election there may be a serious question as to where some members of the present House will stand. They may be independent. Those who are considered to be party men, at a time when we are trying to break down party lines, are going to have an advantage. I would, as a suggestion to the minister, say that the ballots ought to be printed with blank spaces and let the soldier himself write in the name of the constituency wherein he votes and strike out, " for the Government," or " for the Opposition."


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is in the ballot
at present.


Hugh Guthrie: There is that provision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the ballot provides four distinct spaces.


Hugh Guthrie: That is too many.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A man may vote for
the Government, he may vote for the Opposition, he may vote for any independent candidate, and, finally, there is a space which says " I vote for	and he
can write in the name or names of the member or members that he votes for.


Mr. BRADBURY:: It is all on one ballot? Mr. DOHERTY: Yes. I appreciate the position of the man who wants to vote

for an individual candidate and I think it is most desirable that he should have the opportunity. The Bill provides ample means for the man who knows his constituency and knows his candidate and who votes for a particular candidate. All that is done by the other spaces on the ballot is to enable a man to vote who may, for instance, be uncertain as regards his particular constituency, or who under the conditions which exist over there, may not have received the information which we intend to endeavour in every way to have conveyed to him as to who the particular candidates are. It would be a most unfortunate thing if a man in that position should be deprived of any opportunity to vote at all. The form of ballot that we are providing in the Bill has all the advantages of enabling a man to vote for a particular candidate where his knowledge both of the constituency where he is entitled to vote and of the candidate running enables him to do so.


Samuel Hughes: Would the voter not have to write in the name of the constituency himself and vote for, say, John Smith, Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, he does not require to write in the name of the constituency on the ballot.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think it my duty to point out to hon. members that the motion before the House is for leave to introduce "The Military Voters Act, 1917," and it is not in order to -proceed with a minute discussion of the details. On the second reading of the Bill the principle may be debated and in committee details may be discussed. It is neither in order, nor desirable, to go into minute details on the motion to introduce the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Whether that is the rule or not, I think that under the circumstances, I have a perfect right to ask a question,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I think I have a perfect right to ask a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. There is another rule to which I must direct the hon. gentleman's attention and that is that when the Speaker is addressing the House an hon. member must take his seat.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite understand the rule and I have no desire to overstep the bounds of the proper proceeding upon the
At! GUST 13, 1917
introduction of a Bill. At the same time,
I appreciate that this is a matter that members are very greatly interested in and I, subject to your authority, and with proper respect for the rules of the House, desire to say that if I can give any information I will be glad to do so. I was saying that the ballot, as we proposed, in my judgment, affords the most ample opportunity whatever may be the conditions for enabling the soldier to register his vote. When I waS interrupted I was speaking of the general returning officer, and I think I have sufficiently pointed out what his functions are. They largely go into effect at the termination of the election for the purpose of getting the specific returns. With regard to the special returning officers, I think it will be found that the provision of the Bill has been drafted with a view to attaining as perfect impartiality as can be attained on the part of the officers charged with this very important work. In order to make two things possible-namely, first, that we should get the fullest vote of the soldiers that can be got, and, second, that the voting should be done before the termination of the voting on this side, and therefore before the possibility of knowledge being spread on the other side as to the results- it has been thought wise, and the Bill provides therefor, to extend the delay between nomination day and election day. In the Bill that is a period of four weeks. The best information that I have been able to gather rather leads me to the conclusion that that will be a sufficient delay, but that in particular is a matter upon which I shall he glad to receive any information that any hon. member may have with the view of considering whether perhaps it might not be desirable to make that period longer.


Samuel Hughes: Delay after nomination day or after the general election in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it is intended that the voting day in Canada shall be four weeks after the nomination day. Voting overseas is to begin on the day after nomination day and is to go on for the full period of four weeks until eight o'clock in the evening of the polling day in this country. Whereas the voter over here has one day in which he must poll his vote, the soldier has twenty-nine days. At any time during that period he may avail himself of the opportunity to register his vote. Provision is made for the most widespread possible establishment of polls; that is places where the soldiers may register their
votes. It is in contemplation that these should be established at every place where there is a gathering of soldiers. In the Bill we speak of "every camp" with reference to polling places, but we have put in a definition clause to make the word "camp" cover every place, be it hospital or rest station, or whatever may be the nature of the place where there is a group of soldiers.	[DOT]
We have made a further provision, that where circumstances are such as to give rise to the belief that if a soldier is not allowed to vote immediately when and where he is he may be exposed to lose his vote -if conditions are such as to make it possible for the presiding officer to take his vote-that officer shall be empowered, even though he is not actually holding a poll to take the vote o,f that soldier. The desire is to do anything that can be done to assure to the soldier the exercise of his privilege, and to assure to Canada the advantage of having the expression of opinion of that soldier, the only limit being such as may be necessary to surround the voting with the greatest possible precautions against any irregularity or fraud, or anything of that sort, under the conditions as existing upon the other side. The military voter in Canada, save that he has to use the ballot as provided for the overseas soldiers, is, in the marking of his ballot, to conform to the requirements looking to secrecy, 'which are provided for the ordinary taking of votes over here. There are detailed provisions as to the manner of taking the vote. I do not think they are materially different- though in some respects I hope they are improved-from the provisions of the existing law.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I suppose the votes can be gathered in the hospitals?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Oh, yes. We intend to send to every place where we can conceive that soldiers will be found a deputy presiding officer to take the vote.


Charles Marcil: Is the provision in the old Act, requiring the appointment of a number of commissioners by the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition, to provide the taking of the ballot overseas, to be retained?


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the appointment of scrutineers?


Charles Marcil: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, that is preserved, and there are further provisions with regard

to the officers appointed, to assure us that they will be representatives of one party as much as another.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand this is an entirely new Bill. It is not an amending Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it is a new Bill. The material changes in conditions seem to make necessary the remodelling rather than the amending of the law. There are provisions, the details of which I do not think it necessary to go into, as to the methods of counting the ballots and the reporting the results to us on this side of the ocean. The purpose behind these provisions has been to secure every care and precaution, looking to a fair count, and looking to the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot. *
There are provisions also in regard to the re-count of the ballot. The same reason that makes it desirable that the ballot should not be sent over here before being counted at all, seems to make it desirable that, in case there should be need for a recount of the ballots taken on the other side, the operation should be carried on over there. The suggestion is that it should be done by a judge or other person who may be designated by the Lord Chief Justice of England, if he will consent to do it. We want to place that matter in the hands of somebody who is quite beyond the suggestion that he in any way is influenced by cis-Atlantie considerations; and there are details a3 to procedure upon that subject, with which I need not worry the House at the present time. This Bill replaces the present Military Voters' Act, and repeals that Act. I may say further that this Bill, though it is intituled the Military Voters' Act, 1917, proceeds by adding its provisions to, and making them part 4 of the Dominion Elections	Act. This was found
convenient because, of course, save with regard to these exceptional dispositions, it is desirable that very many provisions of the Dominion Elections Act should apply wherever they are susceptible of application to the operations to be carried on under this Act. We think we have attained that result in a very effective, and at the same time most abbreviated manner by constituting the provisions of this Act part 4 of the Dominion Elections Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suggest to the Government that this Bill might be referred to a 'special committee after the second reading. The Prime Minister might consider that suggestion.


Samuel Hughes: Do I understand the Prime Minister to assent to the proposal that the Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice shall be referred to a special committee?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I said that I would take that into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent):: I desire to call the attention of the Government to a despatch from Washington dated August 12, which reads as follows:
U.S. Wheat Crop to Be Controlled-Elevators
and Mills Will Be Licensed-Keep Eye on
Exchanges and Middlemen.
Washington, Aug. 12.-The food administration announced to-night its plan for controlling wheat, flour and bread, revealing that the Government is prepared to take over the whole 1917 wheat harvest if necessary to conserve the supply, fighting forces and their allies, and reduce costs to the general public in the United States.
Establishing of buying agencies at all the principal terminals, licensing of elevators anji mills, fixing of a price to be considered fair, regulation of the middlemen, and of gi'ain exchanges, with the elimination of trading in futures, are the chief features of the plan. The licensing will begin September 1.
The minimum price of $2 for wheat fixed by Congress does not become effective until next year, but the administration proposes to exercise a very thorough control over this year's crop through powers conferred under the food and export control bills.
I ask the Government, in view of the fact that the wheat threshing throughout the province of Ontario is in progress at the present time, and the farmers and consumers, as well as the milling companies, are anxious to know if the Government purpose taking some similar action before the wheat crop is disposed of.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The extract from the paper which my hon. friend has read may be founded upon facts, or it may not. The legislation which has been held up so long in Congress has at last passed; the Bill has received the signature of the President, and is now in force; that is, power is given for the work of the Food Controller, who had been formerly appointed, and who now enters upon his labours. The grain supervisors who were appointed some ten days ago, and who have, in Canada, powers given them by the appointing Order in Council to

fix the price of wheat, have already acted, in so far as fixing the maximum price of wheat for last year's crop is concerned. They have deferred action with reference to this year's crop until the United States authorities have had their powers defined. It is the intention of both countries and of these two bodies in each country to cooperate and work along parallel lines. No decision, however, has been come to as yet with reference to what will eventually be done.



ENFORCEMENT OF CONSCRIPTION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: May I ask the Minister of Militia whether he is correctly reported in to-day's issues of Montreal and Ottawa papers as having said yesterday at Camp Borden:
We are going to put the Conscription Bill into force right away.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: Yes, that is correct.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Second reading of Bill No. 126, for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon.-Mr. Edwards.

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

Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is G. O. Aiken in the employ of the Government in Kingston?
2.	If so, what are his duties and his salary?
3.	When was he retired from the position of guard, and why?
4.	What was the date of his new appointment?
5.	Who previously performed the duties of the position to which Mr. Aiken has now been appointed?
6.	Why was not a returned soldier given this position?


Robert Laird Borden: We will have
an answer to this question on Wednesday.


ENLISTMENT OF ENEMY ALIENS.
Mr. MACNUTT:: Does the Government include the immediate descendants of naturalized persons of alien enemy birth who were born in Canada, in the policy of non-enlistment for combatant service, outlined by the Prime Minister of Wednesday, July 25, In reply to my question of Saturday, 21st of July, regarding enlistment of persons of foreign birth? '


Robert Laird Borden: The persons designated were not included in the answer which I gave on a previous occasion. As a .matter of fact, I understand that the descendants of naturalized persons of alien enemy birth have in some instances been accepted for military service under the voluntary system. So far as compulsory service is concerned, the circumstances of each case would, of course, have to be taken into consideration. I am speaking altogether of combatant service. For service other than combatant service, no question would arise.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS FIRE-INDEMNITIES FOR LOSSES.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Does the Government Intend to Indemnify those persons who have suffered loss by the fire at the Parliament Buildings?
2.	If so, will it he done during the present
session?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No claim for which legal liability exists has been presented. Certain claims with regard to which actioh might be justified on equitable or compassionate grounds are receiving the consideration of a special committee.
2.	It is expected decision w 11 be reached during the present session.
,THE FOOD CONTROLLER'S 'STAFF.


Mr. LANCTOT:: ,1'. Is there 'any regulation passed |by the Government whereby the latter undertakes not to appoint any one in its service, who is of military age?	,
2.	If so, why was W. A. Willison appointed on the staff of the Food Controller?
3.	Is he of military age and has he offered to enlist?
4.	If so, has he obtained a badge from the National Service Board, and on what grounds"
5.	What is his salary, and what was his occupation and salary before he was appointed to the public service?
6.	Is he the son of Sir John Willison, exeditor of the Toronto News?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	Yes, unless a badge has been issued him under Order in Council August 16, 1916.
2.	Appointed because of 'his special qualifications, .but being appointed to a temporary commission, he is not a member of the Civil Service.
3.	Yes, married, two children; only brother killed in action. Was in Great Britain as accredited war correspondent from September 15, 1914, to November 29, 1916, in which capacity he visited the Canadian front lines repeatedly, the British front on the Somme, the French front at

the invitation of the French Government, the British grand fleet and. battle cruiser squadron. He was accepted as part of the military establishment and entitled to wear uniform while in the war zone.
4.	No, and is prepared to do whatever further is required of him when his class is called.
5.	See answers to questions asked by Mr. Kay and Mr. Ross. Previous salary upwards of $4,000.
6.	Yes.


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has an assistant food controller been appointed?
2.	If so, what is his name, place of residence and previous occupation?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What was his previous salary?
5.	What are his special qualifications which induced the Government to appoint him?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is one Mr. Todd on the staff of the Food Controller?
2.	If so, what is his salary, and what was his previous occupation and salary?
3.	Is he of military age?
4.	If so, did he offer to enlist?
5.	If not, has he obtained a badge from the National Service Board, and on what ground were the regulations, if any, forbidding the employment by the Government of men of military age ignored?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Present salary and previous occupation: See answers to questions asked by Mr. Kay and Mr. Ross. Previous salary, $2,900 per annum and travelling expenses.
3.	Forty years of age and has nine immediate dependents.
4.	In answer to a questionnaire sent by the Ontario Government to all employees, he stated his willingness to enlist at any time that it appeared desirable that he should do' so, in his .circumstances.
5.	He has not obtained badge. As soon as his class is required for such service he is prepared to do whatever is desired of him. He was appointed because of his special qualifications, but being appointed to a temporary commission he is not a member of the Civil Service.


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is one Mr. French, or Trench, on the staff of the Food Controller?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	What was his previous salary and occupation?

4.	Is he of military age, and did he offer to
enlist?
5.	If not, has he obtained a badge from the National Service Board, and on what grounds were the regulations, if any, forbidding the employment by the Government of men of military age ignored?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See answers to questions asked by Mr. Kay and Mr. Ross.
3.	See answers to questions asked by Mr. Kay and Mr. Ross.
4.	Yes, married. While engaged in recruiting work he was examined by the doctor appointed to examine recruits and declared to be physically unfit owing to severe attacks of rheumatism.
5.	No. He is temporarily employed by the month to do special work for which his training particularly fitted him. He was appointed because of his special qualifications but being appointed to a temporary commission he is not a member of the Civil Service.


THE FOOD CONTROLLER'S OFFICES.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	How much floor space has been allowed to the Food Controller for his offices in Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost of the rent of it?
3.	What is the cost of alterations or repairs to the rooms?
4.	What is the cost of the furniture bought for these offices, and what is the price paid for the carpets?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	Rooms, 4,422 square feet. The offices provide for staff, stenographers, etc., Government employees transferred from other departments to take up special work for the food controller and for the many persons from different parts of Can-
4 p.m. ada doing voluntary work, such as chairman and members of committees dealing with special problems, and committee rooms for the Central Advisory Council and special committees.
2.	Twenty-five hundred dollars per annum, lessor to pay all taxes, provide heating and elevator service ; lessor also to clean and tint offices and make necessary repairs to floors, etc.
3.	Alterations or repairs consist of the erection of one partition and the building of a cabinet around the telephone switchboard. This work is being done by the Department of Public Works and is not yet completed.
4.	Furniture and carpets supplied by the
Department of Public Works, a large portion being loaned from the Public Works store room.	[DOT]


THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General still doing some recruiting in Montreal?
2.	What is the amount of his travelling and living expenses since he started his work of recruiting?
3.	What is the amount of the travelling and living expenses of his private secretary for the same period?
4.	Has he also a military secretary?
5.	Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to relinquish both his portfolio and salary when he goes overseas with his recruits?
6.	When does he expect to go?
7.	Is he furnished with an automobile, and by what department?
8.	If so, what has been the cost to the country of the chauffeur and fuel since he has been using it?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	None.
Rank, Name and Duties.
3.	None.
4.	No,
5 and 6. Any necessary announcement will be made in due course.
7.	No.
8.	None.


MEDICAL OFFICERS IN MILITIA,
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many medical men are employed by
the Government or the Militia Department in and about Ottawa?	.
2.	What are their names, duties and salaries?
3.	Up to the present time, what amount has been paid to each?


Albert Edward Kemp: The answers to the above questions, so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned, are as follows:
1.	13, exclusive of headquarters staff.
2	and 3.
Salary Amount Paid Per Anum. to Date.
Lt.-Col. J. F. Argue, Pres. Standing Medical Board, officer
Lt.-Col"1jn LHChabot, officer in charge Water Street hospital Lt -Col. G. S. McCarthy, officer in charge St. Luke s fcpsp tai. Major R. Law, officer commanding No. 2 Field Ambulance, and medical officer, Water Street Hospital [DOT] [DOT]	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] * *
Major F. W. McKinnon, medical officer, St. Lukes Hospital.. . Major T. H. Leggatt, medical officer, Protestant General Hosp.tal.
Capt. R. E. Valin, medical officer, Water Street Hospital	
Capt J H Laidlaw, Medical Boards, base recruiting office ..	.
Cant H McLeod, Medical Boards, base recruiting office	
Cant A P. Davies, Medical Boards, base recruiting office	 Lt.-Col. J. W. Shil ington, medical officer, Signaling Training Depot
Lieut. G. Morin, ear specialist .. ,	'	
Capt. A. F. McLaren, eye specialist


$2,372.00 2.372.00 2.646.00 2.007.00 2.007.00 2.007.00 1.642.00 1.642.00 1.916.00 1.642.00 1.095.00 1.096.00 $4,677.15 3.544.00 3.726.00 3.304.00 3.272.00 1.704.00 1.134.00 1,375.50 1,433.25 153.00 3.790.00 450.00 1.095.00 CANADIANS OF ALIEN BIRTH.
Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	Will the Government say if the Allies will permit any Canadian of alien birth to take part in overseas military operations?
2.	If not, does the Canadian Government propose to conscript such aliens?
3.	Does the Government propose to take any measures looking to the prevention of fsaid, electors of alien birth from voting for the conscription or otherwise of Canadian citizens not of alien birth?
4 If so, will the Government call the attention of those of alien birth to the manifest unfairness of their voting for or against conscription?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes. Under the provisions of Orders in Council dated April 18, 1917, P.C. 1091, and May 18, 1917, P.C. 1362, he is entitled t-o receive, for a period of three months from the daite of his being struck off the strength of the C.E.F., the pay of his rank, field pay and separation allowance.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Struck off strength of C.E.F., 8th June, 1917.
6.	Answered by No. 3.


MAJOR MOXOM.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Is Major Moxom, of the 106th Battalion, on leave of absence in Canada?
2.	If so, when was the leave granted, and is the same still in force?


INTERCOLONIAL. RAILWAY-WORK AT BOISDALE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McKE'NZIE:
1.	Who was the contractor for the building of the I.C.R. at Boisdale, Cape Breton County, in 1916?

[Stage Direction]
2.	What was the amount of the contract?
3.	Who were the other parties from whom tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Rhodes, Curry & Company, Limited.
2.	$5,171.
3.	Messrs. Hector, James & John McNeil, Sydney Mines, N.S., $6,400; Messrs. A. L. Murry & Thos. D. Morrison, Trenton, N.S., $7,885.
After the date had expired for receiving tenders and those duly received had been passed upon, two others came in, too late to be dealt with, as the abstract and tenders, which were received within the date called for, had already been sent to the general manager at Moncton.
DR. B. A. LEBLANC. [DOT]


Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What is the amount of pay and allowance and monthly separation allowance paid to Dr. B. A. Leblanc, Arichat, Richmond County, Nova Scotia, since his appointment with the Army Medical Service Corps?
2.	What is his rank, and date of appointment?
Sir EDWARD KEMP *
1.	Pay, and allowances, $624.50 No separation allowance paid.
2.	This officer was appointed a lieutenant (supernumerary) in the Army Medical corps on 28th February, 1917, and a captain in the Canadian Expeditionary Force on the 30th June, 1917.


MAJOR BARTLETT.
*Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What rank does Major Bartlett, of Charlottetown, P.E.I., hold in the Militia Department?
2.	What pay or remuneration does an officer of his rank receive?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Major A. A. Bartlett holds the rank of major on the Corps Reserve of the Prince Edward Island Heavy Brigade, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
2.	$4 a day.


NAVAL SERVICE AND MASTER MARINERS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many master mariners are in the pay of tlie Naval Service Department in the city of Halifax who are not actually in command of vessels ?
2.	Where are they maintained?
3.	How much is paid each of them per-month ?
4.	How much has been paid to August 1st, on this account?
5.	What is paid for the' use of the Acadian Hotel in this connection?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1 and 2.	47 skippers, having sea-going
or coasting certificates and 35 mates with master's or mate's sea-going certificates, are under training at Halifax in H.M.C.S. Niobe.	,
3.	Skippers, $3.50 per diem; mates, $2.50 per diem.
4.	The pay and expenses of skippers and mates in training is not kept as a special account.
5.	The Acadian Hotel is rented at $300 per month, for housing surplus officers from
H.	M.C.S. Niobe.


$100,000,000 LOAN.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What are the net proceeds of the loan for $100,000,000 for two years which has lately been arranged in New York?
2.	What is the rate of interest the purchasers of the same will receive?
3.	How much has been naid for commissions and other charges?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	$96,250,000.
2.	6.077 per cent.
3.	About 1J per cent.


CAPT. KENNETH C. MACPHERSON.
Mr. PROULX:: Referring to the answers of the Honourable the Minister of Militia, in Unrevised Hansard of Thursday, August 9, 1917, relative to the employment of Captain Kenneth C. Macpher-son.
1.	What amount has been paid Captain Maephersou to date?
2.	In what capacity or rank did he go overseas?
3.	What active service did he perform in France or Flanders? *
4.	Was Captain Macpherson wounded? If so, when, and in what action?
5.	How long did Captain Macpherson remain overseas, and what was the reason for his return?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	$5,458.75 from '1st December, 1914, to 31st July, 1917.
2.	Paymaster, 2nd Divisional Engineers.
3.	Paymaster, 2nd Divisional Engineers.
4.	No.
5.	Eleven months: Recalled for duty at Militia Headquarters, Ottawa, 10th February, 1916.


CHARLES PERCY PLAXTON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAN'CTOT:
I.	What position does Mr. Chas. Percy Plax-ton, mentioned in the circular of the Minister of Justice to the Members of the House of Commons, dated August 10, 1917, occupy?
2. What salary does he receive, and how long has he occupied this position?

3.	Where was he born, and In what year?
4.	What was his occupation before entering the service of the Department of Justice?
5.	What. military experience has he had, if any, and in what country?
6.	Is he an expert in matters of conscription?
7.	Upon whose recommendation was he appointed to this position?
8.	Has he volunteered for service overseas?
Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Legal officer in Department of Justice.
2.	$2,100. Since November 16, 1915.
3.	At Barrie, Ont., in 1889.
4.	Practised law at Toronto.
5.	None.
6.	No. Mr. Paxton has simply been detailed to receive information for the use of the department, to enaible it to meet local conditions and convenience.
7.	This is not a new position at all. He was origin-ally appointed to the department on the recommendation of the minister.
8.	Yes.


NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANC'TOT:
1.	Is the Hon. Sir W. T. White still secretary of the National Trust Company, Limited, and still a director of said Trust Company?
2.	Is Sir Joseph W. Flavelle still president and director of said Trust?
3.	Is Z. A. Lash, of Toronto, chief counsel of the Canadian Northern and of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, still vice-president and director of the National Trust Company, Limited?
4.	Is Sir A. E. Kemp, Minister of Militia, still a director of the National Trust Company, Limited?
5.	Is Sir William Mackenzie, President of the Canadian Northern Railway, still a director of the National Trust Company?
6.	Were the above named gentlemen occupying said positions referred to, in 1914, and until what date?
7.	Was there an agreement entered into between the National Trust Company, Limited, the Government of Canada, and the Canadian Northern Railway for the marketing of the bonds guaranteed by the Canadian Government for $45,000,000 in 1914?
8.	Has the said National Trust Company disposed of all the bonds they subscribed to?
9.	If not, what is the amount of same left on their hands?
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Sir Thomas White severed his connection with the company in 1911 and resigned from the board of directors.
2.	Yes.	*
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	Sir Joseph Flavelle, Mr. Z. A. Lash and Sir Edward Kemp occupied the positions mentioned in 1914.
7.	No. The trust deed of 1914, securing the issue of Canadian Northern Railw-ay
Company securities mentioned, appointed the trust company as one of the trustees . for the bondholders. The trustees have nothing to do with the marketing of the securities which were held to be sold by the Canadian Northern Railway Company subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance or the Governor in Council as to price, terms and time or times of issue.
8 and 9. No information as to any such subscription by the trust company.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the number of Commissions appointed by the present Government since it came into power?
2.	What is the purpose for which each of these commissions have been appointed?
3.	What are the names of the commissioners and other officers employed by each commission?
4.	What salary has been given to each of these commissioners and officers?
5.	How long have each of these commissions been employed for the special objects for which they have been appointed?


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What are the different amounts paid for commissions and expenses in connection with the flotation of the different loans made by Canada since 1914?
2.	What are the respective amounts paid in connection with each loan?



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways), Bill No. 118, to amend the Government Railways Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), Bill No. 123, respecting live stock, was read the second time, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 122, respecting the Minister of the Overseas Military Forces, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, and the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for External Affairs.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity of

being in the House when this Bill was introduced last week, and I desire to say that the matters involved in this measure are very far-reaching in their character. The proposition that the military control of our forces overseas should be under the direction, not of a military officer but of a civil officer, who would be an overseas Minister of Militia, does not seem to me to be the proper method of dealing with the problem. If we look at the conditions that exist in the other overseas dominions with reference to the control of the men who have gone across the ocean, we find that the direction of their forces is administered by military officers. In Australia, which has sent a great number of men across the ocean, the General Officer Commanding the forces there before the war is the man who is in control of everything in connection with their disposition and management the-e in conjunction with the High Commissioner of Australia, who, I assume, looks after civil matters. The House and the. country are aware of the fact that during the last year complaints of the most serious character have 'been made as to the methods of administration of the troops across the ocean. Every hon. gentleman who ihas been in touch with men who have returned from the other side know 'that complaints have been made by our men [DOT]with reference to the way in which Sir George Perley, who is minister overseas, deals with these questions. Sir George Perley may be a very clever man, but the problem of dealing with men who are going to fight is of such a character that I do not care how clever a man may be whose training has been wholly in business and civil life, he cannot possibly, if he is the "last word" and final director of matters, be as good a person to deal with these questions as a man of military experience would be. Yet it has been found necessary by the Government to urge upon the House and the country that Sir George Perley, who knows nothing about military matters, and who, I presume, does not pretend to know anything about military matters, should be the man to direct all such matters overseas.
In. connection with the direction of this war we in Canada .are in a very peculiar position. I have frequently referred in this House to the fact that since the war began we have not had any General Officer Commanding who has had any distinctive position or military record, or who has been in such a position

that the country and those interested in the boys who have gone overseas can feel that, so far as all our military dispositions are concerned, we have had that proper control which will givie the best results. We all know of the several men who have been sent over by Great Britain, by arrangement with this Government and the previous Government, to fulfil the position of General Officer Commanding in Canada. We had General Mackenzie, who returned shortly before the war; we had General Lake, we had Lord Dundonald and various other men who had military training .and experience in Great Britain, and who occupied this office and wiho were known throughout the country by every one connected with military matters as having special knowledge and fitness for the position. But in Canada to-day the man who is in charge of the whole military forces of the country is General Gwatkin, who was not a general at all until after the war began. We have in the person of our hon. friend the present Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kenp), a gentleman w'ho, according to the rule of the statute, deals with the civil side-if the expression may be properly used-of the administration of military matters. But General Gwatkin, who was a Colonel employed simply in a subordinate position in the Militia Department when the war broke out, 'has, so far as any one in Canada who knows anything about military matters is concerned, not exercised any direction with reference to the mobilization of our forces, nor in regard to other military matters, nor has he appeared in any of the camps throughout the Dominion to deal with or control operations. He seems to have taken it for granted that what we can do in Canada is simply to take our boys with all their cleverness, ability and brightness, and with all the bravery that they have shown on the battlefield, and to assume that the science of war is a science that any one can master, and that there is no necessity for 'having their direction and control properly secured. In South Africa General Smuts and General Botha were men who had had experience in war, and whose judgment and direction controlled the forces of that country. In Canada we have never pretended in any way, so far as military control is concerned, to have any one in charge of the military forces of this country, except General Gwatkin.
Mr. R. B. BENNETT. He was Chief of the General Staff.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Under whom?


Albert Edward Kemp: Under the Minister of Militia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before the war General Mackenzie was the General Officer Commanding until General Gwatkin was subsequently appointed. General Mackenzie retired and went to England. Up to that time General Gwatkin was employed in a certain position in the Militia Department-I think in regard to artillery or something of that kind.


Samuel Hughes: General Gwatkin
came out here some years ago as an officer under General Lake. When General Mackenzie retired, I was Minister of Militia, and the British Government objected to recommending General Gwatkin as being fit for the position as Chief of the General Staff, to which position I purposed appointing him. They stated that 'he was not competent for the position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They objected to it?


Samuel Hughes: They objected to it. They stated he was not competent for the position. I informed them that was the reason I wanted him, and that I did not want any fellow there with their ideas; I wanted some man who did what he was told, and who did not profess to have those fancy notions of his own. I found I made a mistake. I was right in the fact that he did not know much, but I was wrong in thinking that he would not interfere.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am very much
obliged to my hon. friend for the information. The result is, we have now in charge of the military forces in Canada a man who, the British Government intimated, was not competent for the war office, and we find that the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia who, notwithstanding the position taken by the British Government thought he was competent, now admits his mistake. I dc not think my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia will claim he is possessed of any special military knowledge. Under the statute his duties relate to the civil side of the department. Why is it, if for over three years every other dominion has had men who knew their business, men of military training, actually directing their military affairs, this has not -been the case in Canada? Our boys are directed and controlled by a man to whom the British Government objected as not being competent. They go overseas, and who is the general commanding them there? Who is the man in control of the military institutions of Canada on the other side?


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: General Turner.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, not General
Turner. The man in charge of everything military there is Sir George Perley. I understand that General Turner is under Sir George Perley. By this measure, it is proposed to create a Minister of Militia Overseas, who shall have directions of all matters with reference to our troops, and our boys there shall be under his dictum and direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the hon. gentleman aware that under a former Minister of Militia and Defence, General Dun-donald was removed from his position because he undertook to deal with matters which it was said should be dealt with only by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia and Defence, and is not the hon. member aware that that policy has been followed since?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
speaking of the piping times of peace. We should have the direction and assistance of the best military aides we could get anywhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we have it in General Turner, overseas.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But, I am speaking of Canada, and my bon. friend was speaking of Canada. We have heard the admission of the ex-Minister of Militia that the man in charge is .a man who, the British Government said, was incompetent. My hon. friend (iMr. R. B. Bennett) interrupts and says that General Turner was in charge overseas. The man whom it is proposed to put in charge under this Bill is Sir George Perley, who has, as a matter of fact, been in charge ever since General Carson retired. Under this Bill it is proposed to provide that so far as overseas affairs are concerned we are to have a separate department of the Government over there, and Sir George Perley is to be in control. I venture to say that with the admitted conditions we have in Canada, the military aid we can give to the Allies in this cause is not aid which will be enhanced by the direction of Sir George Perley and the coterie he has around him. I noticed in Hansard the other day a statement made by the exMinister of Militia in regard to the tremendous number of people gathered in and around London in connection with the administration of the office.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Twelve hundred he
said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Every one who has been interested in the hoys over there, or who has had friends over there, or who has spoken to the men who have returned, knows that continuous complaints have been made in regard to the way in which matters have been administered under Sir George Perley. So far as concerns the direction and arrangement of our gallant sons is concerned, it is time Canada should have the best military control to be found anywhere. The country expects it, and will be disappointed if it is not given. Owing to the fact that the war is on, and means of communication are necessarily uncertain, and because of parliamentary rules with reference to what may be made public, we have not all the information we might have, but, so far as we know our condition will not be enhanced, and the interests of the boys in the fighting line will not be improved, if the administration is left in the hands of Sir George Perley. I object to the principle of the Bill and to the proposition that military control of our forces overseas should be perpetuated in the hands of Sir George Perley.
With reference to the appointment of under-secretaries,. I noticed the other day an hon. gentleman on the other side took . the position that when men are appointed to public places in this democratic country, it is not a justification of the appointment to say they are doing the work for nothing. If that were to be the rule, only men of wealth could render public service hereafter. If we are to be told that the man who is going to take the position will render the service for nothing, then we have reached a point where the poor man is to be proscribed. If the man of ability, energy and capacity who can render service is not to be employed, because, forsooth, there is another man prepared to perform the service for nothing, we have a condition of affairs which should not exist. I submit, this whole legislation is not in the interests of the country. I submit, if the Minister of Militia had a proper military head working in conjunction with him, he would not need any military under-secretary, and if the military organization of the country had been arranged properly, or is arranged properly now-and it is not too late to rearrange it-there would be no need for a military secretary. And it would be no -ustification for ihis appointment, to say that ne was not going to accept any pay. The neriousness of the situation demands that
[Mr. Macdonald.!
we should have the very best brains and ability at the service of the country, and the fact alone that a man is willing to perform the "service for nothing is no justification for his appointment, yet that is all that is put forward in support of this change. If Canada only knew the absolute impossibility of well-directed efforts along proper lines under the conditions we have to-day, so far as our military organization is concerned, she would rouse herself to see to it that a change is made. At this moment, with all the seriousness of the war before us, and facing the tremendous possibilities of death and carnage every day, we are in the position that we have as our military head a man whom the British Government declared to be incompetent, and we are putting in permanent charge of our military organization a man who knows nothing about military affairs.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mt. Speaker, I would like to be permitted to renew the objection I made the other day, not so much to the creation of the o'fice-I understand tne course has been decided upon by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister-but to the acceptance of offices of emolument toy the new overseas minister and the under-secretaries without going before their electors. I believe, notwithstanding the precedent cited by the right hon. gentleman the other day, that it does not exactly fit the situation in Canada. I think my right hon. friend should revise his opinion and that, if he decides to create these offices, the gentlemen who are going to be appointed, one the overseas minister, and the others under-secretaries, should follow the time-honoured practice and return to their electors for their endor.sation. It is a leap in the dark; too great, too serious, a departure from the spirit of the British constitution and of British institutions for us to make. I do not see how it could prejudice the hon. gentlemen who are to be the appointees of the Government to take the course I propose. It is admitted that Parliament will soon be at an end by the effluxion of time; that dissolution is not far off, and therefore the hon. gentlemen wiho have served as under-secretaries and as the overseas minister could well afford to continue to serve without accepting emoluments Until the election takes place. I quite understand it would be rather useless to hold a by-election at this time for these gentlemen, but the Government should not do away in such a light manner with the principle, so old and so wise, that any one receiving

emoluments should seek re-election from his constituents. I do not know how any one would be injured if my suggestion were accepted.
We have had the statement from my right hon. friend that Sir George Perley is serving his country and accepting nothing for his services. We have it from my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) that he will not accept any emolument. Under these circumstances it seems to me that no harm would be done if the offices are created, but if the principle of re-election in the case of the acceptance of emoluments is adhered to. I share the view expressed the other day by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and by my hon. friend from Frontenac ()Mr. Edwards), /that no one should be appointed to such responsible positions as those referred to in the present Bill without accepting the emoluments attached to the position. As it has been stated since, it is not right that public offices should be given to the millionaire class only. A man who accepts a position under the Crown on these conditions is likely to regard himself as his own master, whilst the spirit of British institutions is that a public officer, a minister of the Crown, is not his own master but is the servant Off the people and of the Crown. I most strenuously object to the appointment of millionaires who will refuse to accept the emoluments, not because I do not admire their magnanimity, but because it is against the best interests of the country that positions or offices should be given to the wealthy only-who sometimes may not be the best choice- and should not be given to the men of ordinary means who may have the desire and ambition to serve King and country.
These are my objections to this proposal. I am not at all criticising the measure with reference to personalities. The gentlemen who are being selected under the new Bill as overseas minister and as under secretaries are personal friends of mine. Although I do' not believe that Sir George Perley was the best choice of the Government yet, personally, as he is a friend of mine, I am very glad to see him where he is. But we should not, because of personal friendship, depart from the principle of the British constitution, namely, that any onp receiving emolument under the Crown, as a minister or under secretary, should meet his electors.
280i
In the case of Sir George Perley, it is remarkable that he was elected in 1911 and was selected by my right hon. friend to be minister without portfolio representing the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. Immediately afterwards, upon the death of Lord Strathcona he went to England and assumed there the office of High Commissioner for Canada. Meanwhile he came back to Canada and on different occasions replaced the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) temporarily
We hardly see him in the House, and certainly his electors do not see him. Since that time he returned to England, where he discharged the duties of High Commissioner, and ihe has now been made Overseas Minister of Militia and Defence, and the country has seen absolutely nothing of him. Somebody must speak for his electors in this matter. I have had occasion to meet the electors of the county of Argen-teuil within the last few months. An opponent has been selected in the person of Mr. McGibbon, a farmer of Argenteuil. The term of Parliament has expired, and we have given an extension of one year. Surely it is not during that year of extension that we shall give Sir George Perley an appointment with emoluments, and at the same time allow him to receive such emoluments without going 'before his electors. I say in all sincerity and in all earnestness that this is going too far and that the people of the country will resent that treatment. I do not see why, because we are at war, Sir George Perley should not come back to Canada and face his electors. What objection is there to that procedure? Further, he may not come back at all. The county may be opened to-morrow, and it would be as easy to proceed with an election there as it will be to proceed with me vote of the soldiers at the next general election.
I repeat that it is a great mistake, and it is an encroachment on the rights of the people to allow a new minister of the Crown or an under-secretary who will receive emoluments to accept such an office without appearing before his electors. As the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said the other day, it is true that in England, when the present Government was reorganized, for a certain determined period of time the old practice was suspended. But we have seen of late new ministers selected by the Prime Minister of England, men of great reputation

and great prestige, like Mr. Churchill, obliged to return before their electors. A day or two ago Mr. Henderson resigned. No one will for a moment suggest that in England the affairs of State are not far more important than they are in Canada owing to the entanglement in which the whole British Empire is at present and the fact that everything is centralized in London from all parts of the world; and yet I contend that the successor of the Hon. Mr. Henderson will be obliged, in spite of the stress of time and circumstances to go before his electors, whether there is a big offensive in the East or whether there is a big offensive in the West. I appeal to the right hon. gentleman and ask him not to create that dangerous precedent in Canada.


Hon.   S@: May I ask the Prime Minister for an interpretation of the words '"by commission" in section 1, subsection 5a: "There shall be a Minister of the Overseas Military Affairs who shall be appointed by commission."


Robert Laird Borden: It places him in the same position as the other ministers. All ministers are appointed by commission under the Governor General's hand and the great seal of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: When General Carson was appointed to this position he was not appointed by commission.


Robert Laird Borden: He was not a minister.


Samuel Hughes: And why add the words "and shall be a minister of the Crown"?


Robert Laird Borden: Because the intention was to make him a minister of the Crown. [DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Why not let it be "there shall be a Minister of Overseas Military Affairs who shall be appointed and he shall be a minister of the Crown"? What would be the difference between that and the present reading?


Robert Laird Borden: There would be really no difference except that it is desirable to make it plain that he shall be appointed in the same way as other ministers are appointed.


Samuel Hughes: ing an autocracy by the simple dictum of the Cabinet of -Canada? Appoint him to some position. If it is essential that a good officer should be appointed, let General Turner have the position. He is a -good officer, and every one has confidence in him. Let him act as an officer under the present Minister of Militia in Canada, and you will find much more harmony and much more execution, the soldiers will be better looked after, and there will be much more satisfaction throughout. In reference to the question of " no pay ", I do not wish to bring in the personal matter, but I may say I was more or less surprised at my good friend the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy), bringing up the matter in the House, and saying he was not going to take pay. Lord Strathcona represented the country for many years and did not accept pay, -but he did not advertise it from the housetops.
Mr, BENNETT:	The cheques for his
salary were all paid after he died.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad to hear
they were paid. His executors did the proper thing. There was no advertising done about it. I presume the cheques were lying around, and some one picked them up for him, but I want to point out that when matters are brought up concerning this office overseas, people will say, " Oh, well no-w, do not say anything about it, because Sir -George Perley is not taking pay for his work That has 'been placarded from one end of Canada to the other. The consequence is that people feel called upon to say, " This gentleman has done something great for Canada in refusing to take his pay". Supposing his salary is $10,000, a year, and he has been there five or six years, that -would amount to $50,000 or $60,000.
I know a gentleman not far from the sound of my voice to-day, who is well informed in matters connected with this war, who will say that in one week this country lost ten times that amount through the maladministration of this gentleman. Yet we are debarred from exercising the control that we should exercise as members of this House and as followers of a party in power because, forsooth, he does not accept his salary. I hope that no gentleman in this House will ever make it a boast-I will not, at all events-that he is taking a job without salary, because if he did I should be somewhat suspicious that he was after a knighthood or something of that kind. Such gentlemen would be after something other than the welfare of the community.

An hon. gentleman says that I do not think much of the knighthood. I do tnink a good deal of knighthood when it is earned. I want to see the gentleman in Canada who has in greater degree earned his knighthood than your humble servant has. When the Prime Minister replies, will he tell me whether this condition will exist only during the period of the war, or is it to be for all time? In other words, are we to keep this distinguished gentleman there? Why not make it a job that he shall have by divine right, or something of that kind?


George Perry Graham: Is it hereditary?


Samuel Hughes: Yes-is it hereditary? I have had a good' deal to do with the appointing of officers to responsible positions during this war, and I challenge any one to show where personal friendship has been allowed to come in. Where personal friendship was involved as against an enemy, the ability in each case being equal, the gentleman who was my personal friend got recognition; I have no hesitation in saying that. But where personal friendship was the only recommendation, I challenge any one to find out where any such officer was recognized. On the contrary, unfortunately, I can point to cases where personal friends and gentlemen seeking to exercise personal friendship fought for positions and were denied them, enmity being thereby incurred. If Sir George Perley is to be kept overseas in his present position, certainly he will not be kept there on account of his worth; certainly he will not be kept there on account of the respect in which he is held by the soldiers. If he is kept there, it will be on account of personal friendship; and as an advocate of representative government I protest against this law being passed in his interest. If it is determined that he shall remain there, let him give up the position of minister of the Crown. Let us not violate the constitution. Let him accept the position as an officer of this Government in order that he may perform whatever duties appertain to the office; then his salary can be paid him and it will not be necessary to deface the statute-book of our country by passing a law of this kind.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: I had not intended to speak on the second reading of this Bill until I heard the speech of the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). In his statement, as well as in answers received from the Government and from hon. gentlemen on the other side who have knowledge concerning

military matters, it was stated that the general officer commanding had never been under fire, and consequently did not have the experience necessary to the performance of the duties of such a high, onerous and responsible position. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam. Hughes) has stated that when this officer was nominated by him for that very high position, the military authorities in England said that he was not fit for the office. The ex-minister further said that he overruled that advice and appointed this man to the position in question. This is a matter of great importance, demanding some explanation from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Militia and the Government generally.
If there is any time when we should have talent of the highest character for a position of that kind, certainly it is during a time of war. In time of peace the administration of the Militia Department is a matter of training, and, to a great extent, of outings, exercises and good time3-I do not begrudge that to those who take upon themselves the responsibility of joining the militia. Under these conditions, the character of the officer commanding is not, perhaps, so very important. But when we are up against the cannon's mouth, when we are fighting enemies like Germany and Austria, our boys who go to the front should, in their training, be given the benefit of the very best talent and 5 p.m. Should be afforded every protection that can possibly be thrown about them. When we are told that the general officer commanding, responsible for the important duties to be discharged in connection with the work to which I have referred, was rejected by the military authorities in England, I can find no excuse for the Government's accepting him and holding him in the responsible position which he holds to-day and has held ever since the war broke out. The exMinister of Militia has just said that all members of the Government should not be generally responsible for administration of different departments, that the officers of each department should be responsible to the head, but that there should be no general responsibility on the part of the Government for the actions of each minister. That is not the constitution of this country, nor the practice of government in Great Britain; the whole Government are held responsible for the acts of one minister; the responsibility is general all around. I submit, therefore, that the Prime Minister
and those who sit around him are responsible to the people and must share the blame for having accepted the recommendation of the Minister of Militia for the appointment of a man who was evidently unfit for the position.
Reason my be found in this for the many irregularities and difficulties that have been experienced in this country since the war broke out-in connection with which, as we know, the Prime Minister, at least in one case, took very drastic action. There have been irregularities; there has been maladministration; things have been going wrong. One glaring oase was brought to the attention of the House to-day. On one occasion the second contingent was held up in Canada for four months foT reasons that were never satisfactorily explained. It is possible that this functionary, who, not having knowledge of or qualification for his position, did not see to it that the contingent was immediately sent forward and was responsible for this delay. It is possible that his inefficiency and the fact that he was subservient to the wishes of other people-particularly to the wishes of those who appointed him though not qualified-were causes for the action which was taken in connection with the second contingent.
I do not desire to introduce any aeri-mordoue debate by going over a list of the different shortcomings of the Government in connection with this matter.
But the people of this country will readily understand why things have gone wrong and matters have not been properly handled, when they learn that we have at the head of military affairs a man who does not know anything about his business, whom the British War Office refused to recommend for the position, but who was put into the position evidently over their heads. If we had a case in which we required a doctor, would we call in a man who was not a doctor? If we wanted a lawyer to plead a case of a serious character, would we engage a man who was not a lawyer? And the same is true of all the other classes of people who require qualifications of the highest character. But in a greater case than one requiring the services of a doctor or a lawyer, in a case requiring the services of a general officer commanding our army in the awful crisis which we have been facing for the last three years, we have, on the admission of the Government to-day, a man who evidently knew nothing whatever about the business, and

who was turned down by the British War Office as not being fit for the position. Such a condition of affairs requires some explanation before we go any further in spending money in regard to the management of matters in the hands of people who evidently have not the proper knowledge or training to fulfil the functions of the important positions they hold. We have the statement made here to-day by the exMinister of Militia of $100,000 being lost, or ten times whatever might be his salary, through the maladministration of a man who was not very well qualified for his position. But if we had a man who was not qualified, even if he received no salary at all, his inefficiency might cost this country hundreds of thousands, aye, millions of dollars. That is what is going to be brought about by appointing to office men who are not fit for their positions. They may be good men for other lines of business, but war is a particular class of work which requires a particular class of training. The fact that a man may have a good business head so far as other affairs are concerned does not give one any guarantee that he is a good general or a good handler of soldiers.
So far as the general management of the Militia Department and the war is concerned, I, as an elector of this country and a member of this House, am not satisfied with the condition of things. We expect in a government the greatest confidence as between themselves. There may be frictions, but those frictions must give way, and the general action of the Government must be absolutely unanimous. There must be to the outside world evidences of conclusions reached by the unanimous judgment of the council before actions of the greatest importance are submitted to the country. Since the war broke out, the most important department of government has been the Militia Department, but we have had for some time before us the clearest evidence that that department was broken in two without the slightest consultation beforehand with the head of that department. We find the authority of the Minister of Militia in our overseas military affairs, all the arrangements which he had made for proper communication between his office at Ottawa and the management of the troops overseas smashed without any knowledge at all on his part. We have him lifted out of office, and his position made impossible by the appointment of a minister on the other side of the water and of a secretary here. We have, indeed, the ex-Minis-

ter of Militia put into the position of the rascally, disobedient and rebellious tenant, who refuses to give up his house. The doors are taken out; the windows are taken out; and the top is tom off the chimney, so that the place is made absolutely uninhabitable, and he must leave. That is the sort of structure that was gathered around the head of the ex-Minister of Militia, so that he had to go out. He was fumigated out and smoked out, without his consent. That seems to be the condition of things prevailing in this Government, and we have no explanation in regard to it. The ex-Minister of Militia has been throwing bricks and books and all sorts of things at the Government since he came out, but nobody replies at all, the Government evidently thinking that silence is golden, and that no matter what reply might be made, it is better to keep quiet. The way in which the Militia Department and the administration of the war is handled does not show unity of purpose. Pt is only fair to point out their faults to the Government, in a mild way, as I am doing now, and to hope, in the future, at all events for the little future they may have, that they will be careful and penitent and lead a better life.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to pose before this House as having any special knowledge with regard to military matters-


George Perry Graham: Except the navy.
.Mr. HAZEN: -or as being an expert with regard to land forces at all, but I have been somewhat surprised at the statement made this afternoon as to the capacity of General Gwatkin as Chief of the General Staff. There were two different periods when I was acting as Minister of Militia during the absence of the hon. member for Victoria and Halrburton (Sir Sam Hughes). I met at that time General Gwatkin, who, hon. gentlemen are aware, was in the Militia Department before this Government came into power, and who, when General Mackenzie .retired, was promoted to the higher position on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia. I came into contact with General Gwatkin daily for a period covering several months at meetings of the Militia Council and in other ways. As Chief of the General Staff, General Gwatkin has charge of the mobilization and training of the men who belong to the Canadian forces preparatory to their going overseas. From my observations I came to the conclusion that General Gwatkin

was an excellent officer. I found him extremely industrious, a most hardworking man who was in his office day and night.
I further found him possessed, so far as I was capable of judging, of admirable knowledge with regard to all military matters, and I thought he was one of the most valuable officers in the employ of the Militia Department of this country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Granted all that, is it
true that the British War Office refused to recommend him?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know whether that is true or not; I have heard that statement to-day for the first time. He was, as my hon. friends know, in the Militia Department when we came into power, and he was subsequently promoted. He has done admirable work; he has rendered good service to this country; he has discharged his duties with ability. He possesses the requisite knowledge, so far as the military end is concerned, and he has discharged those duties in a way which is satisfactory. He hae given very valuable services to this country for any remuneration he has received.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think so, too.


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot understand the
statement made that he was not recommended by the British Government because, at one period when I was acting as Minister of Militia, a despatch was received asking that General Gwatkin and the gentleman who was then Commandant of the Royal Military College at Kingston should both be returned, as their services were required on the other side by the British Government.
I took the opportunity at that time of notifying the British authorities that I thought it would be impossible for us to get along satisfactorily in the Militia Department without General Gwatkin's services, unless they were prepared to give us some one equally competent who would take his place, and who could discharge the duties of the position he was filling. The fact that the British War Office asked that he should be returned for the purpose of doing service on the other side in connection with the war, and that it was owing to our protest he was not returned, is, I think, strong evidence that he was held in high regard by the War Office and the British Government.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask my hon. friend at what period that was? Was it while I was minister, and where was I?


John Douglas Hazen: I was acting as Minister of Militia. I think it was during the time my hon. friend was on the other side. What I have said was my opinion at the time, and was an opinion formed after consulting men who knew far more about military matters than I do. I understand General Gwatkin was held in very high regard as a soldier by one of the best soldiers who ever was in Canada, I refer to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, who was Governor General of this country for five years, and who fulfilled his functions so satisfactorily.
Reference was made to the large number employed on the other side in connection with military matters, as compared with the smaller number employed in the past. I hope before Parliament prorogues we shall have the exact figures, and know how many Canadians have been employed in connection with the military offices in London and on the other side generally. When I was in London on a recent trip to the Imperial Conference, I availed myself of every opportunity of visiting the different offices in which matters connected with the militia of Canada were being administered. There are a large number of officers and others employed, for instance, at the pay offices at Millbank, which is in charge of Colonel Ross. I went through the offices with Colonel Ross, and spoke to him about the number employed. I said, "There seem to be a great many people here, and they all appear to be very busy." His reply was, "Oh, yes, and there is not a man too many; we have to keep accounts of over 300,000 men; our correspondence is simply enormous. In the British War Office they do not pretend to answer the letters we answer here. Their letters are simply filed away.
Here we make it a point to answer any letter written us in the interests of any Canadian, or with regard to any Canad;an, or on any subject in which any Canadian is interested in this department. We could not get along with one man less." I think there were about 500 employed in the department. Colonel Ross added " As a matter of fact, we have great difficulty in keeping our work up to the mark, and if letters are unanswered foi a day or two we are sure to have complaints." One of the difficulties was that the men were soldier? -men who had been discharged from the hospitals and who" were able to do this work, but were not fit to go back to the front. By degrees these men got better, and gradually worked into what is called

the "A" class, and were sent back to the trenches again, other men being brought from the hospitals to take their places. While this arrangement is desirable, it hampered the work to a considerable extent, as men having experience were taken away, and new men brought in who had to be trained for the work. I saw no men idling in the Government offices. It seemed to me they were all busy, and discharging their duties industriously, and doing hard work. I think any one who knows Sir George Perley and his business habits, and any one who knows General Turner's capacity, energy and industry, will appreciate that they would not desire to employ a man unless there is work for him to do. More men have been going over, and there will naturally be an increase in the work to be done. In order that we may discuss the matter intelligently, I hope we shall have a statement showing the figures of the people employed, before the House prorogues.
I did not rise to discuss this matter, but I felt it was only an act of fair play on my part to say a word in justice to General Gwatkin, because I believe he has given good value to the country, and is an admirable man for the position he occupies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not believe
any more unfair, unjust or ungenerous attack was ever made in this House upon a great, unselfish public servant than was made this afternoon against General Gwatkin. I did not know General Gwatkin when this war broke out. He is a distinguished British officer who served with the Manchester battalion, but so long as he was not prepared to bend his will to that of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), he must needs be attacked. It reflects no great credit upon this country that so distinguished a citizen and so distinguished an officer should be made the subject of such a conspiracy of attack as that which has taken place this afternoon between the hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not know
except of the military attainments-
Mr. LEMJlEUX: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman refers to a conspiracy between two hon. members against General Gwatkin. I think the expression is out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett)

is in order in attributing motives of that nature, unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will put it this way- the very apparent conspiracy which has always been evidenced by the conduct of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) and that of the hon. member for Victoria;-one asserts, then calls upon the other to support. This is the common practice, whether dealing with the Ross rifle, or General Gwatkin, or anything else. The people of the country are getting wise to this.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order, and to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. I went to you and I asked you if I would have an opportunity of (replying to any statement that might be made after I spoke. I was informed by you that I would not have such an opportunity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman put this question to me:-would he be in order in speaking after the Prime Minister? I said, no, inasmuch as the Prime Minister, in replying, closed the debate.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a question of privilege. I did not attack General Gwatkin. I shall give General Gwatkin's record at any time there is an opportunity to do so. If necessary, I am prepared to go into the whole matter. I may also say I have never been actuated by any animus. I have tolerated General Gwatkin when I should have dismissed him many a time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1915 General
Gwatkin was referred to by one of the leading officers in the British army, in my presence in London, as being one of the most efficient soldiers of his time, having regard to the rank he held. Colonel Gwatkin came to this country with General Lake. He was promoted under the late Administration.


Samuel Hughes: He was a major.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was a major
when he caane here, but a colonel when the war broke out. It was then that the general staff of the British War Office desired him to return to England, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) said, but because his services were indispensable to this country, he remained here against his better judgment. Now, after giving exemplary and untiring service to Canada, he is made the object of attack in this House. To my knowledge General Gwatkin is the hardest working man in any

department of the public service at Ottawa, bar none. He goes to his office early, and stays late. He is accommodating and obliging. He is one of those quiet, unobtrusive gentlemen who do their work without noise or bombast. He is one of those gentlemen who do their work without going from seaboard to seaboard for the purpose of making known their merits.
He is a quiet, unobtrusive gentleman who goes about the country doing the work which has been entrusted to him without advertising it from the housetops. When the history of this country is written with. 'respect to the mobilization and training of the first contingent, the name of General Gwatkin will be the one which will receive a greater measure of appreciation than that of anyone else. I think it ill-becomes the hon. member for Pictou, who at least arrogates to himself the possession of some knowledge on military matters, to refer to General Gwatkin as he has done.


George Henry Bradbury: He is a colonel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He may be a
colonel but I would judge he was a private from the observations he has made this afternoon in regard to General Gwatkin. I know what General Gwatkin has done in respect to mobilization and training in the province in which I live. He is not responsible for the system that moved others to cry from the housetops, or for making men colonels, they being civilians, as they walked along the sireet, but he went quietly and calmly about his duty. He laid down certain rules for the training of our forces, and I would say to the hon. member for Pictou that, as a colonel and a member of the militia, he knows that General Mackenzie's position in this country was general officer commanding the Canadian forces, and that General Gwatkin was not appointed to that position although he was recommended for it.


Samuel Hughes: General Mackenzie was not general officer commanding in this country. He was chief of staff, the same as General Gwatkin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He occupied the position formerly held by the general officer commanding, but owing to circumstances connected with the dismissal of Lord Dundonald that position was not filled. The hon. member for Pictou knows that the Government which he supported laid down the principle that the Minister of Militia, a civil officer, was the head of the forces in Canada, and that the military officer who was sent here, loaned to Canada,
at request, by the British authorities, occupied a position subordinate to the minister. Therefore, because General Dundonald saw fit to arrogate to himself, as my hon. friends said, certain authority which, they said, he did not possess, he was removed from his position and a Minute was passed that in Canada the minister was head of the military organization and that whoever was chief of the general staff, or general officer commanding, occupied a subsidiary position to the minister. General Gwatkin was chief of the general staff and responsible for the mobilization and training of the troops. It is too bad that at a time of stress like this the people should be told that there should be a general in command of the forces in Canada when those responsible for this story know as well as I do that this gentleman to whom I have referred is the party who is responsible for training our forces and sending them to England to receive their final training at the hands of the British authorities, operating as part of the Imperial forces, and that their fitness is passed upon by General Turner now and ultimately by Lord French who is the Inspector General of the forces in England. Provided their fitness is .satisfactorily determined, they are sent to France or to Flanders. My hon. friend knows that. He knows that no general in Canada has aught to do except to see that the forces are mobilized and trained until they are enabled to cross the seas as prospective first-class troops. Then they are passed upon by an officer who is eminently able to determine whether or not the troops are fitted for trench warfare on their arrival in France. An attempt is being made to create the belief that because there is no general in charge of the troops and that there is only a man who sits in his office and directs mobilization and training, not going out and inspecting himself, that the work is not being properly done. This gentleman does not himself go out and inspect because there are inspectors appointed for that purpose. General Hughes is the inspector of the forces' west of the Great Lakes and for the troops east of the Great Lakes there are other inspectors. These inspectors go all over the country and determine whether the troops which are in training are fit to go overseas to undergo their supplementary training in England and become part of the Imperial forces. It is because there has been in this country, since this war began and up to the time Sir Edward Kemp succeeded as Minister of Militia, a man who arrogated

to himself not only the authority of the Minister of Militia and Defence but of the Commander in Chief of the Forces as well, that this difficulty has arisen. It does not require a soldier to be Minister of Militia. It requires a business administrator such as we now have, while the duty of mobilizing and training t-he forces, of determining their fitness, of determining whether or not they should go overseas and become part of the fighting units, is a duty which should be delegated to men who by experience, training and fitness are qualified to discharge it. To assist in the training of our troops men have been sent from overseas; men who have had experience in trench warfare, men who have fought at Ypres and Vimy Ridge. These men are now training our forces under the direction of a man who went to the War Office to take charge of certain work there at the time when Lord Kitchener went to South Africa. This gentleman, although he was asked to take a position in the War Office, yielded to the earnest solicitations of the Government of Canada, who recognized that he was qualified by experience and training to take charge of the mobilization and training of our forces.
Now, as to the general character of the Bill providing for the appointment of a minister overseas, I have only a word to say. General Sir Sam Hughes sent General Carson over there to represent him and you know what an anomalous position. General Carson was in-he who was not a member of this House, or a member of Parliament-went over there representing the Government and putting upon his letter paper the statement that he was "representing the Minister of Militia and Defence." It was necessary that some one representing the Government, Parliament, and people of the country should be resident minister overseas.
With regard to the Bill, I quite agree with what has been said with reference to the emoluments of the office, whatever they are as fixed by Parliament, being paid to the person discharging the duties. It is but fitting that those who have every qualification except wealth, those who have merit and ability, should have an opportunity of filling the most exalted office in the land. Were it not so the men who have taken a great and commanding position in the public life of England in the last five years would not have found an opportunity of giving the country the benefit of their services. I am quite in accord with what has been said with respect to this matter.
[Mr R. B. Bennett.]
But it does seem to me that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is right with regard to the obligations of these gentlemen to submit themselves to election. There is no necessity to submit men to byelections having regard to the fact that the life of this Parliament expires in eight weeks from last Saturday night. Under these circumstances surely these gentlemen can go on discharging their duties without, having to submit to a by-election. All the members of this Parliament who desire to be candidates will have to submit themselves to the verdict of the people within a very reasonable time.
Mr. GRAHAM; You could not tell us the date, could you?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not, but I am quite sure it will be too soon for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: Not at all; do not worry about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestion
made by my hon. friend from Rouville is one that is worthy of consideration, and it does not in any sense depart from that old principle which, while it has been honoured in the breach once or twice recently in England, is now being honoured in the observance, in respect to the recent election of ministers, because in one or two instances there have been by-elections there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege for the purpose of making a personal explanation. I desire to say that the statement, or the innuendo, that anything I said this afternoon was the result of any conspiracy or previous understanding between myself and the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) is absolutely untrue.
I did not know that the British Government had objected to General Gwatkin being appointed in Canada until the exminister made the statement this afternoon. The hon. member for CalgaTy (Mr. R. B. Bennett) is in the habit of retailing conversations with imaginary people, usually very important people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is quite in order in making a personal explanation, but not in enlarging upon the subject.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Prescott-


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a question of privilege. General Gwatkin toad no more to do with the mobilization of the first contingent than that page boy who stands there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only one iman did it.
Sir SAM HUGHES; Never mind, it got there.	[DOT]


Edmond Proulx: Mr. 'Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) has said that we are going to have an election very soon. I submit that we should wait until after an election before considering this Bill. I do not see much necessity for passing this Bill now. Sir George Perley has been acting as minister overseas for about a year; the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) has been acting as parliamentary secretary of militia for about eight months, and the hon. member 'for North Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark) has been acting as secretary for External Affairs for about the same time. There has been no legislation passed to .confirm their positions. Sir George Perley and the member for Queens-Shelburne have said they would not accept the salaries which the Government proposed to attach to these positions. Then what is the necessity of passing this legislation? We are going to have an election in a few weeks. Probably there will be a change of Govern-men and these gentlemen will not toe in office after the next election. So far as the Secretary for External Affairs is concerned, compensation or an honorarium could be voted to him by Parliament without passing special legislation. I question whether we should vote to him $5,000 a year. I have even heard it said that part of his time is devoted to "writing political campaign literature for the Conservative press. I do not know whether it is true, but the affirmation was made the other day by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and, although the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Clark) was in the House at the time, he has never denied it. I do not think the country should pay any salary to the secretary of any department who devotes his time or part of his time to working for the benefit of his party, preparing campaign literature or sending articles to the party press.
I submit that there is no necessity for this Bill. Sir George Perley and the member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) do not want to receive the salaries which the Government wants to attach to these
positions. I intend to vote against the second reading of this Bill.


Mr. HUGH CLARK (North Bruce):: The charge has not been made directly, but it has been insinuated once or twice that my principal duty is to look after campaign literature. I am afraid that if that were the purpose of my appointment, and if that were the business I should be looking after, I have entirely neglected it, because the complaint I have heard on this side of the House is that while campaign literature is going out by the ton from the other side of the House, little or none is going out from this side. I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen opposite say that they do not make the charge, while at the same time they convey the insinuation that this is the principal business for which I have been appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 direct attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is replying.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : Air. Speaker, I have never made any charge about the member for Bruce writing skits for Conservative papers or even contributing campaign literature, but you will notice he did not say he has not done so.


Hugh Clark: Even if I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Hugh Clark: Even if I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Hugh Clark: -I am not in any different position from the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition, whom my hon. friend supports and who accepts a salary of $7,000 a year, and whose name floats at the masthead of the Canadian Liberal Monthly.


George Perry Graham: Again the House will
understand 'that the member for North Bruce (Mr. Clark) has practically admitted that he does-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: I have never taken that position concerning his work before, although many samples of it have been sent to me with the request that I should. I would never suggest that he did it; in fact, 1 did not think he did. I never dreamt that he did. But now he practically admits, or declines to deny, that, while the Government is asking us to vote him a salary of $5,000, he does dabble in preparing cam-

paign literature. I think that will not be of assistance in helping this Bill through. 1 think if the people of the country believe what the member for Bruce really intimates they might believe, that is that he does prepare such literature, they will form their own opinions.


Hugh Clark: May I repeat what I have already said, that if that was the principle business for which I was appointed, I have been neglecting my duty.
Mr. MeKENZIE: That is left-handed.


George Perry Graham: The House can take their own viewpoint. The hon. member declines to say that he has not prepared campaign literature or written articles since he became parliamentary secretary. That being the case, I ask the Prime Minister if he thinks it quite fair to ask us to pass a retroactive measure granting a salary from last October to a member who tacitly admits that he has been engaged since that time in preparing campaign literature. I leave it at that.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: May I ask the
hon. gentleman if he would, on his word of honour, say that during hie incumbency as Minister of Railways and Canals be never wrote anything for the Brockville Recorder or any other paper?


George Perry Graham: I would not for the world say that, and I would not question the propriety of the hon. member for Bruce writing anything for the Kincardine Review, for which he would be paid by the Kincardine Review, and not by the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And you went before
your electors when you were made minister.


George Perry Graham: I went before my electors when I was appointed minister. I did not ask to be exempted by statute. This legislation does not say that from this time on gentlemen who are receiving emoluments from the Crown shall be exempt from the constitutional requirement of re-election, but in proposing it the Government asks the House to vote that these three gentlemen, having been appointed to office months ago, shall have salary paid to them, in violation of the constitution, dating back to October last. The Government is acting like an autocratic head of a railway who first decides what will be done and then asks the directors to sanction what the head has proposed. This Government takes a
[Mr. Graham.1
step in direct violation of our constitution *and then, nearly a year afterwards, asks Parliament to approve of that violation. For the life of me, I do not see what justification the Government has for this position. The hon. gentleman from Calgary said: "What difference does it make, because there is shortly to be an election." It makes a difference of more than a year, because this Bill proposes that these gentlemen shall receive salary for a year before there will be a general election, and before Parliament has been asked to sanction this contract.
If the Government is going to propose, merely because there is a war on, that every vestige of responsible Government can be set aside whenever they wish to set it aside, I think it is a mistaken idea, and it was too bad we did not have a general election a year ago, instead of an extension of the parliamentary term. Had Parliament ever thought the Government would openly violate what has been the constitution of Canada for many years, I believe the extension would not have been granted. I think members on both sides of the House would have objected to it. I am not criticising the two parliamentary secretaries at all, because they are both competent for the position, but one of them spends some of his time in doing work for his party and the country is asked to pay for that time. The other gentleman says he will not take the salary. I do not believe in that kind of stuff at all. I am not reflecting on the hon. gentleman from Shelburne and Queens for an instant, because I believe he wishes to give his services and does not want remuneration, tout in ,a country like ours you cannot make those distinctions. If men wish to come forward and perform some great duty for the State, all right, but where it is an appointment such as that under discussion, it merely puts a premium on a man's bank account, and I submit that it places other gentlemen in a position they should not be placed in, because they are not financially able to work without remuneration. While I admire any man who is willing to serve his country for nothing, still it places us in the position that we do not feel at liberty to criticise a man who works for nothing as we would a public servant who is taking his pay. Time after time, when we have discussed things which took place overseas, we have been met with the statement: Sir George Perley is giving his services for nothing. Without criticising Sir George Perley unduly, we know that a man might be giving his services for nothing, and still be

costing the country hundreds of thousands of dollars more than if some other man were paid a fair salary for doing the work. All men cannot perform these services without remuneration and if that is to be the standard for selection for office then we may lose the services of some of the ablest Canadians. I strongly object to this retroactive legislation. I do not think it is in the interests of the country, or that there is any necessity for it. If these men were to be appointed a year ago, some provisions should have been made for them being paid, and for their salaries before their appointments took place. I submit that the Government acted unwisely in making those appointments, and a year afterwards saying: True, these members of Parliament had no right to sit in this House without going to their electorate after the date at which they were to receive salaries, but we are going to arrange all that, and provide that this law shall be retroactive. I think it is not safe to embark on such a course. We pretend to be one of the most democratic countries in the world and I believe the claim is well founded, but every time we depart from the democratic foundation of our constitution we depart from what I believe is the straight line towards that future greatness which is Canada's destiny.
It is a grave mistake to ask Parliament to declare by statute that we can give members of Parliament emolument without having them go before their electorate for re-election. By this Act we are providing that the Government of Canada shall be enlarged by three members. I am not going to argue whether that is wise or not, but I submit that all .the work performed by any of these gentlemen could have been performed by them just as well without their being ministers. The work of parliamentary secretaries was discussed the other day, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister took very strong grounds, and rightly so, I think, that the work of the parliamentary secretaries was not all confined to parliamentary work. That is true, but it must not be forgotten that they are called parliamentary secretaries for the very reason that they take the place of the minister in the House and give to the House details which the minister should not be burdened with. That is the object of parliamentary and under-secretaries, and, in order to be in a position to give that information to the House, they have to be in close touch with the business of the department. But when it is argued that the chief work of a parliamentary secretary is not
performing parliamentary service in the way I have outlined I dissent. Here we are to have ministers of the Crown who are under other ministers and not under the Prime Minister.


Albert Edward Kemp: No.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says no.
I did not refer to the Overseas Minister being under the hon. Minister of Militia. Subsection 5 (b) of section 1 of the Bill reads:
The Governor in Council may appoint a senator or a member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Mi'.itia and Defence, and such Parliamentary Secretary shall be a minister of the Crown, and shall have and perform such l owers and dut es as the min st r may from time to time prescribe.
Thi3 is an anomoly. Here we have a minister under a minister. To the people of this country, and to members of Parliament, that will appear to be a peculiar situation for a minister to hold. Every member of the Government is directly responsible to t'he Prime Minister for his acts, his conduct, and .the exercise of the powers given to him, but under this Bill the new parliamentary secretaries will be ministers of the Crown with all that that implies, but by statute they are going to be made subject to the minister who presides over a particular department. The minister has to prescribe their duties. The words of the section are: "And shall have and perform such powers and duties as the minister may from time to time prescribe." We have a member of the Government who is not acting directly under the Prime Minister, but under a minister who is head of a department.
For instance, the parliamentary secretary of the Department of Militia, although a minister of the Crown, is subject to and performs the work outlined by the Minister of Militia. Suppose these two ministers of the Crown should come to loggerheads? According to the principles of our constitution, of responsible government and of parliamentary practice, one minister of the Crown is as powerful as another. The parliamentary secretary having been made a minister of the Crown and receiving the emoluments pertaining to that office, may sit in council and say to the Minister of Militia: This is the way of doing it; I have a right to have it done my way, even though the statute says that I am subservient to you. Under this Act we now have three Ministers of Militia; we have the one overseas; we have the head of the Militia De-
443}

partment here and we have under statute a parliamentary secretary, who is a minister of the Crown, representing the Militia Department. I wonder if all this is necessary? In view of the fact that we are at war; in view of the fact that our people are bending all their energies, financial and otherwise, to the prosecution of our part in this struggle, I wonder if the Canadian electorate will think that there is any real necessity for all this machinery and intermachinery? Possibly this will happen next: An Act will be introduced to create the office of secretary to the overseas minister, the person holding that office to be also a minister of the Crown.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Perry Graham: At six o'clock I had almost concluded the few observations I was making on this Bill. As I am not a military expert, I cannot express any opinion as to the qualifications of General Gwatkin whom I have met only once or twice. What the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes! said this afternoon struck me as a remarkable utterance. If I correctly caught what he said, he informed the House that the British Government would not recommend the appointment of General Gwatkin, then a colonel to the position he holds, and the ex-minister gave that as the reason why he did appoint General Gwatkin, because ihe believed he would not be interfered with, I will not attempt any criticism; it is a peculiar utterance from an ex-minister of the Crown, and it will require some explanation later.
In regard to the overseas management, it is generally conceded that there is lack of expedition in providing us with information which horn, members, and particularly thosc-who have relatives in England or in Prance, are very anxious to receive. If fault there be, it is not the fault of the Militia Department here, because I want to bear testimony to the fact that the Minister of Militia, the parliamentary secretary, the deputy minister, and all the officials are, so far as I am concerned, most courteous and very prompt in affording information. It seems however, to take an interminable time to secure information from overseas. The Minister of Militia and some of the officials have once ot twice undertaken to secure certain information for me, <jnd perhaps the time required to get it may not seem long to the department overseas, but it

seemed a very long time to me. If there were some way by which such information could be given to us more quickly, it would be a great convenience. When there was no minister overseas, I received information, very important to me, within 24 hours. The minister himself would cable direct to his representative overseas and back would come the answer, whereas now there seems to be any amount of red tape to prevent getting information expeditiously.
This House is asked to vote the second reading of a Bill which provides for the appointment and salary of afi overseas minister who says he will not accept a salary, .and for the appointment of a parliamentary secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence who also says he will not accept a salary, and for the appointment .and salary of a parliamentary undersecretary of state for external affairs who tacitly admits that he has devoted part ot his time to writing campaign literature. This requires some explanation which I trust will be forthcoming when the Bill is in committee.


Mr. O. TURGEON:: (Gloucester):	In
making a few remarks on this Bill, I do not intend to indulge in personalities, or to make any reference to the bon. gentlemen affected by it. Personally, as far as those two gentlemen are concerned, they have always given me kind treatment, I can especially pay that tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary of Militia and Defence (Mr. McCurdy) in different transactions I Have had with him. As to the Minister of Militia and Defence Overseas, his personal qualities will be commended by every one who knows him. I rise (simply to enter my protest against the violation of the constitution which this Bill effects the moment it comes into operation. Practically every section of this Bill contains .a contemplated violation of the constitution. By it we are appointing three new ministers. Section 5 B reads:
The Governor In Council may appoint a senator or a member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, and such Parliamentary Secretary shall be a minister of the C: own, and shall have and perform such powers and duties as the minister may from time to time prescribe.
Not only is the present Minister of Militia and Defence Overseas confirmed as a Minister of the Crown by this Bill, but these parliamentary secretaries will become ministers of the Crown, and thus the House undertakes the responsibility of ap-

pointing three ministers without their having to go back to the people for endorsa-tion. That is a new state of affairs in this country. Our constitution has been so violated during the last few years, that this Parliament should call a halt for the short while this Parliament can possibly exist, so that the people may have an opportunity of expressing their will in 'the matter. I will read the section in the Bill in order that the people may know what is being done by this legislation. Section 4 says:
Nothing in the Dominion Elections Act or in the Senate and House ot Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapters six and ten respectively, or in any other statute or law, shall render ineligible any person accepting or holding either of the said offices of Minister of Overseas Military Forces, Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, or Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, as a member of the House of Commo'ns, or shall disaualify him for sitting or voting therein.
It is plain that this section makes those three hon. members ministers of the Crown without the sanction of the people. Even though there may possibly have been a solitary precedent in the British Government, out position and that of the British Parliament are quite different. We are under a written constitution, every section of which must be preserved for the sake of the unity of the Dominion. One cannot possibly compare the position of this Parliament, since the expiration of its term on the 7th of October, 1916, with that of the Parliament of Great Britain, where ministers have ^been appointed by the score, and every one of them, except the one, has had to seek re-election. The position of the Parliament of Great Britain cannot be compared with that of this Parliament in another respect. During the war there was formed in Great Britain a national Government, representing every section of the people, which is not the case in this country. What I regret most is that this Parliament has been extended in a very unconstitutional way, and without taking the proper means to extend it. It has been stated by the Minister of Militia that these gentlemen would not accept any salary. I believe if any man in the Department of Militia and Defence has earned his salary, and has worked faithfully, the secretary for militia has performed his duty according to his conscience and worked very hard, and he deserves his salary just as much as does the Deputy Minister of Militia. Every word we hear in this country and in this House is in favour of democracy,
extending democracy and saving democracy. That being so, we should not admit as a principle that a man should work without recompense. If he performs his duty he has a right to be paid. If we were to accept free the services of men who are favoured by fortune, we would soon come to the point that only men of wealth could possibly be had to administer the affairs of the country. This is against the principles of democracy and it is a dangerous principle to admit from every point of view. They say they will not accept remuneration for their services! If that be so, why present this Bill? The Bill is made retroactive so that they will have a right to their salaries from the time they have been in office, and it extends not only to the gentlemen who are to-day filling the offices, but to others who may take their places, and the guarantee we have from one or two of those hon. gentlemen that they will not accept any emolument, is not a guarantee against a future violation of the constitution. Should either Sir George Perley or Mr. McCurdy resign, other gentlemen will be appointed, and, naturally, unless you find other millionaires, these other gentlemen will have a right to their salaries. There is another feature in this Bill which appears to be even more serious. Clause 6 says:
This Act shall continue In force during the continuance of the present war and until the end of the session of Parliament held next! after the end of the said war, or, if Parliament is sitting when the war ends, then until the end of such session of Parliament.
Those hon. gentlemen will be appointed for an indefinite time-until the war is terminated. If the war should last two or three years more, their appointment will remain valid during that time. If new men come into the positions in virtue of the Act, they will remain in office for two or three years. This is against every principle of our constitution. In two months, or less, every member of this House will have to get the endorsation of the people. My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) will himself have to go to the people for their decision as to whether he shall remain in office, yet those hon. gentlemen will be in office notwithstanding, until the end of the war and for a year or two -after the war, without the people being consulted. This i6 not only a violation of the constitution, but t'he last clause particularly is simply murdering the constitution. As the term of this Parliament is very short, why put the country into this posi-



tion? The hon. gentlemen in office say they do not want any salary. My suggestion would 'be to pay them. Parliament has the right to vote a sum of money for services rendered. Let the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance bring in a supplementary estimate for the services rendered by 'Sir George Perley and the Hon. Mr. McCurdy and we will vote the money gladly. It is to be regretted that the Government did not see fit to replace the High Commissionership in England immediately after the death of the last incumbent. The Government would have been in a much better position before the people if they had done so. According to my judgment, Sir George Perley would have been as good a High Commissioner as he has been a representative of the people, or, other members of the Cabinet could have been appointed to the office. So f.ar as concerns the position of Minister of Militia Overseas, I am in thorough accord with what has been said by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I believe only one member can be appointed at the head of a department, and the minister should be in Canada, responsible to Parliament. The gentleman representing him overseas can only be there in the capacity of a deputy minister. A second deputy minister, who would be responsible to the head of the department, could have been appointed to look after the business of the department overseas. Under the circumstances and more particularly in view o:f clause 6, by which these gentlemen would remain, in their positions notwithstanding the general election, I would strongly advise the Prime Minister that he should withdraw this Bill, and vote a sum in the supplementary estimates to recompense these hon. gentlemen for the services' they have rendered.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) that the construction he has placed upon the Act is entirely wrong. The gentlemen mentioned will, on the dissolution of Parliament, cease to be members of Parliament like the rest of us, and unless they are Te-elected they naturally could not continue in their positions. It may be worth while to remind the House of the reasons why these offices were established. The Order in Council creating the ministry of the overseas service recited the unprecedented efforts that had to bo made in this war; its unexpected length; the necessity for close co-operation with the British Government, and particularly the very great im-

portance, and indeed, necessity of attaining The highest degree of efficiency with the most thorough and complete economy. Thorough co-operation with the British Government, a maximum of effort, and a maximum of economy, are the reasons set forth in the Order in Council as the considerations which led to the passing of the Order in Council establishing the overseas ministry.
Further, it was pointed out if I remember correctly, at all events the fact was that under conditions as they existed before the overseas ministry was created, it had become necessary from time to time for the Minister of Militia and Defence to spend a considerable portion of his time in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, during the year 1916, I think the then Minister of Militia and Defence spent as much of his time in Great Britain as he did in this country. During the period in which he was attending to the affairs of his department in Great Britain, it was necessary to appoint some other minister b>
carry on the administration of the department in this country. The practice before the overseas minister was appointed was indeed not very different from that which has prevailed since; not very different at least in this respect that it was necessary for months .at a time for the minister of the Crown charged with the responsibility fjr militia affairs to devote himself to duties on the other side of the Atlantic.
With respect to some of the matters to which I have alluded, the Order in Council proceeded to enact the following ordinances for the constitution of the ministry of the overseas military forces of Canada:
Ordinance for the Constitution of the Ministry
of Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
1.	There shall be, so long as the present European war continues and thereafter until otherwise directed by the Governor in Council, a Minister of Overseas Military Forces of Canada, who shall be charged with the control of and shall be responsible for the administration of the affairs of the military forces of Canada in the United Kingdom and on the Continent of Europe; the ordnance, arms, ammunition, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war belonging to Canada In the United <Kingdom and on the Continent of Europe appropriated for the use of the overseas military forces of Canada, and all exi-penditure incurred in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe for or in respect of the overseas military forces of Canada ; the aforesaid powers and duties of the administration to include without limiting their generality, all powers and duties in connection with the troops, property and expenditure aforesaid heretofore exercised by or charged upon the Minister of Militia and Defence

2.	The minister shall for the convenience of administration, and in order to expedite th* transaction of the business with which he ia charged, ordinarily reside and discharge his duties in London, and in urgent matters of importance which would generally be subject to consideration and direction, upon the minister's report, by the Governor in Council, the minister may, if the time or means for communication do not admit of antecedent authority from the Governor in Council, sanction provisionally such measures as may seem to him advisable, subject, however, to report and the confirmation of the minister's action by the Governor in Council.
3.	The minister shall moreover be charged with the negotiations on the part of the Government of Canada, as occasion may require, with His Majesty's Government, in all matters connected with the Government, command and disposition of the overseas forces of Canada, and such arrangements as may be advisable for co-ordinating their operations and services with those of His Majesty's troops, and generally for the purpose of utilizing the overseas forces of Canada in the most effective manner for the purpose of the war.
4.	The minister shall moreover execute such further powers and perform such other duties as may be from time to time conferred upon or assigned to him by the Governor in Council.
5.	The minister may for the purposes aforesaid establish such organization as may be found necessary and adequate, and he may. subject to the approval_ of the Governor in Council, appoint such officers and clerks to assist in the work of ministry as he deems necessary, with such grades in the Civil Service of Canada as may be prescribed, and such officers and clerks shall not be subject to examination under the Civil Service Act.'
6.	There may be an advisory council, consisting of such members as the Governor in Council may appoint, to advise the minister as to matters relating to the affairs and property hereby committed to his administration.
7.	All recommendations of the minister for submission to the Governor in Council shall be transmitted through the President of the Privy Council.
8.	Until Parliament otherwise provides the minister shall hold his office, commission or employment without any salary, fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind attached thereto.
It will be observed, that the Minister of the Overseas Forces has no power of organization or appointment except with the approval of the Governor in Council, unless it be provisional, and then it must be fir ally approved and confirmed by Order in Council. Therefore, when it is suggested, as it was by the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) that the increase in the staff of the Overseas Ministry is anything like what he states, I can only say that he is absolutely misinformed, and I intend to establish that fact upon the official report of the Minister of Overseas Service. It would be impossible for that minister to so increase
281*
the staff without the approval of the Governor in Council, and the approval of the Governor in Council has not been given to any such condition as the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) represented.
The order in council which established the Ministry of the Overseas Forces was passed on the 28th day of October, 1916. The office of Parliamentary Under Secretary of the Militia Department had been previously established, on the 15th day of July, 1916. The order in council establishing that office recited the increased duties of the Minister of Militia and Defence owing to the war, that his duties frequently occasioned his absence from the seat of Government, and that during his absence it was necessary to appoint some other minister to discharge his duties. The conclusion was reached that it would be desirable to establish the office of Parliamentary Secretary who could assist the Minister of Militia and Defence and, within certain limits act for him during his absence. The Ordinance which established the office of Parliamentary Secretary is as follows:
1.	During the continuance of the present war the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint a Senator or a Member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence ;
2.	The Parliamentary Secretary shall, with respect to the Department of Militia and Defence, perform such Parliamentary duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Governor in Council.
3.	The Parliamentary Secretary shall ex officio be a member of the Militia Council and in the absence of the minister he shall act as chairman thereof.
4.	In the absence of the minister from Ottawa, the Parliamentary Secretary shall preside over and administer the Department of Militia and Defence, but he shall not make any change in the policy of the department without the authority of the Governor in Council.
5.	In the absence of the Minister of Militia and Defence, and subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary shall have authority to report to and make recommendations -to the Governor in Council through the Prime Minister;
6.	The Parliamentary Secretary shall perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Governor in Council:
7.	Until Parliament otherwise provide, the Parliamentary Secretary shall hold his office, commission or employment without any salary, fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind attached thereto.
The ordinance establishing the office of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs was approved on the 16th day of July, 1916, and it recited the increased demands upon the time and energies of the Prime Minister through the conditions created by the war.

It is as follows:
Regulations respecting the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for External Affairs.
X. During the continuance of the present war the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint a Senator or a member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for External Affairs.
2.	The Parliamentary Under Secretary shall, with respect to the Department of External Affairs, perform such Parliamentary duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Governor In Council.
3.	The Parliamentary Under Secretary shall, subject to such instructions as may from time to time be issued by competent authority assist the Prime Minister in administering the Department of External Affairs, and may, subject. to the approval of the Prime Minister, conduct such official communications between the Government of Canada and the Government of any other country in connection with the external affairs of Canada/ and perform such other duties in the said department as from time to time may be directed.
4.	In the absence of the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Under Secretary shall, subject to the direction and approval of the Acting Prime Minister for the time being, preside over and administer the Department of External Affairs ; and in such case he shall have authority to report to and make recommendations to the Governor in Council through the Acting Prime Minister.
5.	Until Parliament otherwise provide, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for External Affairs shall hold his office, commission or employment without any salary, fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind attached thereto.
(Signed) Rololphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
In the discussion- upon the resolution, I went pretty fully into the necessity for these offices, and I have very little to add. It is perfectly manifest that the affairs of the overseas forces require constant and unremitting care and attention. The very fact that the Minister of Militia and Defence was obliged every year to spend a considerable portion of his time in Great Britain is the best evidence that some system other than that which had prevailed in the past was absolutely necessary if w'e were to secure, first, perfect cooperation of effort with the British Government; second, the greatest possible efficiency of our troops, and, third, the most thorough economy in administration. That was the purpose of this appointment, which purpose, I think, fully justifies it.
The office of parliamentary secretary of Militia and Defence was established before the Overseas Ministry was created. It is, even since the establishment of that ministry, a very necessary office. The proper conduct of our military affairs, with more than 400,000 men enlisted, with 330,000 men

or thereabouts, dispatched overseas, with need for the constant vigilance and attention of every one officially connected with the administration of military affairs, fully justifies the continuance of the office after the Overseas Ministry was established.
I have already said that the work of the Department of External Affairs increased beyond what any one could imagine who had-not been closely in touch from day to day with it. I venture to say that the work of that department has increased twentyfold since the outbreak of war. I think that hon. gentlemen in this House will credit me with the desire to put all my time and energies into the discharge of the duties of my office; yet, I. repeat what I said on the discussion of the resolution: that my only regret is that I did. not establish that office a year or two ago.
We provided in those Orders in Council that none of these offices should have attached to it any salary or emolument until Parliament should determine that the proposed salary or emolument might properly attach. It is clear that the salary we are proposing is a reasonable one. The salary attached to the office of the Minister of Overseas Military Affairs is precisely the same as is fixed by statute for other ministers of the Crown. As far as the parliamentary secretaries, are concerned we had no precedent in this country, and we fixed upon $5,000 per annum, which is the salary payable to the permanent head of the department. I am entirely within the judgment of the House when I say that I do not think the salary thus fixed could be regarded as excessive.
My hon. friend (Mr. Graham), and I think also the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), spoke of the salary, and I could not gather precisely from the remarks of either gentleman just what he proposed. On the one hand, they said it was undesirable that an office should be established without having a salary attached to it, bec au se they declared that otherwise only men of wealth could assume such an office. I entirely agree with that, and it is for that reason that we have attached salaries to these offices. But then, almost in the same breath, they go on to argue that the men whd are holding these offices should not be entitled to a salary. Their arguments are thus absolutely inconsistent. I hold that it is proper that salaries should be attached to these offices, and for the very reason cited by the hon. member for Rouville and by the hon. member for South Renfrew, that the choice may not be restricted to

those who are able to accept them without salary or emolument. As to the acceptance of the salary or emolument, and the disposition of it after it has been paid, that is not a matter for the House or for the public; it must rest with the judgment of the gentleman who holds the office.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) referred to the fact that in the sections of the Bill which establishes the office of Under Secretary of External Affairs, and the office of Parliamentary Secretary of Militia and Defence, the secretaries are spoken of as ministers of the Crown. That language is entirely the work of the Parliamentary Counsel, to whom I entrusted the duty of preparing the resolution and also of preparing the legislation based upon it. I have not had an opportunity since six o'clock of full discussion with him in regard to it, but he informs me that in using this language he followed British precedent; that'parliamentary secretaries in Great Britain are technically ministers of the Crown, and that therefore he thought it desirable to employ that language.


Samuel Hughes: Are they members
of the Cabinet?
Sir ROBERT BORDEN;:	They are not.
My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) apparently thought that both parliamentary secretaries were members of the Privy Council, but that is not so, and they do not attend the deliberations of the Privy Council. I shall give my attention to the Teport which the parliamentary counsel will .make to me, as to the advisability of using the expression " Minister of the Crown " in this legislation.
The only other point upon which I desire to say a word is the suggestion that those gentlemen should not retain their seats in Parliament after acceptance of office with the proposed salaries. I should like to submit to hon. gentlemen that it would have been, folly for us to appoint a Minister of the Overseas Service to discharge the important duties which are set out in this order in council, and then to bring him .at once to Canada for two, or perhaps three months, in order that he might engage in the delights of a contested election. It seems to me this is about the last course that any reasonable man would have expected the Government to take. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I never thought for one moment, of taking any such course. In the interests of this country, in the interests of our overseas forces, and especially in the interests of the men vho are fighting
at the front, is it not better that the Minister of the Overseas Forces should be discharging the duties of his office, where they could best be discharged, rather than that his time should be occupied in running an election in this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, heaT.


Robert Laird Borden: There is only
one answer to that question, and I have no *apology to make for the proposal that I am now placing before Parliament. It is not only a reasonable proposal, but the only proposal that I could or should make, and we have ample precedent for it on the other side of the water. When Mr. Asquith formed the first coalition government in the spring of 1915, not a single member accepting office in the Government was called upon to go to the people. I have in my hand the statute, passed on the 18th December, 1916. under which the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain to-day hold their seats in Parliament. It reads:
1. Notwithstanding- anything in any Act, a member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance, at any time during the months of December, 1916, and January, 1917, of an office of profit, if that office is an office the holder of which is by law capable of being elected to, or sitting or voting in, that House.
So that in December, 1916, and January, 1917, in the exigencies of this war, and in order that the King's Government might be carried on without interruption, it was provided that some twenty-five or thirty gentlemen holding seats in the House of Commons, whose seats under ordinary circumstances would have been vacated by the acceptance of office, should not vacate those ?eats, although they accepted office. It is ipon that principle (acted upon on these i wo occasions to an infinitely greater degree than anything that is proposed here) that I am asking the House to enact that, notwithstanding the fact that these gentlemen are members of the House of Commons, they may accept the salary which is now proposed, without its being held that they vacated their seats in this House, or .that they thereby became ineligible for sitting or voting in the House of Commons. And when the hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) refers to the United States -and Great Britain as the only two great democracies of the world that have existed for more than a hundred years, I should like to point out that he destroys his contention that the enactment of this legislation creates an autocracy. I cannot see anything in this legis-

lation which tends, in the least, to the creation of an autocracy, but if the United State? be one of the great free democracies of the world, as undoubtedly it is, every hon. gentleman who knows anything of the constitution of that country knows that the members of the Government of the United ^tates do not sit in the Congress at all. They do not require to run an election, or to go to the people for a mandate. We are not departing from any principle of the constitution, because there is nothing in the British North America Act that touches this matter one way or the other, so far as I remember. We are departing, to this limited extent, from the provisions of chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, hut we are following a very good precedent in British practice.


Samuel Hughes: This arrangement continues only to the end of the present war?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Can my hon. friend give the dates of the respective appointments and the amounts of the emoluments?


Robert Laird Borden: The emoluments are at the rate of $7,000 a year in the one case and $5,000 a year in the other.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For how' many years in the case of Sir George Perley?


Robert Laird Borden: Since he took office. In the case of the Minister of the Overseas Military Forces, from the 31st day of October, 1916; in the case of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, from the 19th day of July, 1916; in the case of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, from the 21st day of October, 1916. These were the dates upon which these gentlemen were sworn into office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, oh division, knd Bill read the second time.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1-Appointment of Minister of Overseas Military Forces.
Robert Laird Borden: Section 1 will stand until we see the report of the Parliamentary Counsel as to the use of the words "minister of the Crown."
Section stands.
On section 2-Appointment of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Robert Laird Borden: This section also will stand, for the same reason.
Section stands.
On section 3-Salaries.


Edmond Proulx: The Prime Minister has said that the under-secretaries would not get the salary of the heads of departments. The under-secretary, however, gets sessional indemnity besides the salary here set forth.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Evidently that was not taken into consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes, we took that into consideration.


Edmond Proulx: Then the amount of remuneration is more than the salary of th* heads of the departments.


Robert Laird Borden: For the performance of official duties, it is the same.


Edmond Proulx: If the two are added together, the amount of remuneration is $2,500 more than the salary of the heads of the department.


Robert Laird Borden: The $2,500 is supposed to be an indemnity, not a salary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there to be any provision for the salaries of persons who may be necessary in connection with the organization of the ministry overseas? Is it intended to provide for any statutory officials to act in conjunction with the minister?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand
that my hon. friend refers, for instance, to a deputy minister. There is a deputy minister; Colonel Walter Gow, of Toronto, is appointed to that office. That is authorized by Order in Council. The ordinance which created this office permits the Minister of Overseas Service to make recommendation to the Governor in Council for the appointment of any persons necessary for the organization of his department. I am not aware at the moment of any new official in important position except Col. Walter Gow, Colonel McRae who was Quartermaster General, General Foster, who was head of the Army Medical Service, Colonel Thacker who was Adjutant General, and Colonel Ross of Montreal, who was made Paymaster General, were all acting at the time Sir George Perley was appointed.


Samuel Hughes: Colonel Thacker
was not appointed at the time Sir George Perley was appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: Where was he?


Samuel Hughes: Heaven knows. Neither was Colonel Gow.


Robert Laird Borden: I explained that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are creating a new department overseas, and we are leaving to the minister of that department, by Order in Council, through the Government of the day, to appoint such officials as are necessary in the department. I presume what has occurred is this: that since Sir George Perley was made Minister of Militia Overseas, last autumn, a number of officials have been appointed under his recommendation, who will go to make up the personnel of the official staff. It would be desirable if the Prime Minister, before the Bill conies back to committee, would give a statement showing exactly who those officials are. There .are also a large number of people, whom the ex-minister spoke about last week when I was not here, who are employed in connection with the administration of affairs by Sir George Perley as Minister of Militia Overseas. It is desirable that the House and the country should know how many of those men attached to that department do purely civil work and how many of them do military work. I understand from the Prime Minister that General Turner is in command of the military side of the department, and there will, of course, be, just the same as there are here, .a number of officials whose duties are purely civil, that is to say, who will look after certain matters which a man need not have military experience to look after. Then there are a large number of people who are attached to the department for military purposes. Where is the line drawn, and who are those who are attached to the department in connection with civil matters?


Robert Laird Borden: We can, without any difficulty, secure the information for which my hon. friend asks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend is rather severe about a remark I made on this subject. He stated a moment ago that I had made a rash statement, but he will pardon me if I am under the impression that this is a breach of our Parliamentary constitution. I always understood that the moment a member of this House became interested in a contract or in receipt of emolument, from that very moment, according to time-honoured practice of British parliamentary institutions, he had to

resign and seek re-election. It is true the right hon. gentleman states that, as we are at war, it would not be the proper thing to compel Sir George Perley, the new Minister of Militia Overseas, to spend three months running for election. Does the right hon. gentleman not think, after having spoken of my humble self as making rash statements, that he has been rather overreaching himself? I am quite sure it would not have been difficult for Sir George Perley to be re-elected, possibly by acclamation, as it is the practice with new ministers-with the exception of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) last winter. It is true the latter was not elected by acclamation, but the election campaign took only a month, and he was re-elected. All the other ministers, the late Mr. Casgrain, Mr. Patenaude, and the ministers who preceded them in the Cabinet went back before their electors, and there was no difficulty about their re-election. Most of them were elected by acclamation.


Samuel Hughes: Was not the Minister of Militia in Canada (Sir Edward Kemp) also elected by acclamation?
Mr. .LEMIEUX: Certainly. My hon. friend (Sir Edward Kemp), who protested some months ago that there never was a truce in Canada since the war began, was elected by acclamation in the good old city of Toronto. Nobody thought, during the war, of opposing his election, and if an opposition was made to the election of the Minister of Inland Revenue, it was for good and just reasons. I am sincere in renewing my protest, because I believe that the right hon. gentleman is creating a ' dangerous precedent.
When the Hon. Timothy Anglin was Speaker of the House, because the paper with which he was connected had received a few dollars' worth of advertising, he was obliged to resign while he held the Speakership and to go before his electors. The late Senator Corby, if I mistake not-and my right hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong-who was a member of this House when I was elected in 1896, was obliged, because a few gallons of methylated spirits had been sold from his distillery to one of the departments to return to his electors. There are many other precedents. Yet here is Sir George Perley appointed Overseas Minister of Militia and voted a salary by this House, and he retains his seat in Parliament. It has been stated by my right hon. friend that Sir George Perley will

refuse to accept the salary, and I am sure that will prove to be the case, but Parliament grants a salary to Sir George Perley and he should obey the constitutional rule. We are appointing two secretaries, one of whom it is true says he will not accept an emolument, and by a stroke of the pen we enact that they may not return -to- their electors. My right hon. friend may think I am rash; he may think I am simple; but in my opinion it is one of the precious privileges of the British constitution that no member of the House of Commons can take an office of emolument until he first seeks re-election.
This is a time-honoured practice, and I wish to protest most strenuously against the precedent now created.
Wlhy make this legislation retroactive? It has been the practice of the House to tfrown upon retroactive legislation, because it is unjust, unfair, and against parliamentary precedent. In this case we are asked to ignore the usual practice. The other day I asked my right hon. friend if Sir George Perley, who is a minister of the Crown, but practically irresponsible to this Parliament, inasmuch as we never see him in the House of Commons, had made any reports, or written any letters, or made any recommendations and the right hon. gentleman answered in the affirmative. I asked that those reports, letters, and recommendations be laid on the table of the House, to this the right hon. gentleman did not make a rash answer, but he made an evasive answer-he would inquire, he would see, he would consider. As this is a new department, it seems to me Parliament is entitled to know the scheme of its organization; the number of its officials,
- their qualifications, and their jurisdiction, We ought to have a report of this minister, as we have from every responsible minister of the Crown. We are told the overseas Minister for Militia and Defence has been acting as such since 1916. It is now 1917, and we have no report from Sir GeoTge Perley, except the information that he has suppressed the second report of Dr. Bruce. We are entitled to know what have been the activities of the new minister overseas. My right hon. friend should bring before the committee the information asked by my hon. friend from Pietou, and at the same time the information I am now seeking. Meanwhile this clause should stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the matters to which my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) alludes have any special Televaney to this clause or to any
other. With respect to what he has said in regard to the statute being retroactive, I would like to point out that the English statute I quoted was retroactive in the same sense. It was passed on December 18th, 1916, but inasmuch as some of the ministers had accepted office in the meantime, and would therefore without this statute have vacated their seats in Parliament, it was provided in subsection 3 of section 1:
This Act shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of December, 1916.
Because ministers had taken office in the meantime it was necessary to guard against the vacation of their seats, so the Act was made to relate not to the 18th day of December, when it was passed, but to the first day of December.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure the right hon. gentleman will not contend that there is a parity between the two cases. I have no recollection of the Asquith Government having made use of this new legislation, but in the case of the Lloyd George Government I know that the rule, or the practice, or the custom, was suspended, and the ministers were not obliged to seek re-election. Surely my right hon. friend will not say that the condition here is analogous. There was a crisis in England. The whole world was awaiting with anxiety the formation of that new government. For a few hours, or a few days, the affairs of the British Empire were paralyzed on account of that ministerial crisis. It was the climax of one of the greatest parliamentary crises that ever arose in the British Empire, and for that reason the common sense people of England understood perfectly well that they could depart from the time-honoured practice. I will not say there is not a crisis here, because we all know the Government is moving in troubled waters just now. At the same time there is no ministerial crisis in the sense I have just indicated. Sir George Perley has been in England since 1916, acting as Overseas Minister, and nothing to require this legislation has ruffled the surface of political events in Canada. The gentlemen who are to be under-secretaries have been in the House of Commons, and they have had repeated occasions to return to their electors if they were to be recipients of these emoluments. In the British case, it was by reason of a great Imperial crisis, but in this case I am afraid it is only the payment of a political debt. Without in any way disparaging the new appointees, I look around me and see many gentlemen who have been as faithful followers as good fighters, and as

good parliamentarians as the three gentlemen who have been selected as advisors of His Majesty in the Borden Government. I see my good friend from Perth North (Mr. Morphy); I see my good friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards); I see my silent friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce)-all old and tried members of the House. Why were they not selected? They were just as much entitled to that recognition as the three gentlemen who have been chosen. Sir George Perley is a millionaire. He would have been well satisfied with being a minister without portfolio.
The hoh/member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) and the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Clark) are comparatively new members of the House. There are old and tried members of the Conservative party who might as well be selected. The hon. member for Bruce admitted this afternoon that he was having a good time writing political pamphlets and preparing campaign, literature.


Mr. CLASS:: No, he did not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely the Prime Minister will not, under the very trying circumstances through which 'Canada is passing, vote out of the moneys of the people $5,000 to a gentleman who spends his time preparing political literature.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I
would not have put myself to the trouble of saying anything further on this question had it not been for the references made by speakers here to-day to General Gwatkin. I would not have brought up now any question with regard to General Gwatkin had it not been that during the recess of the House for the dinner hour I learned that for upwards of two years a systematic effort has been made in certain quarters to win credit for the work that 1 have done and to deprive me of my rights in regard to carrying on the important work in connection with the war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Louder, please.
Sir 'SAM HUGHES: I beg pardon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Louder.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what you are saying.
'Mr. LEMIEUX:	Speak louder.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to say, in
regard to the remarks made by ithe hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in his speech to-day that I never directly or indirectly conveyed to the hon, member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) any statement in 
connection with 'General Gwatkin. I will not enter into the discussion of the General Gwatkin matter other than to say that his actions were such from the constitutional viewpoint that I had to submit a statement to the Prime Minister to prevent any of my officers, under pain of dismissal, from reporting, to any one, without my authority, matters that transpired in the Militia Council to any one, no matter how distinguished an officer he might he. That was accepted as a proper principle. I shall not refer to it further; the Prime Minister knows to what I am alluding. I found myself thwarted in very many ways. When General Mackenzie was there he arrogated to himself the absolute right to carry on the training of the troops in this country, to lay down the syllabus of the training course, and to adhere to it without reference to the Minister of Militia. The minister had nothing to say. That matter was very quickly rectified. I do not want to deprecate, officers like General Mackenzie and General Gwatkin, but they have had opportunity of testing themselves on the level with our Canadian boys who have gone to the front and in every solitary instance the soldiers and officers who have been sent from Canada have measured up and have shown themselves to be infinitely superior to the men under whom they would have 'been serving overseas if it had not been that I insisted that we should have our own officers to carry on this work. Now, just a word in connection with General Gwatkin and the training of the troops. He had nothing to do with the training at Valcartier, or with the system, for that is something for which I myself claim credit.
1 gave the matter my personal attention. The first troops were trained entirely under my system and in almost every instance under my own personal supervision and by myself. They were the finest troops in the Empire, and they proved themselves to he the finest troops in the world.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to my having taken trips backwards and forwards across the country. I am happy to say that I could name nearly every officer of the rank of captain and upwards and 'recognize him when I met him. I can do so even to-day.
I assumed the responsibility of saying that when the Jives of our fellows were being placed in the hands of others the men in charge should, as f.ar as possible, be the best men obtainable for the jobs, and I took the responsibility of carrying that out. I challenge the world to show where, in any

instance, I gave any reports to the press, or advertised myself. It is true I did some things that even the newspapers, subsidized as many of them are, recognized and noticed.
What aibout the hon. member for Calgary? I had the honour of visiting his city two or three years ago. I purposed visiting Lethbridge on this day. The storm had made it impossible to go to Lethbridge, and at Medicine Hat I changed route and went on to Calgary. I reached Calgary at twelve o'clock and I was met on the platform by an officer of the Canadian Club. He asked me if I would address the Canadian Club. Nobody knew I was coming, as I had not communicated with any one excepting Colonel Cruikshank. When I was asked to address the club I said that there was no time. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Calgary, being a friend, and all that sort of thing, and, I presume, desiring to assist me, had removed his person from any possibility of meeting me and was passing around the town asking his friends to absent themselves, I had the honour of addressing the largest Canadian Club meeting ever held in the city of Calgary and that after only two and a half hours' notice. That night in the hon. gentleman's own city I had the honour of addressing 5,000 people assembled in a large building with the thermometer at the zero point all evening. I have received thousands of invitations to advertise myself, if I wanted to. I have received upwards of
2,000	invitations to speak in Canada within the year and nearly as many to speak in the United States. I have not accepted them. But my good friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett) constituted himself the head of the National Service Commission and, with the Prime Minister perambulated through this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If I were in that hon. gentleman's place, I would never be found insulting the intelligence of the Dominion House of Commons by standing up in my place and addressing them on any subject. This is the gentleman who made such an exhibition of himself and who was such a failure as the head of the National Service Commission which has been wasting the country's money in thousands and tens of thousands of dollars perambulating up and down the country. He wound up with a meeting in the great Massey Hall in the city of Toronto. Not content with having that hall, he arranged for an overflow meeting in the great Metropolitan church and for another in the Orange hall adjoining. He is the hon. gentleman
who has brought bad luck to every undertaking, every interest, every man with whom he has been associated. When the night came for the meeting in the great city of Toronto only two-thirds of Massey hall was filled and the meeting was carried out by rushing an order out to the barracks and rounding up 2,000 or 3,000 troops at the last minute to make a quorum. There was no meeting at all in the great Metropolitan church and the doors of the Orange hall were not even opened. This hon. gentleman stands as the head of a commission that for nine months held up the boys in the trenches. There never was an institution in Canada that had as loyal support from the people as had this gentleman and his commission. We were all doing our best for him. He stands as having been the head of the greatest failure that ever occurred in the public life of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The question seems to
be largely one of salaries, that is as to the Bill being retroactive. The House and the country were informed, when these gentlemen took office, that they were not to receive any salary, and as a result of that the election was dispensed with. If they do not require the salary for the months that are past, then there can be no good reason why the well-known rule should not be observed now, and why they should not go to the country and be ratified by the electors in the usual way. It is altogether for the purpose of giving a salary to these hon. gentlemen for the past months that this retroactive feature is necessary in the Bill. If the Prime Minister would decide to dispense with the payment of salaries for the time that has passed, there would be no necessity of this feature to which so mugh objection is taken.
The point may be taken that an Overseas Minister will only create disputes and confusion. That has been the experience so far. The Department of Militia was running along smoothly, so far as I can learn, up to the time when the Overseas Minister was appointed. Then the position was divided into two and friction developed, and many of the troubles that have arisen in that department since that date were caused by there being two heads- and we are now proposing to have a third. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has pointed out more than once that the Minister Overseas has been a very expensive man, that he has appointed a very large number of officials, who were un-

necessary, according to the statement of the ex-minister. He told us some days ago that a staff of 50 men "were doing the work prior to Sir George Perley's appointment, and that, that number has since been increased to 1,200. No explanation has been given of that enormous increase. We have had no explanation of the reckless character of this gentleman who is our Overseas Minister. Before the Bill passes we should ha vie a full statement of the names of all the officials appointed by the Overseas Minister, with the salary paid to each. That makes the Bill a serious one.


Samuel Hughes: I did not go into
details of the matter, but by establishing a new ministry overseas all the offices here, such as that of deputy minister, Quartermaster General, and so on, have been duplicated, and so these extra people have been employed. That is owing to the existence of the office.


John Howard Sinclair: That means a very serious additional expense to the country. The duties of an officer overseas would seem to be of a military character; the direction of civil affairs in connection with the war comes from this side. The Prime Minister has told us that the Minister Overseas has not power to make appointments, and that, anything of special importance is referred to the Government. The Prime Minisier has not explained why he has decided to ignore the constitution. The fact that it is inconvenient for Sir George Perley to cross the Atlantic to run an election is not a sufficient reason. We have 14 or 15 other ministers who could represent Sir George Perley in his constituency. The candidate does not need to be present. The Prime Minister has not explained why the under-secretaries do not appeal to the electors for ratification. Even if it would be inconvenient for Sir George Perley, it would not be for the under-secretaries, and the House should have a fuller explanation when we are asked to take an important departure and to violate the usual election law and the constitution. The Prime Minister has given no reason for the undersecretaries not being re-elected.


Robert Laird Borden: The Parliamentary Counsel informs me that in Great Britain the parliamentary secretaries do not have to go up for re-election. In this case, and especially during the war, I thought it desirable to insert this clause for greater precaution, particualrly as our statute is not in precisely the same language as the British statute.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do they get any salary in England?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are not ministers of the Crown, are they?


Robert Laird Borden: They are. The distinction in Great Britain is that they are supposed to be appointed by the minister under whom they serve, and therefore, not being appointed by the Crown, they do not haye to go back for re-election because they do not hold offices of emolument in the technical sense required by the British statute.


John Howard Sinclair: Our parliamentary secretaries are appointed by the Crown, and are made ministers of the Crown. It is a departure which I think is not a wise one, nor is it justified by the condition. I do not think the Prime Minister should be so frightened of the electors as to take such a course as this. I do not think it will be popular in the country. The fact that the under-secretary in Great Britain is appointed by the minister may be a reason why he should not have to appeal to the electors. But we are here introducing a new system, and I do not say it is a bad system. Both sides have on various occasions discussed this question, and it has met with a good deal of approval. But, now that we are embarking on it, I think we should follow the constitution, and require under-secretaries, appointed by the Crown to hold the position of minister of the Crown, to go to their electors.


Robert Laird Borden: We are making a temporary arrangement, to last only during the war, and I thought, under war conditions, it was a very proper proposal to lay before Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a corollary of this, the Solicitor General was obliged to go before the electors, and he was not then a member of the Cabinet. He was in receipt of the same emolument as the under-secretaries will receive, and yet he was obliged to seek re-election.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute requires it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why not in this case?


Robert Laird Borden: I have explained that.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: It seems to me that, before the House is asked to pass the section providing for the salaries of overseas ministers, the Prime Minister owes it to the

committee to make some inquiry in regard to the statement which has been made by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). He has made the statement, which 1 am sure, will surprise the country very greatly: that the Militia Department in England at the present time has upwards of 1,200 people in its employ, whereas, previous to the overseas minister being appointed, General Carson did just as effective and thorough work, and rendered just as much service to the country, with a staff of fifty or sixty.


George Eulas Foster: Just as much work?


William Pugsley: Just as much necessary work, yes.


George Eulas Foster: The same work?


William Pugsley: That; I take it, is the statement.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. gentleman believe that?


William Pugsley: We have that statement. It is an extraordinary increase from fifty or sixty people, doing all necessary work under General Carson, in England, for a period of upwards of two years, efficiently, without any complaint so far as I have ever heard, and the statement will startle the country that the number of employees has been increased under Sir George Per-ley up to 1,200. It may be necessary. I do not know enough about the details to know whether it is necessary or not, but it strikes me as very extraordinary, and if the statement can be explained, I think we should have the explanation. The Prime Minister should inform the committee as to whether or not there are to-day, in the employ of the Militia Department under Sir George Perley, in the vicinity of 1,200 people. If there has been an increase, we are entitled to know the reasons for it.
With regard to the provision in the Bill that those gentlemen who are to be appointed under-secretaries, as well as the gentleman who is to be appointed Minister of Overseas Service, should not be required to get an expression of confidence from the electorate, I think it is very desirable to consider why the requirement was placed in the Elections Act. It is in order that the people in this democracy shall be afforded an opportunity of expressing their approval, or otherwise, of the appointment which has been made. The theory is that whenever any person is appointed a minister of the Crown, or appointed to any
office where he is in receipt of a salary, he cannot be permitted to continue a member of the House of Commons without going to the people for approval of the choice which the Government has made in his case. Why should there be any difference in the case of these three gentlemen? I am unable to see why there should be a distinction. I was surprised that my right hon. friend rather invoked the United States constitution as a justification for his course. He said: The members of the Government in the United States do not occupy seats in the Congress at all. It has long been the boast of the people of this country that, although we have a Sovereign reigning over the Empire, and although the Governor General is the representative of the Sovereign, yet Canada is very much more democratic than the United States, and one evidence of the fact is	that our law provides
that when	a	man	receives an
appointment, he shall go back to the people, get in touch with the people, and be approved by them before he can take his seat in Parliament. I see no reason why that democratic principle should be violated, and I think the provision doing away with the necessity of these gentlemen resigning their seats and going to the people should be struck out of the Bill. We have in the law relating to the independence of Parliament the provision that if a man takes any minor office, if he becomes even * a country postmaster, he must at once resign his seat. He cannot continue to sit in Parliament, if he holds any office and is in receipt of any emolument. The same law provides that he shall not be allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons, unless his appointment receives the approval of the people. I quite agree with the hon. members who have argued, on these grounds, that the Bill is exceedingly objectionable, and that these provisions doing away with the ordinary law bearing upon the subject, in reference to the right of the people to pass upon these appointments, should not be adopted by the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: What my hon. friend has said in regard to the information respecting the alleged employment of a very large number of persons in England beyond the number previously employed is quite reasonable. I shall be prepared with an explanation before the Bill receives its third reading. In fact, I should have asked for specific and definite
444<

information by cable before this, but I have been very much engaged in other matters, and it passed from my mind. I gave instructions this morning to cable to Sir George Perley, and I expect soon to obtain the information the hon. gentleman asks for. I do not know whether the hon. member was here when I referred to the Order in Council creating this office?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That Order in Council requires the authority of council for the purpose mentioned; and based on that consideration, and knowing what has been done in that regard, I reached the conclusion, which I still entertain, that my hon. friend from Victoria and Halibur-ton (Sir Sam Hughes) was misinformed as to the alleged excess of employees which he mentions. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) misunderstood my allusion to the United States. The United States was spoken of by the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) as one of the two great free democracies which had survived for over one hundred years, and, in the same breath, he said that the Bill created an autocracy, because these three ministers were not required to go back, during the war, for reelection. I merely pointed out in passing, by way of illustration, that United States ministers are not required to go to the country for election at all, and, therefore, it does not seem to be a necessary condition, if we grant the premises as laid, down, namely, that they are one of the two great free nations, and an exemplar of the highest form of democracy.


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend,
perhaps, heard the Minister of Militia also state that Sir George Perley is occupying in the city of London some five or six buildings. [DOT] The statement is very specific.
I remember when my right hon. friend used to inform the House that there was no man whose statements were more to be relied upon than the ex-Minister of Militia.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I have heard my hon. friend say the same thing.


William Pugsley: I have heard my Tight
hon. friend say that the ex-Minister of Militia, when he was performing the duties of Minister of Militia, was one of the great military geniuses of the country, a gentleman whose word could always be relied upon. Well, the Minister of Militia, as a responsible member of this Parliament, has made the statement that five or six build-

mgs in the city of London to-day are occupied by the enormous staff with which Sir George Perley has surrounded himself. My right hon. friend says Sir George Perley could not have done that. The ex-Minister of Militia says that he has done it. It is not the first time that things have been done on the other side with which the Government have not been entirely familiar. Perhaps the want of information on the part of the Government results from the overseas minister being, so busy that he has not communicated with my right hon. friend on the subject. At all events, I am disposed to rely on that positive statement until it is authoratively denied.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I move that section 3
of the Bill be struck out.


Robert Laird Borden: For what reason?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because it is a departs are from the principles of parliamentary government, and because it is creating a very dangerous precedent. I believe that at least one of the two secretaries, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs- -as was impliedly admitted this afternoon- instead of doing the work of that office, is preparing campaign literature. I am informed that one of the statements which appeared in the press this evening was issued by him yesterday-a very vicious statement, I must say, an appeal to the prejudices. and passions of the people, in view of the next general election. On the whole, the right hon. gentleman has not given the committee and the country sufficient reason for this departure from a time-honoured constitutional principle.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We must not forget that the statement was made to the Government press throughout this country when the announcement of the appointment of the under-secretaries was made that these gentlemen would serve without any compensation. To provide now for salaries seems to be a breach of faith with the public. In regard to Sir George
10 p.m. Perley, I assume that he is drawing a salary as High Commissioner for Canada in London,


Robert Laird Borden: Sir George Perley has never received any salary as High Commissioner for Canada in London. I have stated that in the hearing of my hon. friend at least half a dozen times in the last three or four years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We vote the money
every year.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of what we voted; I am speaking of the fact that Sir George Perley has not received any salary, though he has been discharging the duties of High Commissioner. I gave this information two years ago in answer to an inquiry made by the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who then said that the fact should be made known throughout the country. He expressed appreciation of the fact that the duties of this office were being discharged without remuneration.


Edmond Proulx: If the gentlemen who
occupy these positions will not accept the salaries now being attached to them, why make the Bill retroactive-especially in view of the fact that it was announced in the party press that no salaries would be accepted? These gentlemen get the benefit cf that announcement; they are credited with being very great patriots, doing the country certain service without remuneration. Now the Government wants the House to vote money to pay them for their services from the time they took office. As far as the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs is concerned, I agree with the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that 'his time has been chiefly occupied in the writing of political literature and of articles for the Conservative press. He did that before he accepted the position for which a salary is now being provided. He used to write letters to the Toronto News- letters from an M.P.-abusing the Liberal party; he sent articles to the party press detrimental to the Liberal party and in favour of the Conservative party. If he is to be given a salary for his services, that salary should be paid not by the country, but by the Conservative party.
I have already explained to my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) that salaries are attached to the offices for the reason that they might be filled by persons other than those who now occupy them.


William Pugsley: Why make the Bill retroactive?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is
desirable that the salary should be attached to the office from the time the office was established.
Amendment (Mr. Lemieux) loist on division: yeas, 25; nays, 37.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I call your attention
Mr. Chairman, to the fact that two hon. gentlemen directly interested1 in this matter have voted, the member for Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark) and the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy). That is, to say the least, contrary to the rules of the House and grossly imprudent on their part.


George Eulas Foster: Is not my hon. friend interested, too?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who is head of the medical services in the Old Country?


Robert Laird Borden: General Foster.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What position does
General Jones occupy?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure
what position he occupies at present.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was understood the last time we discussed the matter in the House that the Prime Minister would communicate with Sir George Perley as to the publication of Dr. Bruce's answer to the Babtie report. Has any communication been received from Sir George Perley?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already said that Sir George Perley has sent forward a statement which has not yet been received.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Holders of certain offices not ineligible to be members of or sit in House of Commons:
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 5-Salaries to be paid from first appointment:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think, from the disclosure made by the parliamentary undersecretary of state for External Affairs (Mr. Hugh Clark) this afternoon, this section should not be allowed to pass without protest. It is a most extraordinary thing that a minister of the Crown, as he is now by this retroactive legislation, should be obliged to admit here that instead of attending to the affairs of the country for which he is paid a fairly high salary of $5,000 a year, together with his indemnity, he is devoting his time to preparing literature in the interest of the Conservative party and of the Government. It is not a fair, square deal that, while I myself and other hon members on this side of the House have to do our own work in election matters or otherwise and sustain our cause the best way we can, with our own efforts and our
4m

own little money, we should be -called upon to pay the salary of a man on the other side of the House who is doing the Tory work. A couple of years ago I was in the county of Victoria helping to conduct a local election. I found in that county-and the fact has never been denied by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) or any other .minister who had to do with the matter-that the whole system of telegraph lines with all its official staff was turned into a huge machinery for the conducting of the election on behalf of the Tory candidate. The matter was brought to the notice of the minister; it was admitted it was bad, but he never called upon the man in charge of the system to return the .moneys that had been collected. That is a case exactly similar to this, .where the money of the country, money that every one, Grit and Tory alike, contribute IS being used for election purposes. That is not fair. They had in that election a steamer, not only subsidized, but hired by the Government. The full cost of hiring the steamer and the full salaries of every officer aboard were paid by the Government of my right hon. friend. The steamboat, the officers and the whole outfit were used for at least a month, for the purpose of this election. I brought the matter to the notice of the Government and they said they were going to do something about it, but they never did anything. The officials received their pay; there was not even a reprimand given; it was regarded as just the proper thing to do. We are now going a step further. We are giving the dignity of the position of a minister of the Crown to a member of this House, and he has to acknowledge that, instead of doing anything that would be commensurate with the dignity of a minister of the Crown, he is grovelling down and muckraking for the purpose of slandering the Liberal party. That is the position for which we are voting him money. This purchasing of assistance of the press and otherwise with the public money is but a system and a policy adopted by this Government. The Government have bought the Halifax Herald. Hoes any one for a moment think that the gentleman who owned the Halifax Herald would have been made a senator and his paper bought were it not for the fact that he owned that paper? Nobody in the world would ever think so, or would accuse the Prime Minister of making such an appointment, were it not for the fact that, by buying the Herald, he had to take this appendage with it. The same thing happened in the county of Cape 
breton, a part of which I represent. In the city of Sydney we have the Post, a good Tory paper. It had to be bought.


Samuel Francis Glass: There are some good Tory papers?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Good of their kind. It had to be brought into line. It was deeply in debt. It was stated on the authority of the gentleman who was bought with it that it was $95,000 behind in working up the interest of the Tory party. The paper, however, was bought and with it the same sort of appendage a3 in the case of the Halifax Herald. Eight in line comes the Bill that is before us to-night. It is said that the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) wanted to be Speaker. Two men could not be Speaker ait the same time, and when the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) was made Speaker, of course something had to be done for the hon. member (Mr. McCurdy), and so lie was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Militia and Defence with a salary of $5,000. It is a well known fact that the hon. member for North Bruce [Mr. Hugh Clark) was going around bis countysaying that he had the promise of the Pi line Minister that he would be appointed Minister of Militia. He was nor appointed Minister of Militia, hut over his bead, when the lime came and the ex-Min:?te.r of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) went out, the hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp), the present holder, was appointed. The hon. member for North Bruce, of course, to whom this offer, according to himself, was promised, was very much disgruntled and disappointed, and something had to be done for him, and iso he was. appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stat-e for External Affairs. The country has to stand the brunt and pay the money.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He voted for himself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Charity begins at
home, and for that reason I do not want to blame him very much for voting for himself. He is the only real democrat in the crowd, and I sympathize with him. He is willing to take the money openly and above board, the others want to get it by some circuitous route, but they will get it all the same.
Mr. MeCURDY: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to apply that remark to me? Does he say the other parliamentary secretaries want to take the money by some circuitous route?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A guilty conscience needs no accuser.


Mr. McCURDY:: I rise to a point of order, and I ask that the insinuation be withdrawn. I have no intention of taking remuneration for this office in any shape or form, and I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing to withdraw.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why did my hon. friend vote for it?


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) vote for an increase in the parliamentary indemnity? it is the same thing.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) is an old parliamentarian, and should take the word of the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say a word to him, not a word. There is an old story about a man who was in a court house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see that Rome is saved once more by cackle of the same old class.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Withdraw what? I was simply going to refer to a gentleman who was pointed out as a man with a fly on his nose. Of course, there was no fly on his nose, but he thought there was. If the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) is the man with the fly on his nose-I cannot help it.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Order.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I rise to a point of order. If I understood the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) aright, he insinuated that I wished to take this money by a circuitous route. I regard these words as entirely objectionable, and I would ask that they be withdrawn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say at all that the hon. member was taking the money. There are thousands of such cases in Canada, and I say others take it by a circuitous route, as well as the hon. member. .


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What am I going to withdraw? I stand by the point that when people get money in an indirect way, it would be very much more honest and becoming for them to take it straight as it is voted for them. I have seen hundreds of them saying they were doing work for nothing, and when the accounts came in afterwards they amounted to ten times more than they would have if they were taking the money straight. If people are so very sensitive, it would be better for them not to be voting money to themselves, which they are not going to take. That is the question before the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will not withdraw anything. I have nothing to withdraw.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. member
should, I think, withdraw the insinuation that the hon. member fctr Queens and Shelburne would draw his money in an indirect way. The hon. member (Mr. McCurdy) has denied it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was speaking of the principle.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) intended to convey, but he certainly did convey to the members of the committee the direct insinuation that the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy), while pretending he would not accept this money, intended to get it by some indirect way. He either meant that or he meant nothing, and I believe the hon. gentleman cannot get out of it. I think he knows perfectly well he did mean that. It seems co me a very unworthy thing for the hon. gentleman to state. He has either said too much or too little. If he has anything upon which he can found an insinuation of that kind he should state it, if he has' nothing upon which to found it then he should withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not mean that the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne would get the money in any dishonest way, but it is my belief, whether it is proper or not, that he is not going to serve the country for nothing, and that directly or indirectly he will be paid for any services he gives the country. If there is anything unparliamentary in what I said before, I regret it and I take it back, but I believe we are not getting any services from anybody for nothing


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the committee is very much edified by the observations my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) hag seen fit to make. He has charged the Parliamentary Secretary for External Affairs with devoting his time altogether to preparing campaign literature, and has distorted what was said this afternoon into a supposed admission of that. It would be just as fair for me to distort what the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said this afternoon into a supposed admission that when he was Minister of Railways and Canals he spent the whole of his time in writing editorials for Liberal newspapers. I would not for a momem suggest anything of that kind, and no hon. member would suggest anything of the kind, yet it would be absolutely on a par with what my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has suggested with regard to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for External Affairs. Where does my hon. friend draw the line? Does he censure the hon. member for South Renfrew for writing editorials for his newspaper when he was Minister of Railways and Canals? Would he censure the hon. gentleman for writing a letter to a newspaper upon a political question? Would he censure him for making a speech-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Prime Minister expects me to give him any answer, I would say I certainly would not find fault with any one who runs a newspaper writing articles for his paper, but I would find fault if he was receiving a salary from the country and doing other work than that for which he was paid by the Crown.


Robert Laird Borden: It strikes me my hon. friend is drawing an exceedingly fine distinction when he says that a gentleman can occupy a position in the public service as Minister of Railways and Canals, and can without censure or criticism devote his time to writing partisan editorials, but that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for External Affairs is to be condemned because he writes letters either for his own newspaper or to some other newspaper defending the Administration and perhaps having a partisan tinge. I must confess I do not understand the distinction my hon. friend is making, and I do not think he has edified the committee very much by the observations with which he has favoured it. This is simply a clause which provides that those gentlemen shall be entitled to a certain salary for the period during which they have held certain offices and discharged certain duties. It places the moneys at their disposal. If they decline to accept,

it is their own affair. If they accept the salary and devote it to some public or patriotic purpose, that is a matter for their own judgment. If they accept and devote it to their own personal purposes, it is their right under the legislation. That Jso is a matter for themselves. This is all the section means.


Edmond Proulx: How long will they have to accept? Will they he governed by the Statute of Limitations?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that that is of very much interest.


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend is rather to bepitied than otherwise, if he is unable, to draw a distinction between a gentleman who is now being appointed to an office at a salary of $5,000 a year, and for whom the office is being created, who is devoting his time to the preparation of campaign literature in the interests of his political party, and the case of a man who, being a minister simply writes editorials for a newspaper which happens to be his own private property.
I am very sorry to hear it practically admitted by the Prime Minister that the gentleman who has been appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs is really engaged in preparing campaign literature in order to promote the interests Of the Government and the Conservative party in the coming election. I have noticed that during the election that the hon. gentleman has never apparently given any evidence that he is doing any work in connection with his department. We have had no evidence of it since the session began, and it has been explained that apparently his time and attention have been taken up with the preparation of party literature.


Robert Laird Borden: I made no such statement and no .such admission. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs has been very active and diligent in the discharge of his duties. At to-day's session he answered at least half a dozen questions with respect to matters that came under his personal direction.


William Pugsley: I am very glad indeed that at last to-day that hon. gentleman has answered some questions pertaining to his department. Perhaps he has been inspired to that by reason of some criticism which was made a few days ag.o. But previous to that he had not given any evidence that he was engaged on duties in connection with his department. I am even glad that

he is even answering a few questions. I was not here to-day, or, perhaps, I would have recognized the importance of that., We do know that many answers are prepared even by (minor clerks of the departments. Whether the .answers given to-day were of that character or not I do not know.


Edmond Proulx: I do not like this clause
5.	In view oif the fact that Sir George Per-ley and the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) have expressed their intention to not accept any salary, and in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs has been writing articles for the Conservative press, I move that clause 5 be struck out.
Amendment (Mr. Proulx) negatived. Yeas, 27; nays, 40.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that the two hon. parliamentary secretaries did not vote this time. Would it not be better if their previous votes were struck out?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I have nothing to do with that.


William Cameron Edwards: That is an absolutely ridiculous statement to be made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). He has attempted to give expression to indignation and horror at the idea that these two hon. gentlemen should vote for the salaries in which they are interested, something the hon. gentleman did for fifteen years for himself. During all the time that he was a minister of the Crown, when the estimate came up for his salary of $7,000 there was recorded in favour of that $7,000 the vote of one Mr. Lemieux.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: What about your own salary?


William Cameron Edwards: Keep quiet. Hold yourself down; you are out of order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are out of order yourself. I rise to a point of order.


William Cameron Edwards: What is your point of order?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are not the boss.
Son. hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I rise to a point of order Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Frontenac has no right to impute motives to the hon. ex-Postmaster General.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: That is no point of order.
282J


William Cameron Edwards: As a medical man I have noticed that some people are subject to dyspepsia and indigestion. The hon. member who has just sat down is troubled with political or mental indigestion; otherwise he would not have raised such a silly point.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I hope that hon. members-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Chair, chair.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I hope the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) will confine himself to the clause under discussion.


William Cameron Edwards: I shall be most happy to do so. The hon. member for Cape Bre>-ton (Mr. McKenzie) the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) have always kept so close to the discussion and have shown such a respect for the rules that I shall not violate them for a moment. I do not profess to know what the clause is that is under discussion, but I rose for the purpose of pointing out that the hon. member for Rouville in taking exception to the vote of the parliamentary secretaries on their salaries was taking exception to something which he had done repeatedly while a minister of the Crown in voting in favour of his own salary-


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is fixed by statute.


William Cameron Edwards: But the principle is the same.


Mr. COPP:: If the salaries voted for the overseas minister and the parliamentary secretaries are not taken by these gentlemen what becomes of the money? Does it still remain to the credit of these gentlemen or does it revert to the revenues of the country?


Robert Laird Borden: It falls under the head of consolidated revenue fund if it is not accepted.	[DOT]


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood it remained to the credit of these gentleman until they drew it or spent it on some other way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Appointment of Overseas Minister and Parliamentary Secretary of Militia and Defence:
Robert Laird Borden: I shall read the concluding part of this section:
5 (b) The Governor in Council may appoint a Senator or member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence and such Parliamentary Secretary shall be a minister of the Crown and shall have and perform such powers and duties as the minister may from time to time prescribe.
As I explained before six o'clock, I gave the Resolution and the Bill to be founded thereon to the Parliamentary Counsel, and I really did not observe until it was brought to my attention this afternoon by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that these words "shall be a minister of the Crown" had been inserted. I have asked the Parliamentary Counsel for a memorandum as to the reason for their insertion, and he has given it to me. I do not think that, on the whole, there is any necessity or that they ought to be inserted. Therefore, I move to amend this section by striking out the words "shall be a minister of the Crown" and also by substituting for the word "minister" in the last line the words "Governor in Council," so that the clause will read:
The Governor in Council may appoint a Senator or a member of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, and such Parliamentary Secretary shall have and perform such powers and duties as the Governor in Council shall from time to time prescribe.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The powers given to the Minister of Militia under the Militia Act are very wide, and include the responsibility for the administration of the militia forces of Canada and a number of other duties such as the care of military stores, armament, and so on, and the initiative in all matters involving the expenditure of money. All that is assigned to tjie Overseas Minister is contained in the fkst clause of section 5 of the original Act. Under this Bill the Minister of the Overseas Military Forces is charged with the administration of the military affairs of Canada overseas, and such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Governor in Council. Who is responsible for the ammunitions, arms, stores and habiliments of war, on the other side, for which the Minister of Militia is responsible in Canada?


Robert Laird Borden: The Overseas
Minister is charged with those duties

under the Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not by the Statute.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, he is
charged with such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Governor in Council, and those duties have already been assigned to him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then it should be
" such other duties as have been or may be assigned to him."


Robert Laird Borden: The objection to that would be that if we say " have been" then we might fix it by statute so that we could not change it by Order in Council.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In other words, the Order in Council would not only assign the duties but would become incorporated in the law by virtue of the statute.


Robert Laird Borden: That may not be a formidable objection and I would accept " have been or may be." I would move to insert in clause 2 after the word "as" which immediately follows the word " duties," the words " have been or ".


Rodolphe Lemieux: The under secretaries
are not to be ministers of the Crown?


Robert Laird Borden: No, that has
been changed so that they will not be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will they attend sessions of the Cabinet?


Robert Laird Borden: No, they will
not.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2-"Appointment of Parliamentary Secretary of State for External Affairs."
Robert Laird Borden: I move to make the same amendment to this section as has been made to the section, providing for the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, that is, to strike out the words "shall be a minister of the Crown and " and to substitute for the words" Secretary of State for External Affairs " the words " Governor in Council." The clause will then correspond to the one relating to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House went into committee on the following proposed resolutions; Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910, be amended by increasing the subsidy on first-class dry docks to four and one-half per cent of the cost of the work, payable half-yearly during a period not exceeding thirty-five years after the work has been completed, but half-yearly payments on account of the subsidy at the rate of four and one-half per cent on seventy-five per cent of the cost of the work done and materials provided at the time of such payment may be made during the construction of the dock, no such payment to be made until the work done and materials provided shall have cost the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, and no such payments on account to be made unless the chief engineer reports that the work is being proceeded with to his satisfaction.
William Pugsley: There is one provision
in the resolution which I am very glad the hon. minister is asking the House to agree to; that is increasing the rate of interest from four to four and a half per cent.	As a	reason for	this, it
might perhaps be desirable to refer for a few minutes to the history of the. aid to dry docks. My first knowledge of the matter was in 1882, when the Government asked Parliament to grant aid, somewhat along these lines, not in the way of an Act to provide for a subsidy to he paid in cash, like the subsidies to railways, but in the nature of a subsidy extending over a period of years. From that time to the present very little of an effective character, so far as Telates to the country at large, has been accomplished by the legislation. My experience has rather been that all the . Governments from that time down to the present-and I am disposed to include the Government of which I was a member- while improving a little upon the previous legislation, were just a little behind the requirements of the investor, to enable anything practicable to result from the resolution. First, the rate of interest was three per cent, then three and a half, and then four, and now it is proposed to make it four and a half, but to-day four and a half per cent is not very much better than three and a half per cent was some few years ago, *because the interest rate is higher. We know that even the Government cannot borrow to-day at less than six per cent, and many exceedingly good municipal securities are being sold on the market at six per cent. This class of aid is not very attractive security for the investor, because there is no security for the principal. It
merely secures the interest at what, to-day, is a low rate, four and a half per cent for .thirty-five years, but the investor has no guarantee that his principal will ever be paid. I suppose that is why the investor has not taken very kindly to the securities of drydocks companies. However, the increasing of the rate to four and a half may lead to something practical. I think, in regard to the aid which may be given in respect of the work while construction is going on, that the payment should be limited to an expenditure of, at least, a million dollars. I suggest that we should make it a million dollars, instead of $500,000, and make the half-yearly payments on seventy-five per cent of that amount. I think that, if that is provided for, and the Engineering Department is satisfied, whatever subsidy is given upon the expenditure should continue for the thirty-five years. Of course, it might be said, in answer to that, that possibly the drydock might be started, and might not be completed, and the Government would have the work on its hands. That is true, but that applies also to railways. We know that Parliament for many years has been granting aid during construction, I think after ten miles have been constructed, or after forty per cent of the work has been completed, the department will take progress estimates, and make payments on account. I do not see why the same provision should not be made applicable to drydocks, provided they are, as this resolution stipulates, of the first class, and if they are in parts of the country where a drydock of the first class is needed in the public interest. I think the building of drydocks, and the construction of ships in connection with them, which can be very greatly encouraged by reason of the plant for repair work that is necessary in connection with docks, is of enormous importance. There never was a time, and perhaps there never will be, in the history of the country, when it is more desirable, in the public interest, to secure the early establishment of shipyards in Canada. My hon. friend will agree with me when I say the war may last for some years yet, and the question of shipbuilding appeals to every man in the country as being of very vital importance. I suggest to the hon. minister that after the word " may," in the seventh line of the resolution, we insert the words " in respect to work done." I also suggest that we fix the amount at $1,000,000, so that the money invested will be so large as to be a pretty
445u

good assurance that the whole of the work will be completed, and if, for any reason, there were any stoppage, the Government would have a margin of $250,000. I would provide in the Bill that, in case of any default, the Government take charge and become the owner of any work done. I suggest, for the minister's favourable consideration, that we should strike out of the resolution the following words:
And no such payments on account to be made unless the chief engineer reports that the work Is being proceeded with to his satisfaction.
iln connection with securing money for a dry dock costing $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, and for the necessary repair plant and shipbuilding plant-I should like to see the latter established in connection with every dry dock that is constructed-in these days when the rate of interest is high and many favoured investments are offering, a banker would not look with very much favour upon bonds issued during construction unless in respect to those bonds the subsidy was to run for the period specified in the Bill. There is no use in passing legislation that is not going to procure results. As I say, I speak from having been interested in St. John in securing the building of a dry dock; that interest began thirty-five years ago, and there is no dry dock yet. Parliament always did pretty nearly what the investor wanted-but not quite. There is no use in putting legislation on the statute book unless it is of such a character as reasonably to encourage investors. I would suggest that the lowest amount upon which subsidy shall be paid during construction be made $1,000,000. With the margin of 25 per cent, that would be $250,000 in respect to each payment.


Mr. ROGERS:: I agree with my hon. friend as to the importance of such legislation as will ensure the construction of dry docks wherever they are necessary and wherever their construction is feasible. It is true that at present there is greater need for dry docks than there has been hitherto, and it is true that the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, which has been on our statute books for some years, has not accomplished the purposes for which it was intended. That is due largely to the fact that the subsidies offered have not been sufficiently attractive. In bringing this resolution before Parliament, I thought that I was going a long way to remedy that condition. First of all,
I propose to increase the interest rate to
fMr. Pugsley.]
four and a half per cent. I propose also to remedy the complaint that has been made	whenever the
matter of the construction of dry docks was discussed in my department: that in connection with what are called progress Estimates. Under the old Dry Docks Subsidies Act, no estimate was given until the the dock was completed. I propose under this Bill to remedy that condition and to provide that we shall pay the subsidy on 75 per cent of the money spent. In .other words, when $500,000 is spent, we shall provide a subsidy half-yearly on $375,000 of the $500,000; and so on until the dock is completed. In this respect the Bill is a great improvement upon the previous legislation. Such an undertaking as the construction of a large dry dock of the first class is not usually promoted by contractors who are interested simply in the operation of a dry dock. I do not think the Act is workable except in cases where a corporation have in mind the establishing of a shipbuilding plant in connection with the dry dock; otherwise, I doubt whether the proposal, even under this legislation, would be sufficiently attractive to encourage the investment of so large XI p.m. an amount of money. But this legislation is certainly a great encouragement to any firm or company whigh has in mind the 'building of a shipbuilding plant and the carrying on of work of this kind. In St. John there is pressing necessity for the construction of a dry dock, especially at this time, when so many ships are coming into that port. The same applies to Halifax. While there is at Halifax a dock that has done splendid service, having regard to its capacity, yet in my judgment the accommodation is insufficient to meet the requirements of the trade. In the near future it will be necessary, under any legislation that we may enact, or in some other way, to provide a dry dock at that port. This is necessary not only because of the present requirements, but because of urgent requests made by the Admiralty and those interested in the shipping trade of our country. I do not know that I have great objection to the suggestion made by the member for St. John, because in introducing this resolution I had in view the one purpose of trying to present a measure that would he sufficiently attractive to produce some results under our Dry Docks Subsidy legislation. My hon. friend has suggested that the amount upon which subsidy should be paid should be made $1,000,000 instead of $500,000. I think

my hon. friend is in error in what he says with regard to railway subsidies. As I understand it, when a railway subsidy is granted and approved by Parliament it is understood that a certain number of miles of railway have to be constructed and that if that work is not carried out, the full subsidy is not paid.


William Pugsley: But they get paid
through the progress estimates.


Robert Rogers: We are proposing to pay them on progress estimate.


William Pugsley: Only the interest.


John Howard Sinclair: How much does the minister estimate a complete first-class dry dock will cost?


Robert Rogers: A first-class dry dock would probably cost something like $3,-
500,000	or perhaps $4,000,000. The Subsidy Act provides that we can grant a subsidy on a dry dock costing $5,000,000 a subsidy of $500,000, but that includes a subsidy on a shipbuilding plant connected with the dry dock. In respect to the change of the form of the subsidies to be granted, it has also been suggested that the subsidy should terminate at any time, so far as the contractors are concerned, should they fail to carry out their contract; but the suggestion is made that our Act should provide that supposing $1,000,000 has been expended on the construction of a dock, and the contractor fails after he has spent that amount and after we have paid him under the proposed arrangements, say, $750,000, all that should be exacted from him would be the loss of that $250,000 together with his deposit of $250,000 together as a guarantee of good faith that he would carry out the contract, and that we should' continue to pay the subsidy of 41 per cent upon the amount of money so put into the dock by the contractor.
Mr. A. K. MA'CLEAN: I suppose that is if the dock is completed.


Robert Rogers: No, it is suggested that we should pay the subsidy provided the dock has not been completed. Even if the contractor had gone on to the extent of spending $1,000,000, if he failed to carry the work on to completion, we would be able to exact from him the $250,000 of the hold-back and the $250,000 of the deposit which he had put up as a guarantee of good faith that he would carry the work to completion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand that the Government will pay the interest on that amount?


Robert Rogers: Not on that amount. We would pay the interest on the $750,000, because the contractor would in all probability borrow from some innocent investor the money to carry on the work up to this point. I am pointing out to the committee only what has been suggested.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister say that we would continue to pay the interest on $750,000 for 35 years in the case of a dock that was not completed?


Robert Rogers: No, but supposing a contractor had taken a contract and had borrowed $1,000,000, and under our Act we were obliged to pay a subsidy of $750,000 all told, and we had in addition his deposit of $250,000, and he fell down on his work, the suggestion is that we should pay the subsidy of the $750,000, and we should retain the other $500,000 and see that the contract is carried out by some other person and that the dock is completed and put into shape for the purpose for which it is intended. Although I am not clear as to the desirability of going as far as that, the suggestion deserves some consideration. In view of this, and in view of the fact that we are to have amendments to the resolution before the committee, it will be necessary for me to withdraw the resolution and bring in another one in keeping with the views of the committee. I would like, therefore, to get the judgment of members of the committee in order that I may know exactly their views on the subject. I am not wedded to any particular form or arrangement, but I am anxious that under this resolution we shall be able to get results and accomplish some good, because there is undoubtedly pressing necessity for the construction of at least two or three first-class, dry docks at different ports in Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is it proposed to build these docks?


Robert Rogers: One is needed at St. John, one at Halifax, one at Vancouver and one at Esquimalt.


William Pugsley: When I was Minister of Public Works there were in the department plans for one at Sydney.


Robert Rogers: That is not a first-class dock.


William Pugsley: I might mention this fact as showing the difficulty of securing capital for the building of a dry dock based simply upon a subsidy that expires at a certain time, where the principal is not
44"i6

guaranteed. For a good many years the law provided that if there was any cessation of operation of a dry dock, the subsidy should cease. I remember a gentleman from Halifax came to see me, and Mr. George Robertson, President of the Company dry dock at St. John came to see me a good many times, and he was also over to England many times, in connection with the project. They stated that the bonds might go into the hands of estates, widows and children, and they asked: What do they know about operating a dry dock? They said that unless the matter was made absolutely unconditional, those parties would not invest. The Hon. Mr. Fielding, when Minister of Finance, saw the possibility of that, and he introduced a Bill changing the law so as to make it absolutely unconditional, that whether the dry dock was operated or not, the subsidy should run' on for 35 years.


John Howard Sinclair: That was after it was finished.


William Pugsley: Yes, but the Government might take charge of the dry dock and operate it, and charge up the company with the expenses and credit them with the receipts. Even with that change there has been very little result. What I have heard from people who have been speaking about investing is that in financing an enterprise which would run to about $500,000 and perhaps a larger amount, if a shipbuilding plant were established they would certainly want to issue their bonds during construction. What they have said to me-and I can see the reasonableness of it-is that providing a subsidy does not really aid very much the raising of money because they 'say that after the contractor or the company has put a million dollars into the work, if construction should cease and the subsidy should cease, the bonds would be of no value and the investor would be deprived of any security. They say that no bonds could be floated under those circumstances. My honourable friend will see how weak a security that would be. No. investor would take the bonds unless he was absolutely assured, beyond all possible question, that the dock would be completed. It would be in the public interest that some of these first-class dry docks should be constructed, and it would not be unreasonable to agree unconditionally to pay the subsidy up to 75 per cent, of the work during construction, particularly when a million dollars had actually been expended.

Then the Government would have the security of the $250,000. and also of whatever amount was taken as security from the contractor that the dock would be completed. With the site of the dock, the plant, and what was invested, there would not be very much likelihood of the public suffering to any extent. Of course, all my observations are based upon the idea that it is in the public interest that the docks should be constructed in places where the minister might decide it is desirable they should be constructed. With regard to railway subsidies there is a cash bonus of $6,400 per mile, but if the railroads were to stop in the forest after ten, twenty, or thirty miles were built, whatever money was put in would, to a certain extent be jeopardized1. Still it is good policy. If you are going to assist a public work, like a dry-dock, by a subsidy during construction, you must give something substantial. You are not giving them the principal, according to my idea; you are only giving them the interest for thirty-five years, and if by any misfortune the contractor should not be able to go on, the investor who has taken the bonds up to seventy-five per cent of what has actually been invested would have no security whatever. He would lose his interest for all the remaining thirty-five years. I would think that, particularly in those days, no investor would look at bonds for a moment unless the company actually had the money. I think in changing the law now and under these ciroum stances Parliament should be a little generous, and run some little risk, particularly where there would be a large margin which would be provided if the security was only given up to seventy-five per cent of construction. My fear is that nothing will be accomplished if the Bill goes through as the minister now proposes, and ,1 speak from my experience as a minister, and my knowledge as a solicitor of a company some years ago, knowing how wary investors are in regard to a security of this nature. In the first place, they say, that the principal is not secured, that all they get is interest, and not a high rate of interest. Everybody will admit that four and a half per cent is a low rate of interest to-day. Then they say: "If for any reason the dock should not be operated, our security is gone." We know Mr. George Robertson went to England and to the United States, and got promises everywhere, but when they came to look into the quesr tion, they said " It was defective, that it did not afford a security that was attractive and they would have nothing to do with it."
\


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You mean if they get the principal and the interest guaranteed, it would be possible to find people to take up the investment?


William Pugsley: No, they never had the principal guaranteed and they will not, under my proposal. All they would have would be the interest guaranteed for thirty-five years.


John Howard Sinclair: On three-quarters of the principal.


William Pugsley: On three-quarters of the principal, that is all. I remember years ago the minister used to say to George Robertson, then mayor of St. John: any man will lend money at three peT cent; always forgetting the principal was never guaranteed, and was always in jeopardy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This resolution provides for thirty-five years' interest.


William Pugsley: It does, and the minister evidently has the view that it will be likely to make it easier for the investor or for the company if when $500,000 has been expended the minister may give a subsidy upon seventy-five per cent of that amount during construction. The difficulty is that under the resolution as it is, if the company issues its bonds for seventy-five per vcent of the $500,000, and if for any reason it is not able to go ahead, the man who has taken the bonds loses his security absolutely. He might get his interest for two years, or three years possibly, but if at any time the company should fail to go ahead, the security becomes waste paper, and therefore the investor would not have anything to do with it. I am satisfied it will be found that is the obstacle which will confront any company. I would like very much to see legislation which would bring results. There is no hse putting legislation on the statute books and thinking you are going to accomplish something, if, as a matter of fact, nothing will be accomplished. I have pointed out to the minister the difficulty which appears to me, and I hope that the minister and the committee may see their way clear to make some change .and give more security to the investor for bonds issued under construction.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not undertake to say that the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John is not quite substantial, but at the same time it does not strike me as being a forcible one. There should not be any such thing as failure in
'the construction of a dry dock where there is a guarantee of four and a half per cent interest for thirty-five years. Such a thing should not be possible. I say this for the reason that before the Government enters into an agreement it should be absolutely certain that the agreement is with a company or a person who cannot fail to carry it out. There should be deposited with the Minister of Public Works one-quarter of the estimated cost of the undertaking. If it is to cost $3,000,000, there should be a deposit of $750,000, and the contractor should be able to put up that amount before he gets the contract. The member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) says it is difficult to get men to put money into dry docks. That is perfectly true, but it is not because the Government does not offer sufficient assistance. The difficulty is that it is a risky undertaking. None of the dry docks in the United States ever made a cent until recent years. The great trouble is tha* many dry docks have been built which shou'd not have been built, and in places where they should not have been built. I do not believe that you could find a dry dock on the Atlantic seaboard which had earned any interest whatever until five years ago. Great care should be exercised in entering into any contract for the cor.*tr,ict'Ci: of a dry dock anywhere. It does not follow that because the citizens of a place want a dry dock, they should get it, or because the Government is approached by contractors who want to construct a dry dock, they should receive a contract. That is one of the troubles with our Dry Dock Act,.
The statute makes an offer to the public to pay four and a half per cent interest on three-quarters orf the cost of the work for a limited period. This is an inducement to promoters to organize companies to construct dry docks whether they can or cannot possibly pay. I quite agree that there should be some dry docks in Canada. I do not know how the Pacific coast is provided at the present moment. I would not think it would be desirable to put a dry dock at Esquimalt and one at Vancouver. It would seem like a great waste of public money as probably the enterprises would hardly pay interest on the construction cost. It would not be fair to Vancouver, say, to erect another dry dock at Esquimalt because there is not enough business for two unless one was supported by the British Admiralty for naval purposes. I think the British Admiralty might very well be asked to do something with Tespect to a dry dock on the Pacific coast and also one on the Atlantic coast. I think it is quite apparent that

there should be a dry dock somewhere on the Atlantic cost with a capacity sufficient to meet the maximum demand on the Atlantic seaboard. Whether a dry dock will pay on the Atlantic coast is a debatable question. Whether a dry dock is an aid or encouragement to a shipbuilding plant is also another debatable question. Many ship builders say that they would not have a 83,000,000 dry dock if it were given to them for nothing. They say it is a separate industry altogether and that one does not help the other but that one is rather a disadvantage to the other. Therefore, I say in the interest of Canada that great care should be exercised by the minister in granting aid under this Bill when it becomes law. A first class dock is necessary, I would say, in the port of Halifax. It would be quite natural that I should suggest that. I would make that statement anyway whether I was representing the constituency of Halifax or not. Before the minister enters into a contract with anybody he should make sure that it is a reputable firm and he should not have in his mind the possibility of the company failing. I would not enter into a contract with any person who could possibly fail. He should give security to the Government for a quarter of the cost and the minister should provide that he is amply secured beyond all peradven-ture. Therefore, I do not take ve^y kindly to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), namely, that we should undertake to pay interest upon a portion of 'the investment made in partial construction of a dry dock when the company has failed to complete its contract. The ' Government or somebody else, must come in and produce the requisite capital to complete the undertaking. I think that could he provided against by making sure that no contract should ever be made with any company that could possibly fail and which was no.t in a position to carry out its contract.
I quite agree with the purpose of the resolution in increasing the rate of interest. It is quite true that private capital will hardly embark in a drydock to-day of any size without some assistance. The rate of interest has risen during ithe war to such a height, and it is likely it will continue so for many years afterwards, that the Government is amply justified in increasing the rate from four to four and a half per cent.


William Pugsley: My idea is exactly like that of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that the Government should, and no doubt would, take ample security to en-
sure the completion of the drydock. There would be a margin of 25 per cent and there would be security put up in addition. The idea of giving a subsidy during construction is that the company could issue bonds against that which would be placed with its bankers. The bankers in turn want to put their bonds out amongst their clientele. They do not want to know the relationship between the company and the Government, or what security the Government has taken, but what they want to know is that beyond peradventure they can get their interest for a certain definite period. That is necessary, and that has been found necessary, in order to float these securities. It was a fact that for a number of years the subsidy might cease if the company ceased to operate the drydock. That prevented capital being raised. In view of the fact that a drydock can not be constructed in any place where it is not found by the minister, from the report of the officers of his department, to be in the public interest that it should be built, in view of the fact that the minister could always get this margin of 25 per cent and could have security which would be ample to ensure the construction of the dock, I would not think it would be unreasonable to allow the payment of interest upon 75 per cent of the expenditure during construction, provided, of course, that in each case the expenditure must reach at least $1,000,000. That in itself would be evidence of the financial ability of the company. Before it would get any subsidy at all it must expend $1,000,000 and so on practically through the construction.


Robert Rogers: Is that the only amendment the hon. gentleman would make?


William Pugsley: There is an amendment which occurs to me to be necessary because I have understood that there is a question even now under the present law as to whether in the case of a dock that is completed, passed by the engineers and accepted by the Government, and should cease, to receive its subsidy-


Robert Rogers: That is after it is completed?	i


William Pugsley: Yes. A change was made when Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance with the intention of making the payment of the subsidy absolute. The moment the dock was completed, passed by the engineers, approved by the minister and adopted by the Governor in Council, no matter what happened after that the

subsidy would be continuous and indefeasible for the period of the subsidy under the contract. I have been told that some question has been raised. Indeed, I was informed that a sub-committee of council had expressed the opinion that notwithstanding the legislation intended to bring about that result, it was not clear from the statute that it was brought about. I would like if the minister would look into that and see that the spirit and intention of the legislation introduced by Mr. Fielding is absolutely carried out; so that, when a dock is once accepted as being built in accordance with the specifications, there should be no question of the payment. It is absolutely essential that any doubt should be removed.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister finds it necessary to redraft the clause, I should like to see something inserted to provide a guarantee that the work will be completed.


Robert Rogers: That is provided in the Bill founded upon the resolution. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) does not appreciate the difficulties we have had in securing much, if any, result from the Dry Docks Subsidies Act apart from the floating dock at Montreal and the small dock ait Port Arthur, and his suggestion that parties intending to construct dry docks should be obliged to put up as a guarantee of good faith $750,000 would undoubtedly place such a barrier in the way that it would be impossible for us to get any results, even under the amended Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All I meant was that such companies should be in a position to make it clear to the Government that they can supply the capital required above the proceeds of the bonds guaranteed by the Government to meet the total cost of the undertaking.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is in the existing Act.


Robert Rogers: It goes without saying that the Government will guard against that. My hon. friend suggests that we should be careful not to have constructed in various parts of Canada dry docks under this Act unless they are absolutely necessary. I can assure my hon. friend that there is not much danger of the Act being abused in that way. There is little chance of having dry docks constructed unless there are very strong hopes of their being paying investments and being necessary, not alone in the public interest, but in the interest of the corporations or companies
undertaking their construction. The Dry Docks Act has been in force for some years, but its terms have not been sufficiently inviting to induce investors to undertake the construction of dry docks. My hon. friend suggested that he did not believe that there was necessity for a dry dock at Vancouver and also one at Esquimalt. My hon. friend does not realize the importance of our great western outlet through Vancouver and Esquimalt. Vancouver is probably the third largest port in Canada, and it has been greatly handicapped owing to the absence of a dry dock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not suggest that there should not be a dry dock at Vancouver. I understood it was suggested that there should be two first-class dry-docks on the western coast, one at Vancouver and one at Esquimalt. All I did was to suggest doubt as to the advisability of constructing two first-class dry-docks on. the Pacific coast.


Robert Rogers: In my humble judgment there is necessity for two, one at Vancouver and one at Esquimalt. Esquimalt is a very important port in that the Admiralty land all their ships there, and have been pressing for years for the construction of a dry dock. The Government have already taken up the question of securing the necessary land and preparing to carry out such construction if application should be made under the Dry Dock Subsidy Act. When I was in England I had occasion to take this matter up with Sir Edward Carson, who was then the head of the Admiralty, and the matter was gone into very fully by that department. I was at that time urging upon the Admiralty that it was their duty to build dry docks, not only at Esquimalt but also at Halifax, and I am glad to tell the committee that my proposals met with some favour, in fact, with a very great deal of favour, at the hands of Sir Edward Carson, who gave the matter very serious and thoughtful consideration.
We had some correspondence in the matter and the difficulty with Sir Edward Carson apparently was to be able to secure the necessary money from the Treasury Department, otherwise he would have been satisfied, upon the recommendation of the department, to carry out the construction of the docks at Halifax and Esquimalt. Hon. gentlemen can see the special interest the Admiralty appears to have in the necessity for docks at these two points.


John Howard Sinclair: Was it intended that
the Admiralty should pay any part of the

44C2
expense at Esquimalt or Halifax, or was Canada to pay it all?


Robert Rogers: My request of the Admiralty was that they should bear all the expense.


John Howard Sinclair: Did they agree?


Robert Rogers: I cannot say that they
directly agreed, but I pressed that point strongly.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the Government have taken over the docks at Halifax and Esquimalt and we now own them? Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: No, no,


William Pugsley: At Halifax a company
owns the docks and the dock at Esquimau is owned by the Government.


John Howard Sinclair: The Canadian Government owns whatever dock we have at Esquimalt?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: And we have owned
it for some time. Does the Government mean to go back to the old system of making it an Imperial dock, owned by the Imperial Government, instead of making it a Canadian dock?


Robert Rogers: The dock at Esquimalt
is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the large ships which pass in and out at that point, and we have had the fact presented to us, times without number, that British vessels go to Seattle to have repairs made in dry dock at that American port. This has been the subject of discussion between us and the Admiralty for some time. When I was in London, I pressed upon the Admiralty that it was their duty to see that dry docks should be built at Esquimalt, and Halifax, and I am glad to say that 1 made an impression upon the department, represented by Sir Edward Carson, to the extent that he was willing to undertake the work, provided he could secure the money from the treasury, and it was referred to Mr. Bonar Law. I had two or three interviews with Mr. Bonar Law, and I pressed on him very strongly the necessity for providing funds for the carrying out of the construction of these two docks. I have not yet received a definite answer from him as to whether it will be possible to carry out the proposal which the Admiralty made, and to provide the necessary money.


John Howard Sinclair: If they carry it out,
would the docks be open to the public, or would the use of them be confined to the Admiralty?


Robert Rogers: The Admiralty would
naturally have first call, and no doubt they would be very glad to admit ships that would pay for the repairs and help reduce the expense. My argument with the Admiralty was that we had already started, and had under construction, a dry dock at Quebec; and also had one started at St. John; that we had given a subsidy for and secured a floating dock at Montreal, and another at Port Arthur; or, in other words, that we were providing the necessary dry docks for the ships that were doing the carrying trade of our country, and that it was the duty of the Admiralty to provide dry docks at points like Halifax and Esquimalt. That was the ground on which I based my argument, in endeavouring to secure approval of the proposition that the work should be undertaken by the British Admiralty, instead of the Canadian Government.


William Pugsley: I think both the Admiralty and the Dominion Government gave aid to the company which owns the dry dock at Halifax.


Robert Rogers: Yes, but it was a very small amount. My object in bringing this resolution before the committee was simply with a view to providing such subsidy as would secure the construction of first class dry docks wherever they are necessary. In respect to Halifax, we had a proposal from a very strong English company, a short time ago, and, in order to give the committee an idea of what The building of drydocks means, I may mention their estimate of the work incident upon the building of the dock itself, and the necessary shipbuilding plant that should go along with it, in order to make the dock a paying and profitable concern. The committee will appreciate that for years to come the great business, in my opinion, of this country will be that of building ships to carry the trade of our country. I had presented to me the estimates of this English company, to build a drydock and shipbuilding plant at Halifax, and their estimate amounted to something over $8,000,000. It runs into very, very large figures.
I am satisfied that whoever comes forward to take advantage of whatever subsidy this Parliament decides upon will undoubtedly represent strong interests, and I do not anticipate any difficulty, or any failure on the part of any company that would come forward in putting up the security necessary for the purpose of carrying such contracts to completion.

I am desirous to do whatever is best in the public interest, and I will not ask the committee to consider the resolution any further to-night, but to think it over tomorrow or next dlay, and see whether any useful amendment can be made. Our effort will be to secure some result from the legislation and the amendments which may be adopted. As no hon. gentleman desires to .say anything further, I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As the Government, of which the hon. minister (Mr. Rogers) is so prominent a member, is now launching upon the doctrine and policy of public ownership, if we are going to own all the railroads in the country, what is the matter with owning the dry docks as well? I think the day will come-and it appears not 1 far distant-when the Government of Canada will own the railroads; and they will naturally own the ocean steamships as well. When they own ships in connection with their railways, they will certainly find dry docks very convenient, and if the doctrine of public ownership is to prevail in the [DOT]country, we might as well own the dry docks. After the war, I do not think the Government would have any difficulty in getting money at four or four and a half per [DOT]cent, perhaps cheaper, and if they could get it at three and a half or four per cent, it would be just as well for this House to own the dry docks, as to give four and a half per cent to somebody else, and not own the property.
The annual interest upon a dry dock costing $3,000,000 would be $135,000. For the thirty-five years, the interest would amount to $5,725,000. I suppose that we would need not less than five of them in Canada, two on the Pacific and three on the Atlantic. The interest upon these works for the thirty-five years would be $38,625,000. That is a very large amount of money to spend in connection with property that we do not own. I would suggest to the minister that if we are going to launch upon a policy of public ownership-ownership of railroads and all public utilities-we might as well own the dry docks with the rest.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C, J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 124 to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act was read the second time and the House went into, committee thereon, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1-Making evidence of wife admissible in prosecution for non-support.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the effect of the amendment to the Canada Evidence Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amendment is to add, in subsection 2 of section 4 of the Canada Evidence Act,, after the words "thirty-nine" in the fifth line thereof, the words "two hundred and forty-two A." Section 242A deals with the offence of non-support. By adding this section the effect of the provision is that the wife becomes a competent witness against her husband on a prosecution for non-support. The original section provides certain cases where the wife may be a competent witness against her husband. The present amendment simply adds to the existing cases of that kind the case of prosecution for non-support.


William Pugsley: Cases of prosecution under the Criminal Code for non-support?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.
On section 2-Penalty extended to foster parent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is provision in the Criminal Code making seduction by masters or proprietors of factories-people in authority generally over the individual seduced- an offence without regard to the limitations of age that are made in ordinary cases. This is to include in this provision cases where there is seduction by the step-parent of the step child, the foster parent of the foster-child or the guardian of his ward. The position is thought to be analogous to the case of a person availing himself of a position of authority over a female child.


William Pugsley: The section is very
desirable indeed.
On section 3- definition enlarged to include place where indecencies are practised :


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of this
amendment is to add to the present definition of a bawdy house the words:
Or for the praotice of acts of indecency, or occupied or resorted to hy one or more persons for such purposes.
At present such a place is described as a house, room, set of rooms or place of any kind kept for the purpose of prostitution. It has been represented to us by different police authorities that there has unfortunately grown up in different cities under the guise of legi-
44C4

timate places of business -such as massage, etc.-establishments which are resorted to not for purpose of prostitution, but for the purpose of the commission of acts of indecency. It has been thought proper that they should be put on the same footing as the bawdy house.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the beginning of the session I brought to my honourable friend's attention a matter germane to that now under consideration. Some good ladies in Montreal have been trying to save young girls from the perils to which they are subjected. When such cases come before the Recorder's Court, the young girls are sent to an institution, under the direction of the nuns, and everybody knows that the young girls who come under the direction of the nuns are on their way to salvation. The trouble is that sometimes, when their term is up, they are met at the gate of the institution by the men or the women who have led them into their life of shame. If the minister could devise means further to protect those young girls by an amendment to the Criminal Code, that would certainly meet with the approval of the society.
Another point which has engrossed the attention of the good people in Montreal who take a special interest in the welfare of those poor creatures is that there should be an enactment whereby those cases could not be settled out of court, and also that the appeals should be restricted, especially in oases where the men or the women found in those institutions have previously been punished. In laTge cities like Montreal- and I suppose the case applies to all large cities-it is appalling to realize how many young women and especially young girls are taken away from their parents and become the victims of the white slave traffic.
I do not know if my hon. friend as Minister of Justice has taken into consideration the remarks I have made to him from time time, but it seems to me, if not at this session, at the next session, he should confer with those in authority at those large institutions and enact pretty drastic amendments to the Criminal Code. I have visited the Montreal institution on two occasions;
I know some good ladies who have given their- services to the protection of young girls, and they are very anxious that the work should not fail by any laxity in the criminal court, or in the regulations, or in the procedure which takes place either in the Recorder's Court, or before the Appeal Court. I simply wish to remind the minister that it would be the part of wis-
dom for him some day to review the legislation on this subject and to meet the views of the public.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would remind my hOn. friend that it is not easy to find an adequate remedy for that state of affairs. The prisons and reformatories of this kind are not under the jurisdiction of this Parliament; they fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. It was suggested to me at one time that some remedy could be brought about by providing for longer sentences for young women offending in the manner referred to, it being pointed out that the stay of a longer period would be more likely to bring about reform. At that time I did make some effort in the direction of endeavouring to feel my way towards the ' imposition of more severe punishment. I found that there was a very strong reaction against that because it was suggested that by increasing the term of imprisonment, whereas where you had a properly constituted institution where a real work of reform was carried on, the effects would be good, on the other hand, the power being limited to providing for longer sentence of imprisonment, we would not be able to discriminate between different institution's, and it might be unduly harsh to impose upon a young woman, who had made her first slip or started in	the
wrong path, a very long period of punishment. The objection was not conclusive to myself; but at the same time, at that time at all events, it did not seem possible to hope to put through legislation looking for a remedy by greater severity. No doubt if we could extend more widely the establishment of purely reformatory institutions, that would be of great advantage to the country.
With regard to those younger women falling into the hand? of those who had formerly led them into vicious courses, it is very difficult to deal with that from the point of view of criminal law. We have already upon the Statute Book very severe provisions with regard to anything in the way of white slavery or traffic of that kind, and we have in the .last few years strengthened the law. There is no doubt that the whole subject of how to deal with offenders of that class and how to surround them with the protection that ought to be afforded to them is one that should call for more consideration, for a real study and a remodelling of our provisions dealing with the matter. When opportunity occurs, if I should be in a position to deal with the

matter, I certainly would approach in a most sympathetic way the examination oi the question. At present I am afraid I cannot say more. I quite appreciate and sympathize with the suggestion the hon. member has made, and I believe the time will come when we shall be able to deal more satisfactorily with that most unfortunate class. In the meantime certainly every one must appreciate the work of the good ladies to whom the hon. gentleman has referred, who certainly deserve well of the country for the devotion they have shown for a long period to the good work of endeavouring t-o encourage those young women to improve. It is also fair to express a tribute of appreciation of the work of the good religious who are in charge of the institution to which the hon. member has referred. If the section is taken as carried, we might revert to the one about which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) spoke.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Penalty extended to foster parents:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention was to
add the step-parent or foster parent to the cases provided for. The law 'already provides for the case of the guardian who seduces his ward, and that is the reason why we repeal subsection (a) and replace it by the present subsection which includes, with the guardian who is already provided for, the step-parent or foster parent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The old section is continued with this added. Is that what the minister means?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, with the addition of foster parent or step-parent. The guardian is already in subsection (a).


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Paragraph penalizing traders for not keeping books redrawn.
William Pugsley: What is the present section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The present section contains -a provision just as it is here, save as regards the proviso that a man is not to l>
j convicted if the period for which he failed tc keep his books is more than five years anterior to the charge. The present section has been interpreted as providing that if at any time within the last five years he kept any books, he could not be convicted. What was in view under the old section, though it was unfortunately expressed, was that if
he had at any time during the last five years failed to keep such 'books of account he might be convicted. In view of the wording, it was interpreted to mean that only if, as as a matter of fact, for the whole period of five years he kept no books he might be convicted. The proviso here carries out the intention that he is not to be convicted if his offence of not keeping books is more than five years old.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Constables' fees revised.
William Pugsley: Speaking generally, what is the percentage of increase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I could not give the exact percentage but it is not very large.


William Pugsley: I suppose from ten cents per mile to thirteen cents per mile.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The increases are not .very large. This proposed tariff has been submitted to the different provincial authorities who are also interested in the question. There has been a suggestion, of some question whether we ought to deal with the tariff of the constables. Whatever there may be in it, the present Criminal Code deals with the tariff, and there has been no serious objection taken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the purpose of section 8.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not an unusual section in regard to modifications made to criminal law, because a person should not find himself convicted possibly of a crime rsawly created until there has been ample opportunity for his being aware of the existence of the law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand the
minister to say that there shall be a uniformity of constables' fees, that is, the provincial governments will enact or amend their scale of fees so as to have uniformity throughout the Dominion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether we are really the constitutional authority to fix the tariff ct not it has been the practice in the past under our law to fix the tariff for the services of constables in connection with criminal proceedings. It may perhaps be open to the question that being part of the administration of justice it would be more proper that the province should do it. As a matter of fact one of the provinces to which we submitted these changes did suggest that view. The tariff as established by the present Criminal Code has been accepted and acted upon, and the constables

have made representations to us, and the provincial authorities in some portions of the country at all events-Ontario notably-* have acquiesced in the representation that the fees paid those constables for services in connection with criminal matters were inadequate. The fees, of course, are not paid by the Dominion. In many cases they are paid by the parties. I think a glance at the fees will show they are not unduly large.
Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, August 14, 1917.