1917-07-31

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In my absence yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) made allusion to a book called " The Fiddlers," which he has mentioned on two or three occasions. I did expect that some statement would have been made before this date and I so intimated to my hon. friend. It was thought desirable, however, to obtain pretty definite information with regard to one or two statements in



the book in so far as they concern the Canadian Expeditionary Force. That is in progress. We are anticipating a report from Surgeon-General Fotheringham, who has had experience both on this side and the other side, and we have also asked for certain information to be sent here from Great Britain. I shall try to see that there is no unreasonable delay in the matter.



THE WILLIAM DAVIES COMPANY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Eight Hon.   S@: I
have been asked by Sir Joseph Flavelle to read a letter apropos of -a statement made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) yesterday, a statement whose accuracy my hon. friend may remember I challenged. The letter is as follows:
And Sir George Foster having read the letter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has read a letter from Sir Joseph Flavelle referring to certain statements made in this House by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). When the minister started to read the letter, I was of opinion that it was questionable whether, in accordance with the rule he could do so. I sent for a copy of Bourinot, and by the time I had been able to place my finger upon the rule in question, the letter had been read. The rule is:
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside of the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
It is evident, therefore, that the hon, minister was not in order in reading the letter. Under the circumstances, the letter ought to be regarded as not having been read, and should be expunged from Hansard.


Mr. KYTE:: Withdraw.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Peccavi; I acknowledge the corn. But, Mr. Speaker, you will not attribute it to my desire to break the rules of the House. I should have known the rule very well; I am sure that I would have recalled it if I had thought for a moment. The letter was put
[Rir Robert Borden.]
in my hand just as I came to my desk, and I read it. I hope, however, that the constitution will still survive, even though it has been so badly punctured in this respect. I am extremely sorry to have offended against the rules of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I doubt whether the letter comes within the rule, because it confirmed the statement of the member for Richmond.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule refers to letters " referring to or commenting on or denying anything said by a member."
* In accordance with the direction of Mr. Speaker the letter is not printed. _



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACDONALD.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon the hon. the senior member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. A. A. McLean), said:
The member for Pictou a day or two ago expressed the view that it was not necessary to have the gauge of the P.E.I. Railway widened; he thought that the matter should be left over until after the conclusion of the war.
I desire to say I have not made any such statement as the hon. member attributed to me.



SYDNEY, N.S., INDUSTRIAL SITES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
George William Kyte: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the following telegram, which I received yesterday from Sydney:
Have information that Sydney Post proposes advertising scheme calling for four issues of forty thousand advertising local advantages as sites for industries that Americans are supposed to he looking for. Price per page $320. Solicitor pulling off scheme here assures advertisers that Finance Minister guarantees that Government will help the good work by giving dollar for every dollar collected. Understand that Halifax Herald and St. John Standard also-in scheme. Find out if this is so.
I would ask the Finance Minister if he knows of any such scheme as it is said in this telegram has received his support,


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I never heard of any such scheme until my hon. friend read this telegram, and I know nothing whatever about it.



SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Georgo Foster for the third reading of Bill No. 83, relating to the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat what I said yesterday when I expressed doubt as to the wisdom of constituting the board at this time and with its present personnel. I do not think this country can expect any practical or useful results from a commission constituted as this is. It is true that the services of most of the members are rendered gratis to the country, but some are being paid, and I wish to say that those who are being paid are not, in my judgment, competent to carry on the work which is to be assigned to them under this Bill. I trust that the Minister of Commerce will reconsider his decision. This is a very important work which the Government has in mind. Most valuable work may be done for the country by a commission of this kind if its membership is composed of men. who will devote their entire time and energy to the work, and if they are men of competency and energy. I do not wish to make personal reference to any members of this board. I said yesterday that you could not hope for any results from a board composed of representatives from the large universities, who can only come here three or four times a year, and give a very transitory consideration to these matters. I think the head of the board should be a young man with administrative and executive experience. Any good that could possibly be hoped for from the commission will be lost if the work is left in the hands in which it is proposed to leave it.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what has been said by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) in connection with this Bill No. 83. It seems to me that the expenditure resulting from this war-which we are called upon to meet- is so heavy that we should refrain from appointing further commissions of practically no use, for the time being at any rate. I am unaware of the reasons that may have caused the introducing of this Bill, but we are going through such a crisis that it seems to me to be altogether untimely to impose new burdens upon the people of this country, especially when we
261i
already have a rather costly commission-I mean the Conservation Commission -which, strictly speaking, might attend to this work, and I wonder what that commission will have to look after when this new measure is put into force. If there is one thing that may well be put off until peace has been concluded, I think it is this Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It seems to me, moreover, that instead of striving hard to impose new obligations upon this country, the Government should bend all their energies to the task of lightening the burdens now lying heavy upon our population.


George Green Foster: The hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has simply repeated what he said yesterday, and what I answered yesterday, ais I thought, fairly well. If he sought to create the impression that these gentlemen weire being paid for [DOT]their services I can assure him that only the administrative chairman is paid. The others give their services free. The amount that can be done, taken year in and year out, is a matter of opinion, and will best be proved by actual results. My hon. friend * starts off with the assumption they can only meet two or three times .a year; they are to meet once a month. He says that they can only .give an hour or two at each meeting, or something of that kind. I think that each meeting they have already held has continued fox three or four days. That is a record of work quite different from the suggestion made by my hon. friend. I am between two fires. My ihon. friend to my right is against this Bill because it creates a new charge in war time, while the hon. gentleman from Halifax is against the Bill because it does not create charge enough.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: The hon. gentleman from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). advanced another very cogent argument, when he said the work which it is proposed that this Commission shall do can he done by the Conservation Commission, which already exists.


George Green Foster: I do not think it could be done by that Commission.


Charles Murphy: Did I understand the _ hon. minister to say that all these gentlemen gave their services free?


George Green Foster: Except the chairman. I stated yesterday and to-day that the only member of the Commission who was paid anything was the .administrative chairman. All the rest give their services free.


Charles Murphy: What does the chairman do?


George Green Foster: If the hen. member had been, here yesterday he would probably have known.


Charles Murphy: I was here.


George Green Foster: If the hon. gentleman will read the report of my remarks, he will see what the work of the committee is.	.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Before the Speaker leaves the Chair I wish to bring up a matter which is of very considerable importance to the people of Canada, in connection with preventing the sending of parcels to the Canadian soldiers who are now prisoners of war in Germany. I gave notice to the Minister of Militia that I would bring up the matte|r to-day. As hon. gentlemen are well aware, prior to last Christmas Canadians who had relatives who are prisoners in Germany were allowed to send parcels of food, clothing and comforts of all kinds. Suddenly, about last Christmas, a change was made, and our people were prevented from sending parcels to their relatives who unfortunately were prisoners in Germany, unless they were officers, there being no change made in connection with the sending of parcels to officers. That is the ground of my complaint. In this democratic country, where one brother may be an officer and a prisoner in one city in Germany, and another brother, a private, may be prisoner in another German city, the relatives can send parcels to the officer, who does not need parcels to the same extent that the private does, but they are not allowed to send anything to the private. To my mind, that is a most unfair and unreasonable discrimination. I presume this policy is dictated by the War Office in England, and if so, it seems to me that the Department of Militia should not assent to such an arrangement. One of the reasons given why parcels should not be sent to private soldier prisoners is that contraband goods were being sent. When we consider that

there are some three hundered officers prisoners in Germany, if persons wanted to send contraband goods they could send them to those officers. There is no question that if anything contraband, or any information were being sent to a private, that information would never get to him because it would be taken by the German military authorities as soon as the parcel arrived in Germany. But what is to prevent the German authorities from taking the contraband goods or the information enclosed in a parcel addressed to a Canadian officer, who happens to be a prisoner in Germany? To my mind it is a most unfair and unreasonable law that makes fish of one and flesh of another. The Canadian officers who are prisoners are not in the same need of parcels from home, for the simple reason that, in a military country like Germany, the officers who are prisoners are treated very much better than the privates who are prisoners, no matter what their nationality or from what country they may come. There is a great deal of feeling throughout the country in regard to this matter. When the change was made, the whole matter of dealing with parcels to soldiers was handed over to the Red Cross authorities in London, England. While a great many people working in connection with the Red Cross are doing good work, yet, judging from the results that have attended the efforts of the Red Cross in handling the parcels for Canadian prisoners in Germany, I must say that their work in this respect has been anything but satisfactory. That is not to be wondered at. The branch of the Red Cross that is attending to this matter in London is in charge of persons who are giving their services voluntarily; who can come 'and go just as they please; nobody is there to see that the work is done thoroughly. As a matter of fact, the work has not been, done thoroughly, with the result that our Canadian soldiers for months after the change was made were left practically without a satisfactory parcel service. In many cases the parcels sent to them by relatives in Canada were sent back. In oases where money was sent to the Red Cross branch in London for the purpose of supplying parcels, very inferior parcels reached our Canadian soldiers. I have a great deal of evidence here from different persons throughout the country- parents, 'brothers and sisters of these unfortunate Canadians who are prisoners in Germany-complaining that they have difli-*culty in sending parcels to their relatives overseas, and that the parcels sent 'by the

Red Cross authorities are not satisfactory and are irregularly sent. I do not know just what change can /be made to remedy this matter, tout I toring it to- the attention of th'e Government, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of Militia, in the hope that some further effort will be made to see that the authorities across the water change this regulation and go back to the old system. No more harm can be done by a change than is done under the present arrangement, under which anybody who wishes to do so may send parcels to. the officers who are now prisoners in Germany.
I do not know that I ought to take up the time of the House in reading the complaints which I have here from people in Canada in connection with the suffering of these men at the front. There are letters and postcards here from men at the front complaining of the manner in which this change in the regulations has affected them. Conditions may be somewhat better now, but at the beginning of the year many of our Canadian soldiers who are prisoners in Germany were more or less on the verge of starvation, and they were kept in health largely by the parcels of food that they got from Canada. That supply was suddenly cut off, and -the parcels which they received did not amount to very much. It was proposed that the unfortunate Canadian prisoners of war in Germany should assign a further amount of their pay to the Red Cross in London in order that they might get more food. Imagine a soldier who has been fighting for Canada and who has been taken prisoner being asked to subscribe out of his pittance of $1.10 a day to the Red Cross Fund in order that food may be sent to him in Germany, while at the. same time the authorities refuse to allow his parents and friends in Canada to send him the necessary food and clothing to afford him some degree of comfort!
1 bring this matter to the attention of the minister, knowing that tens - of thousands of people throughout Canada are interested in it. A large number of people have sent me information on this subject, letters and postcards. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Militia will make a change in the regulations. This matter is of too much importance to our boys who are prisoners in Germany to be allowed to remain as it is; something ought to be done, and done quickly.
' Hon. Six EDWARD KEMP (Minister of Militia): No one will question the importance of the subject which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has brought
to the attention of the House, namely, the matter of the food supplies, clothing, etc., contained in parcels for Canadian prisoners of war interned in Germany.
The member for Aissiniboia referred, I take it, to a condition which may have existed not recently, but some months ago-, or eariy in this year. On April 24 last I put on Hansard the regulations which were made effective at that time. Since then further regulations have been made, and I will read to the House a statement .which I have gathered from different sources concerning the whole subject. No one who is intimately acquainted with the magnificent work which the Canadian Red Gross Society has been doing for our prisoners An Germany can find any reason for criticism. The Canadian Red Cross Society through its London agency is responsible for keeping our soldiers who are prisoners in Germany supplied with food and clothing. Through the generosity of the Canadian public, they have ample funds thus far for doing that work, which they are carrying on in a systematic way.
My hon. friend refers to certain privileges toeing extended to officers which are not extended to the men. That may have been the case to some extent in the past, but conditions are now remedied. I will supplement the statements which, were made in the House on April 24 last in respect to this matter by reading a memorandum which I have had prepared.
I have gathered the information from different sources, and I have thought it wise to have it embodied in a statement so as to cover all the points. This is the statement:
Re despatch of parcels from Canada to British and Allied prisoners of war. Before November, 1916, the system in force did not impose any restrictions on parcels being sent to prisoners of war by any Individual or organization. Each parcel, of course, had to be examined by the Censor before it was despatched from England. This involved an enormous amount of labour and frequently injured the contents of the parcel. Under this system it was found also that while the amount of comforts in the form of food sent to Germany was more than sufficient in the aggregate for all the known British prisoners of war, it was very unevenly distributed. Some prisoners were being sent an inadequate supply, while other prisoners got more than they could consume. To remedy these conditions a scheme was brought into effect by the British authorities on December 1, 1916, to apply to ail British prisoners- of war, Naval, Military, and civilian, except officers.
The new scheme was as follows:-
1.	No parcel was to be sent to a prisoner of war unless it had been examined or packed by the Central Prisoners of War Committee, or by an organization authorized by that commit-

tee in accordance with the regulations issued by the British Government.
2 Every prisoner to be sent parcels through one and only one authorized organization, or "packing association."
3.	Adequate supplies but not excessive quantities of food to be sent through the authorized organizations to every prisoner. As it is difficult to censor bread, cakes, and tinned foods without spoiling them, no person other than the authorized organization to be permitted to send such articles to prisoners. Wholesale gifts of foodstuffs or money to purchase food might be sent to authorized organizations for prisoners of war.	#
4.	Parcels despatched by an authorized orgam-zation to be distinguished by a special label which would be regarded as a guarantee on the part of the organization that the parcel does not contravene the regulations. Any parcels bearing this label would not ordinarily be opened by the censors, and it was hoped that enemy censors would find it unneccessary to delay such parcels for the purpose of censorship.
This scheme was included in the regulations governing communication with prisoners of war interned abroad which were issued by the General Post Office, London, in December, 1916. On January 9, 1917, Mr. Walter Dong, Secretary of State for the Colonies, addressed a despatch to the Governor General, asking for co-operation by the Canadian Government in this schem* stating that the objects were to ensure censorship, and to prevent waste and overlapping, and suggesting that the Canadian Bed Cross Society, which have an office in London be named as the authorized organization or "packing association" for Canada. Sir George Perley, the Acting High Commissioner for Canada, also cabled to the Prime Minister stating that the Director of the Central Prisoners of War Committee advised that no more parcels containing foodstuffs, tinned goods or clothing should be sent from Canada, but that instead remittances of money should be sent to the Canadian Red Cross Society in London for the purpose of purchasing such supplies and sending them to prisoners. It was pointed out by Sir George Perley that war conditions pre-emtorily imposed such action, and that it was only by adopting this procedure that it would be possible to get parcels satisfactorily through to prisoners with any regularity and equality of distribution. Sir George Perley strongly advised complying with the request of the British Authorities and stated that Australia was taking similar action.
In view of the above, regulations were issued in Canada by the Postmaster General dated January 29, which were based on those formulated by the British Authorities. These regulations were laid on the Table of the House of Commons by the Minister of Militia on April 24, 1917, and were printed in Hansard for that date.
Regarding the work of the Canadian Red Cross Society the following statement has been made to the Minister of Militia by Colonel Noel Marshall, President of the Society, (July 10, 1917) :-
The Canadian Red Cross Society is sending by mail to each prisoner of war three parcels each fortnight:	Each parcel contains food to
the value of ten shillings and weighs not more than ten pounds. We have also been sending thirteen pounds of bread each fortnight, but this has been in the last month reduced to eight and one half pounds owing to shortage of

flour. These parcels of food are in addition to tobacco and cigarettes sent fortnightly. A "capture parcel" is first sent upon the receipt of a soldier's name as a prisoner of war and the other parcels follow. The "capture parcel" contains overcoat, jacket, trousers, cap, pair of boots, two shirts, two pairs of socks, canvas	shoes,	two suits underwear, cardigan, gloves, kit bag, three handkerchiefs and two towels. The above outfit, overcoat excepted, is repeated every six months. Every prisoner of war is sent parcels as above stated regardless oV adoption by frieqds. The Canadian Red Cross Society undertook the above duties at the request of the War Office and Sir George Perley during months of February and March, 1917. Serious interruptions in delivery have at times taken place owing to various causes for which the Society was not in any way responsible. Date reports are that parcels, which are all being sent by mail, are being satisfactorily delivered. Neither the Government nor the Canadian Red Cross Society should be held responsible for non-delivery. We do ship the articles, but cannot guarantee delivery in an enemy's country.
No changes have been made' in the regulations since the date of issue except in certain minor details with reference to prisoners of war interned in Switzerland, (see Post Office Department circular, July 3, 1917).
An important change will, however, shortly come into effect regarding parcels for officer prisoners. Sir George Perley, on July 11, cabled that the Imperial Government have decided to make new regulations, which will come into force on the 1st of August to provide that parcels for officer prisoners shall come under the same rules as parcels for prisoners of other ranks. These new regulations have been approved by the Canadian Government. The weight and number of parcels of foodstuffs to be sent fortnightly will hereafter be the same for officers as for other ranks, and will be similarly forwarded by the Canadian Red Cross Society, but the contents of officers' parcels will be selected with special regard for their requirements. In addition, officers may be sent not more than two extra parcels of foodstuffs per month up to a total gross weight of 22 pounds, if their friends so desire and provide the necessary funds to the Canadian Red Cross Society. These new regulations will not extend to officers interned in neutral countries, regarding whom the regulations are unchanged.
I do not think I need take up the time of the House in reading the "Circular to Postmasters" of the 3rd of July, 1917. It ought to be printed in Hansard. As it consists of a page and a half, with the consent of the House, I will hand it with this statement to Hansard.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish it to
be read.


Sir EDWARD KEMP (Reading):: Circular to Postmasters. Communication with prisoners of war interned in Switzerland.
The Postmaster is informed that the regulations governing the communication with prisoner's of war interned abroad which were contained in departmental circular of January 29,

1917, and which were published in February, 1917, supplement to the Canada Official Postal Guide, are now modified to comply with the new regulations introduced by the Swiss authorities restricting- in part the privilege of free postage and exemption from customs duty hitherto accorded to parcels addressed to prisoners of war and civilians interned in Switzerland.
1.	Parcels, except those containing beverages, for prisoners of 'war and interned needy civilians will be exempted from postal and customs charges only if they do not exceed 1 -lb. in weight or if, while exceeding 1 lb. but not exceeding 11 lb., they contain nothing but articles for the personal use of the addressee, such as clothing, bed-linen, articles necessary for the care of the body, etc., but parcels containing food, and articles such as scent, s'cented soap, etc., can only be sent free of charge if they do not exceed 1 lb. in weight. Parcels containing beverages are without exception liable to the ordinary postal and customs charges.
2.	Exemption from postal and customs charges will not in future be accorded to any parcel addressed to an interned civilian who is capable of supporting himself.
3.	In future, therefore, only parcels for prisoners of war and needy civilians which weigh not more than 1 lb. and parcels over 1 lb. but not over 11 lb. in weight whiteh contain only articles necessary for the personal us'e of the addressee (not including food, beverages, etc.) will be accepted free of postage and will be delivered in Switzerland free ot customs duty. All other parcels (which must not exceed 11 lb. in weight) will be accepted only on payment of the ordinary postage and under the ordinary regulations governing the transmission of parcels to Switzerland, and for these parcels the senders must prepare customs declaration and despatch notes.
4.	The foregoing regulations do not affect the existing regulations under which parcels for prisoners of war, other than officers, must not contain food, clothing, or any other article prohibited from despatch, and must be addressed to the care of an appropriate association. (N.B. Such parcels intended for Canadian prisoners of war are to be addressed c/o Prisoners of War Department, Canadian Red Cross Society, London, England.)
The foregoing restrictions do not affect parcels for prisoners of war interned in any other country except Switzerland.
There may have been irregularities, but as pointed out by the president of the Canadian Red Cross Society, Mr. Noel Marshall, any irregularities there may have been have been entirely beyond the power of the Red Cross Society through its London agent to prevent. Experience has shown the system to which I have referred to be the most practical one and in the best interests of the prisoners themselves. There must always be some difficulty about guaranteeing absolutely that parcels will reach, the prisoners, but according to the statement I have just read, the general feeling is that the parcels which are put up according to the regulations are pretty snre of reaching the prisoners in Germany.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: I notice that a statement was made in the British House of Commons the other day in regard to a new arrangement that was being made between England and Germany for the exchange of prisoneis of war and interned civilians. Under this arrangement some are to be sent to Switzerland, some to Holland, and others are to be exchanged. It is practically on the same lines as the agreement already in existence between Germany and France. Will Canada be included in this arrangement, and have any Canadian prisoners been exchanged up to the present time? I do not want to mention the case of one hon. member of this House in particular, because his name has been mentioned so often, but I should like the minister to make a statement in regard to this new arrangement, as I am sure it would be of interest to the public.


Albert Edward Kemp: I saw the article to which my hon. friend refers, and I am getting further information on the subject. I have no reason to doubt that the arrangement will include Canadian soldiers. As soon as I have received further information, I shall communicate it to my hon. friend.	.	-


Charles Marcil: Have any Canadian prisoners been exchanged since the war began?


Albert Edward Kemp: Some Canadian prisoners of war have reached Canada from Germany, and I will find out the exact number and let my hon. friend know later.


Charles Marcil: The minister might have a statement prepared on that subject.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: Do I understand from the minister that the Canadian prisoner of war in Germany will not be asked to contribute out of his pay for the sending ol these parcels?


Albert Edward Kemp: I overlooked that point. I do not think that the report can be correct, as I never heard of a Canadian soldier being asked to subscribe money for that purpose. I should like to repeat that the funds that have been placed at the disposal of the Red Cross Society through the generosity of the Canadian public are ample for carrying out the programme to which I have referred, and the Canadian prisoners of war are receiving the amount of food and clothing mentioned in the memorandum This is all being done through voluntary subscriptions by the Canadian public.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to say in that connection that during the first year of the war, Sir George Perley received instructions to provide anything that might be necessary for the comfort and sustenance of 'Canadians interned in Germany. I am not sure whether there were any Canadian prisoners of war there at that time, but naturally the instructions would apply equally to them. I am bound to say that I never heard, until my hon. friend mentioned it to-day, that Canadian prisoners in Germany had been asked to assign any portion of their pay. I should hope that that report will not prove to be well founded, or that it may have reference only to some isolated case. I entirely agree that there should be no such practice.
With regard to the Canadian Red Cross Society in London, I have had opportunity on two occasions; once in 1915 and again this year, of inspecting the system in London, and I think that any hon. gentleman of this House who could see the work they are carrying out would agree that it is being performed with a great deal of thoroughness. The work is divided up into different departments, and it is thoroughly systematized. I do not know as to the method of inspection of the different departments. This year I had no opportunity for visiting the society's offices and seeing the work that was being carried on until the day I left England, and for that reason I was obliged to go very early in the morning. I found the ladies in every department at work at that early hour, and I am quite confident that the splendid spirit which animates them all would prevent any laxness or lack of thoroughness such as has been suggested. They are very proud of their success in carrying on their work; they are devoted to duty, and are very much interested in the results they are accomplishing. I really do think that the thanks of the people of this country and of the men for whom these ladies are labouring so zealously are due to them for (the good work they are carrying on and which is being carried on with grea;t thoroughness, and with most perfect devotion to duty.


Albert Edward Kemp: I should like to emphasize the importance of some such society as the Canadian Red Cross being in charge of this work. If parcels were allowed to be sent promiscuously, all sorts of things would be sent, and the German censor would be more suspicious than if the parcels came through one organization
fSir Edward Kemp.]
which could be depended upon not to send anything which from the German standpoint would be of a questionable nature. '


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair..
Department of Militia and Defence-contingencies, $60,000.
['I think I am safe in promising the hon. member that he will not be troubled with this Bill any more. It has been agreed between the town of Dun-dias and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway company that the clauses be withdrawn. There will be no more controversy.']
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was understood at the time of the passing of this vote that we would discuss the medical treatment of the men overseas. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the matter disclosed by the documents and reports of Dr. Bruce so far to hand, because we have not yet had a final report from him.
On September 20, 1916, Dr. Bruce, of Toronto, was deputed by the then Minister of Militia to make inquiry into the medical treatment of the boys overseas, and as to what improvement could be made in that treatment. The way in which our wounded boys may have been treated is a matter of the greatest importance and solicitude to every one in this country who has friends at the front. And Dr. Bruce's report must be regarded with the very greatest concern. The following are the facts he found:
1.	Many soldiers are arriving in England from Canada medically unfit, who should never have been enlisted.
2.	The system of disposing of casualties from the front to Imperial hospitals in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland is extremely unsatisfactory.
3.	The present method of having Canadian hospitals scattered over a large area is very objectionable.
4.	There is unnecessary detention in hospitals. There has been no medical inspection by the Canadian Medical Service of Canadian soldiers in Imperial hospitals, and there has been no efficient medical inspection of Canadian hospitals, in consequence of which Canadian soldiers are retained in hospitals in Great Britain, many of whom should have been returned to duty, and others should have been returned to Canada, where they could have been more economically and efficiently treated. The lack of system permits of the aimless moving of patients from hospital to hospital.
5.	The use by the Canadian service of Voluntary Aid Hospitals is very undesirable, as they are inefficient, expensive, and unsatisfactory.
6.	The administration of the group of 57 Voluntary Aid Hospitals under Shorncliffe Military Hospital by the Canadian Medical Service is unsatisfactory and expensive.
7.	The present method of operating, jointly with the Red Cross, certain hospitals built and equipped by them is unsatisfactory^ Such dual control is undesirable.
8.	Impropriety of detailing Canadian Army Medical corps personnel to Imperial hospitals and still retaining them on Canadian pay-roll.
9.	Unsatisfactory situation at Shorncliffe owing to our Canadian A.D.M.S. acting in a

similar capacity over a large area for the Imperial authorities.
10.	No attempt has been made to restrict surgical operations which produce no increased military efficiency.
11.	The installation of an expensive plant
at Ramsgate was inadvisable, as a large number of the cases treated there should he sent to Canada for treatment.	*
12.	The establishment at Buxton of a special hospital for the treatment of rheumatics was ill-advised, as the majority of rheumatics will not be flit again for active service, and could be better and more cheaply treated in Canada.
13.	The present system of handling Canadian venereal patients is very strongly condemned.
14.	The method of handling infectious diseases is most unsatisfactory.
15.	Medical boards which regulate the classification of casualties when convalescent have not been adequately provided for.
16.	Satisfactory records regarding individual casualties are not available.
17.	The exceedingly important question of pensions, which will involve the expenditure of large sums of money by Canada annually, has been neglected by the Canadian Medical Service.
18.	Lack of co-ordination in the Canadian Medical Service between Canada, England and the front.
19.	The medical personnel is not being used to the best advantage.
20.	The policy of the department has been opposed to the use of experienced medical and surgical consulting specialists.
21.	Discontent concerning promotions, especially in regard to Regimental Medical Officers serving at the front.
22.	The Canadian Army Medical Corps Training School in England has never been properly organized, although of the greatest importance to the Canadian Medical Service.
23.	In the operation of the Medical Service sufficient regard has not been paid to economy in management. [DOT]
This indictment by Dr. Bruce was of a very serious character, and created the greatest possible concern among the people of this country as to the condition of affairs in England; and the unfortunate
4 p.m. position in which this inquiry has been permitted to remain up to the present leaves the whole matter of the medical treatment of the overseas troops completely in the air.- Without going into too much detail in regard to the matters referred to by Dr. Bruce, let us deal with the question of the soldiers who arrived in England from Canada medically unfit, and who should never have been enlisted. Manifestly the enlisting and passing by medical men of recruits who are not in a position to go on active service involves, in the first place, a tremendous unnecessary expense upon the country, creates conditions under which discipline is interfered with, and altogether disturbs the service and prevents its proper performance by the
men who ought to carry it out. When we find this statement, which has not been questioned but which has been confirmed by the later report of Dr. Bruce, we have further food for thought:
Many hundreds of soldiers obviously medically unfit for service overseas have been sent from Canada to England.
This serious blunder has been more noticeable in Battalions and drafts arriving from Canada in the second year of war, and led to an order (A.D.M.S. Order No. 394) being issued on March 9, 1913, for the medical inspection of all drafts immediately on their arrival in the Shorncliffe area. This medical examination of newly arrived drafts showed that they included from 5 to 15 per cent of unfit men in their ranks-the Canadian Pioneer Draft, arriving June 29th, was found to have 57 unfits out of 254 all ranks.
Dr. Bruce goes on to say:
Fifty per cent of department base duty men, and 56 per cent of discharges from the Army have never been at the front.
Just imagine conditions such as this, men being taken from their homes and sent across the sea to England, and, after they have been discharged and all the expense has been gone to in connection with them, we have the authoritative statement that 56 per cent of them were never at the front at all. Dr. Bruce says:
Of 2,670 soldiers, regarded by the Medical Boards from June 12 to August 22, 1916, as only fit for Permanent Base Duty, 1,340 had never been at the front, while 8'16 of the total 1,452 discharges from the Army for the period had similarly never got beyond England.
That statement has never been questioned either in the Babtie report or in the statement made by General Jones. General Jones, who was head of the medical service, prepared a report dated September 28, 1916, in answer to the Bruce report, in which he says:
There is no question of doubt that a large number of men have been sent over from Canada who must have been medically unfit when they were enlisted.
This has resulted in an unnecessary burden being thrown upon the medical and other services in England that deal with-the weeding out of these men and their disposal.
He goes on to say:
It is strongly recommended that a ''most rigid medical examination be made in Canada, and that the adopted standards be closely followed.
Then we find the following in the Babtie report, dealing with the fact that so great a percentage of medically unfit men had been sent to England:
This it believed to have been due partly to inexperience on the part of examining medical officers, partly to hurry, partly to carelessness,

and lastly. In some instances, to the opinion of the examining medical officer being overridden or ignored by commanding officers.
. . . The Board has come to the conclusion that this important matter has not received the attention it deserves, and that the authorities have failed to make adequate representations regarding a condition of affairs that must severely handicap the Canadian Expeditionary Force both as regards organization and training in the United Kingdom, and efficiency in the field.
YVlhat occurred was that General Jones made a Teport, what is called " An Interim Report of Surgeonf-Genieral Jones, in reply to the Report on the Canadian Anmy Medical Service by Colonel Herbert A. Bruce." Then what occurred was that Sir George Perley proceeded to appoint a -board to deal with both these reports, a board headed by Sir William Babtie, and the curious thing about this Babtie hoard was that while Colonel Bruce was asked to gO' before it to give evidence he was not permitted to remain during the sessions of the hoard, and although he represented to that hoard that he had evidence of irregularities of the gravest character that bad Occurred since he presented his report, the Babtie board would not permit any of that evidence to 'be given.
If one goes through the Jones' report he will find that ont of the fourteen recommendations made by Dr. Herbert Bruce, twdlve are absolutely concurred in by Colonel Jones, and yet the Babtie report proceeds to oondemtti the recpmimemdatiom's made by Oolonel Bruce in the first instance. One begins to wonder what was the object of this Babtie report and board, and as to the board's efficiency, and its competency for dealing with these questions. It must be remembered that the report of Colonel Bruce was not a report in which he alone concurred and for which he alone was responsible. The following gentlemen were associated with him in connection with the matter and concurred in every word he uttered in the published report, Colonel Reid, iCotonel Wallace Scott, 'Lieut.-<Oal-Walter McKeown, Lieut.-Col. Wilson, and Captain Charies Hunter. These men all concurred in the 'statements and recommendations made by Colonel Bruce, with which the Babtie report found fault. There is some evidence, of a character which cannot be disregarded, tending to show that Sir William Babtie, whose report we in Canada were asked to accept absolutely without reservation as being a complete clearing up of all questions raised by Colonel Bruce, has, as the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) said the other day, gone [DOT] through a very strange experience himself 
where he had responsibility in regard to matters affecting the war. No lass a man than Austin -Chamberlain, speaking upon the debate on the (Mesopotamia report, in the House of 'Commons in England, declared that there was a most horrible breakdown. of the Medical Service in connection with the Mesopotamia campaign-and the man in charge was -Sir William Babtie, this gentleman who undertook to declare that, notwithstanding what Colonel Bruce had recommended and what he had found, his report was not to be regarded seriously. Here is what a newspaper report in England said in regard to Sir William Babtie:
Dealing with the medical breakdown, the Commissioners seriously criticise the administration of Surgeon General Sir William Babtie. .	. They say:	the gravamen of
the criticism which we feel bound to pass on Sir William Babtie is that, knowing the Army Medical Service in India to be organized only for frontier warfare, knowing the provision of the field ambulances and hospitals to be deficient, and knowing the medical personnel to he insufficient, he yet made no adequate efforts to improve these defects so as to equip the Mesopotamian expedition in a manner suitable for campaigning in an unhealthy, tropical climate, against an enemy who was in alliance and supported by the foremost exponents of modern warfare.
They go on to deal with the absolute failure, or as Austin Chamberlain said, the horrible breakdown of the whole Medioal Service in Mesopotamia, so far as the treatment of the mem engaged in that unfortunate 'campaign, is concerned. That is- the gentleman whose opinion the people of Canada have been asked to take in eomitra-diiistinetdon to that of Colonel Bruce. Colonel Bruce made ,am answer to the Babtie report some three months ago, yet it has been impossible fox us in this House, representing the people of Carnad, to find out what Colonel Bruce said in answer to that	report. We have
asked the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) and the Premier (Sir Robert Borden) for that report. We were told two months ago- that it had been sent to the Minister of Militia overseas. I have it on *the very best authority that the Minister of Militia Overseas, Sir George Perley, made the statement early in this month of July that he never eaw the report .prepared by Colonel Brace, which was in the hands of the Minister of Militia. The people of this country ,amd the 'members of this House want to know exactly why that report has not been brought down 'and what the real facts are in regard to this matter.
Take another situation which is referred to by Dr. Bruce. We have heard a great

deal 'abouifc the policy of concentration of Canadian soldiers in hospitals, and how it was of Imperial importance that they should not be concentrated. It was said that the men from all over the Empire who have fought together should be allowed to mingle in the (hospitals. It seems to me, eliminating anything bnt the practical organization for dealing with the sick and wounded of our forces, that the money of the Canadian people ought to be applied primarily to looking after the treatment of the Canadian wounded. With that proposition no serious issue can be taken. Dr. Bruce dealt with this question of looking after the Canadians who were on the other side in Canadian hospitals. He says:
The system of disposition of casualties from the front to Imperial hospitals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland is extremely unsatisfactory.
He made the following recommendation in regard to that:
That there he a concentration of Canadian hospitals and that the use of Voluntary Hospitals for Canadians be discontinued.
That is .a very definite recommendation. He goes into details which I need not discuss now,* showing the reasons why that should be done. That position is questioned by Sir William Babtie. It is not questioned, strange to say, by General Joneis. General Jones explained how it was that he agreed entirely with Colonel Bruce in regard to that question, that he thought that Canadians had better be treated by Canadian nurses and Canadian doctors in Canadian hospitals, and he tells, us why it was that his views upon that question was overridden.
The theory has always been in this country that Colonel Bruce had made certain reports and recommendations reflecting on Colonel Jones, particularly in reference to dealing with the Canadian wounded in Canadian hospitals. But a perusal of the report shows that Colonel Jones was not responsible for that. He says, at page 4 of his report:
The policy of segregating Canadians was changed in February of this year, owing chiefly to the strong hand of the Acting High Commissioner, Sir George Perley, who held that Canadians should mix with the other [DOT] soldiers of the Empire, in hospital. I was further informed by Sir George Perley that persons in very high positions thought strongly on this matter, and considered that in the interests of the Empire there should he no segregation of Canadians in hospital. My policy of segregation was therefore receded from. This was known to the High Commissioner, and if it was not considered the
right thing, then it would appear that I should have been informed, but up to the present I have not been.
On this question of the treatment of Canadians in Canadian hospitals, of our own boys being given the preference with our own doctors and nurses, there is no issue between Colonel Bruce and Colonel Jones. They agree absolutely with one another. But, on the other hand, you have Sir George Perley, who intimated that some very high people oflacially-such as he probably wanted to be-had some notions on the subject, and notwithstanding the report of responsible Canadian men on the subject, he under took to override their views, and induce Colonel Jones to take the other course. That is shown by the report. In addition to that, let me point out to bon. gentlemen of the committee what occurred when Sir William Babtie held the investigation. He declared that Colonel Bruce and Colonel Jones were both wrong, that the advice of Sir George Perley, who knew nothing of the treatment of wounded soldiers, should be followed, and he over-ruled Colonel Bruce and Colonel Jones. With what result? I wish to refer to the question of the administration of Shorncliffe, the V. A. D. hospital, which our friend, the ex-Minister of Militia, has been condemning so vigorously on the various occasions on which he spoke in this House. In regard to that there is no issue between Colonel Jones and Colonel Bruce, hut Sir William Babtie, the hero of the Mesopotamia breakdown, takes another view, and Sir George Perley takes another view, and because they take the other view, therefore the opinion and judgment of these Canadian medical officers of repute is of no value.
Let me give you an illustration. There has obtained, in what is known as the Shorncliffe area, a group of V. A. D. hospitals, which have been costing this country $160,000 a year unnecessarily. Colonel Bruce last November gave directions to close them up as far as Canada was concerned, and hand them over to the Imperial authorities, but that paragon of military knowledge and judgment in regard to matters of waT and matters of medical treatment, Sir George Perley comes along and [DOT]says, " You pay no attention to Colonel Bruce, or his judgment in regard to that matter, run these things as they have been run, keep them going." And it has cost this country from November down to the present time over $106,000, according to General Bruce's statement in regard to this matter, for the purpose of keeping these

hospitals going unnecessarily. Does it not strike hon. members, in regard to this matter alone, where you have these facts which are unquestionable, without going into details in reference to all these twenty-three findings which General Bruce has made upon the conditions that exist over there, that it is time this Parliament took some interest in this matter, and made an effort to ascertain what the real facts are in regard to it? Mark you, >at the conclusion of all these facts that were found by Colonel Bruce, he makes 14 distinct recommendations as to improvements that should be made, and in 12 of these recommendations, as a perusal of Colonel Jones' report will show, he agrees absolutely with Colonel Jones. In regard to one he says the recommendation is all right, but it might cost too much to put it into effect, and in regard to another he says he does not seriously question it. Then we get Sir William Babtie's report, and he disregards Colonel Bruce and Colonel Jones, and declares that they do not know what they are talking about. That is the man whom this commission appointed by the Imperial Parliament, so unequivocally and solemnly condemned for the breakdown that occurred in Mesopotamia. There is the situation. I am not going into the details of the report, nor into the facts at any greater length. I have instanced these two things, and the evidence is indisputable that there is no manner of doubt that Colonel Bruce's finding and his recommendations were in the interest of the boys who were wounded and brought there for treatment. What the people of this country want to know is why these recommendations have not been carried out? Why was it? Simply because Sir George Perley stands in the way. Sir William Babtie was detached for the moment from his duties at Mesopotamia and elsewhere to conduct this commission. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia received from Colonel Bruce, if I recollect correctly, in the month of April, his answer to the Babtie report, and he has not given it to the Canadian Parliament, or to the Canadian people up to this moment.
I leave it to the reasonable intelligence and fairness of every hon. gentleman in this House, as to why we in Canada, as the representatives of the people whose sons have gone forth, have not received that report of Colonel Bruce, and why we have not an authoritative statement from some quarter as to why his original recommendations were not put into effect. Let me call attention to what occurred. We were told, fMr. Macdonald.]
after we had repeatedly asked the minister to bring down the report, that it was being sent over to Sir George Perley. I make the statement in this House, as coming from a responsible party on the other side, that Sir George Perley stated early this month that he had not seen this report of Colonel Bruce? Why did he not see it? Did my hon. friend the minister send it over, or did he not, or was it lost in transit? Was there only one copy? Were there any copies of it printed when it came to the minister, and if he has a copy of it now will he lay it on the table of the House? Why is it Sir George Perley took that position? Why is it that we in this Parliament have not the full knowledge in regard to it? What right has Sir George Perley to override this Parliament or this Government? He has not conferred on him any plenary or express powers which enable him to disregard this Government and Parliament, although there is standing on the Order Paper a resolution providing for the appointment of an Overseas Minister, and it has been standing there all through the session. If the Government intended to confer special rights and powers upon. Sir George Perley, a Bill should have been submitted to Parliament long ago, which would show the authority he had over there. The Government have not moved in the matter. An order in council was passed some time ago by which he was given certain powers, but is Sir George Perley bigger than the Government and the Canadian people that he can keep these reports and not have them sent here? Have we not a right to know whether or- not the recommendations of Colonel Bruce are being carried out? Have we not a right to know the contents of this report in which he answers the Babtie report? The fact that the Government have not given us this is evidence of an intention to suppress it, unless we have the full explanation which will enable us to take some other view.
No matter what the conditions are, it [DOT] is of no use for persons interested to make inquiry of the Militia Department about some poor fellow who, having been at the front ever since 1914, has been wounded two or three times and has gone back to duty. My hon. friend issues a circular, tells us about this and about that, and says that Sir George Perley is the man who will allow this wounded soldier to come back. Some time ago we were told that in cases of this kind the British authorities stood in the way. We are told to-day that the British authorities have

nothing whatever to do with the internal economy, the arrangement and the disposition of the Canadian troops on the other side. When our men take up a certain portion of the line, though they are, for fighting purposes, under the control of General Haig or whoever happens to be in charge of that part of the line, in the matter of internal economy they are under the direction of their officers, who are responsible not to the Canadian people or to the Canadian Government, but to Sir George Per-ley. Unless that gentleman chooses to nod his head, nobody in Canada can get any satisfaction about anything. He has imposed his will in regard to the V. A. D. hospitals, contrary to the view of Colonel Bruce and General Jones. Why did he do so? Will the minister tell us why? Did Sir George Perley know more about the matter than these two specialists, one the medical head of the Militia Department in this country, and the other a specialist selected for the purpose of inquiring into this matter? It is useless to quote the Bab tie report, in view of the disclosures made in Mesopotamia, either in regard to the treatment of the medically unfit who go over or in regard to the methods employed in dealing with the boys who return wounded to England. According to the evidence that we have, these wounded soldiers are scattered all over the islands, from the Orkneys to Land's End. Why should that be so? Colonel Sullivan, who had to do with the transportation of these wounded soldiers back to England, says that there is no Teason why they should not all be treated in Canadian hospitals. The remedies suggested by the reports of Colonel Bruce and General Jones have not been applied-Sir George Perley stands in the way. He stands in the way of the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament knowing the answer which Colonel Bruce made to the Baptie report. In view of the destruction of the prestige of Sir William Baptie in connection with the expedition in Mesopotamia, certainly the Canadian people should know what Colonel Bruce had to say in answer to that report.


Albert Edward Kemp: Hon. gentlemen of the committee will hardly say that the enlistment of upwards of 400,000 men and the organization of medical services in connection with them in Canada and in England would be accomplished without a jar. Having regard to the inexperience of our country in war and the inexperience of our
medical men in connection with such matters, it is reasonable to suppose that things would occur which would not have occurred if there had been greater experience.
Reference has been made to the examining by medical officers of our recruits in Canada; it has been suggested that in some cases there was evidence of' carelessness. I do not doubt that for a moment. In view of the hurry and of the competition that took place between the battalions, and in view of the inexperience of some of the medical officers, that was bound to occur to some extent. I do not think it is as serious as it has been represented; as time has gone on, regulations regarding the examination have been bettered in the light of the experience that has been gained. In that connection permit me to read to the committee1 a report,
July 9, 1917, addressed to me by Colonel J. L. Potter, Director-General of Medical Services in Canada:
Medical Inspection of drafts and units arriving from Canada.
1. A report received from overseas, dated 30th May, gives the following information on the subject marginally noted:-
Units.	Strength.	Unfits.190th Battalion. . . .	.... 392	0225th Battalion. . . .	.... 507	0200th Battalion.. ..	.... 478	0216th Battalion. . . .	.... 87	0177th Battalion. . . .	.... 25	0256th Battalion. . . .	.... 137	02nd Reinf	-	-5th R.H.C	.... 54	5Total	.... 1,680	52.	Of those pronounced unfit, it is noted two had disabilities which, possibly, did not render them absolutely unfit for some duty in England, viz., flat foot an 1 over riding of little toes.3.	One man was suspected of being tubercular but it is not definitely stated that he Is suffering from tuberculosis.4.	One man was reported as being addicted to the use of drugs. It is possible that circumstances were such that, after arrival overseas, he was unable to secure the drug and the disability immediately became apparent.5.	One case was that of a: man suffering from stiffened thumb of left hand and debility.6.	In this case it should be noted that, of the numoers involved, viz., 1,680, only five were reported as unfit; two of them at least (one suffering from flat foot and over riding of the little toes) possibly may be of service.
The errors reported in the case of suspicious tuberculosis, drug hahit and stiffened thumb of the left hand and debility, are errors which, possibly, may he excused. In any case, the report indicates that the medical examination of the men before they proceeded overseas was carefully carried out.
So that the remarks which the member for Pictou has made with regard to men going overseas who were not properly exam-

ined. in Canada apply to the earlier, not to the later, stages of the war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I say applies to 1916, I am anxious to learn from Colonel Bruce's report what the conditions were this year.


Albert Edward Kemp: Colonel Bruce's report, I take it, does not deal particularly with what has happened within the last year or so.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: His first report deals with conditions in September, 1916. The report of the Babtie Board deals with conditions in December, 1916.


Albert Edward Kemp: Various reports
have been made by medical men overseas with regard to the question which my hon. friend has discussed here to-day. I sincerely hope that out of all these reports better conditions have arisen. My Ron. friend has referred to something that happened in Mesopotamia. That goes to show that the British Government has had trouble, even with their greater experience in military matters, in the medical administration of their forces. It could hardly be expected, therefore, that some such incidents as my hon. friend has referred to should not happen in a country like Canada, where we have enlisted so many men. It is not quite fair for my hon. friend to say that Sir George Perley has overridden this medical man or that medical man or the other medical man.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The evidence shows that.


Albert Edward Kemp: Sir George Perley is endeavouring to carry out to the best of his ability the very responsible duties with which he is charged. I have every confidence that the medical service in England is being well administered at the present time, and with all the difficulties with which it has been confronted, it would be surprising had a better condition of affairs arisen. My hon. friend has referred to many matters connected with these reports. I am not so familiar as he is with the reports. I have not had time to study them on account of the many duties with which I am charged, but out of all the differences of opinion on the part of the doctors, we have arrived at a very satisfactory state of affairs in regard to our medical service in the British Isles. I do not know anything about the reference made by my hon. friend about Sir George Perley overriding Dr. Jones. So far as the question of Sir George Perley's appointment is concerned, I under-

stood my hon. friend to say that he had never been appointed, and he did not quite know what his status was. Sir George Perley was appointed by order in council in October last.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said that.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member referred to something that was on the Order Paper. The notice on- the Order Paper to which my hon. friend "refers does not constitute the appointment of Sir George Perley; it constitutes something else altogether. Sir George Perley was appointed; he is a colleague of mine; he does not take instructions from me, but reports direct to the Prime Minister the same as any other colleague of mine does, and he is responsible to the Prime Minister and to the Government of this country. There is no confusion about the matter. My hon. friend has brought up this point many times in this House. It is necessary to have on the spot a minister of the Crown responsible in the way Sir George Perley is responsible for the new condition that has arisen owing to the large number of troops whom we have sent overseas, and to have him report direct to the Prime Minister in respect to these matters.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister said
that I was hardly correct in stating that Sir George Perley had overriden Dr. Jones If my hon. friend will look at Dr. Jones' report, he will see this statement which 1 did.not read before:
As to the change in policy in February, 1916, in the matter of distribution of Canadians in British hospitals, it is submitted that strong representations had been made to me for some time by prominent Canadians, including the High Commissioner, that in the interests of the Empire, Canadian soldiers should be distributed in English hospitals, where they could fraternize with British soldiers, and soldiers from the other Dominions. And, finally, owing to the very strong position which Sir George Perley took in favour of this, I receded from my former position.
That shows that he did override Dr. Jones. The minister has failed to tell us when we aie going to get a copy of the last . report of Dr. Bruce.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I wish to refer for a moment to the fact that the Government deserted their own officer, although, so far as any one could see, he appeared to be doing an important duty well. Will the minister explain why the Government abandoned Dr. Bruce? Why did they not permit him to go on with the work they asked him to undertake? We cannot expect a public official to do honest and ef-

ficient work if, whenever he gets into trouble and makes a report that is not satisfactory to everybody, the Government is to go back on him and abandon him and appoint some other commission to criticise what he has done and to defeat the work he has been attempting to do. It looks as if this Government was getting into the habit of investigating the investigator. Last night we had a discussion in regard to a similar matter. A man was commissioned to discharge an important duty and apparently he did it well and energetically, and made his report to the Government, but his report was thrown aside by the Government and a new commission was appointed to carry on an investigation for the purpose of befogging the issue and of destroying the report made by an officer of the Government. In the present case, Dr. Bruce was either an honest and capable official or he was not. I think every one .in Canada who knows him will .say that he was honest and capable, and if he was the Government should have stood by him, and if there was any further investigating to be done it should have been done by Dr. Bruce. As he undertook the work, I can see no reason why he was not continued in his position until a result was arrived .at. Dr. Bruce acted very promptly. He was appointed on the 31ist day of July, 1916, .and he was commissioned to make an inspection of all the Canadian hospitals under the control of and paid for by the Canadian Government. He proceeded to do that work, and he .reported on the 20tih day of September, six or seven weeks after his appointment. He must have carried on his work with energy, and, so far as we can see, with efficiency. When his report was received what would be the duty of the Government? A man not in military life would my that the first duty of the Government was to institute the reforms suggested by Dr. Bruce in his report, but instead of doing that they appointed Dr. Babtie ,who now turns out to be a discredited person himself on account of his conduct .in Mesopotamia, to investigate what Dr. Bruce has already investigated. We have not had any explanation from the minister .as to why that step was taken, and it is -a mystery to the people of Canada. If Dr. Bruce was an honest and capable man the Government should not have abandoned him. If he was not, of course they should have dismissed him. The Babtie Commission, fio far as I understand these reports, does not prove that Dr. Bruce was wrong.
Take, for example, two questions that are dealt with. The first one that I will refer to is the Voluntary Aid Hospitals. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has already .spoken of that subject. These hospitals were all right at the inception of the war. They were mostly under the management of patriotic and well-meaning women, who ware willing to do something in a volunteer way to help on the war, .and when the war started we have no doubt those hospitals rendered valuable aid in looking after the wounded. But after the regular hospitals were organized and there wta ample accommodation for the wounded, the use for those Voluntary Aid. Hospitals seemed to have disappeared. It will be admitted by the minister that we might as well dispense with them, and Dr. Babtie, in his report, does not show that Dr. Bruce was wrong in that particular.
The second question is the unfit medical men. Dr. Bruce pointed out that there were oases in which man were .serving in hospitals who were unfit for that duty, .and that soldiers were .suffering on that .account. Dr. Babtie first makes the statement that that charge is not borne out by the facts. A little later on in his report, however, he admits the truth of Dr. Bruce's statement that there were incompetent doctors in the service, but he says that they were as good as the men in any other branch of the service; that is about the explanation he gives. Dr. Bruce, of course, wanted the very best doctors that could be obtained, and there was no necessity, so far as I can see, for keeping unfit or incompetent doctors in the service at that stage. I was greatly impressed by a letter published in the Toronto Globe recently from Adelaide R. Poole, R.N., who had been a nurse for a year and a half in military hospitals in France and England. I do not know the lady, but I should like to read one paragraph of her letter:
But the whole thing goes deeper than mere details of rival reports. The offence for which Col. Bruce is being punished is that he, being a doctor, dared to criticise other doctors. He dared, as a man acting in the interests of the public, to do his duty, even although it involved his sinning against medical etiquette, and consequently, no matter whether he be right or wrong, he has, and will have, almost the whole medical- profession against him. This is the root of the whole matter, and the short-sighted public, instead of standing by the man who, for their sakes, broke one of the strongest fetishes of our day, join in the cry against him.
This decision, this disqualification of a man who did his duty as he saw it, will have a far deeper effect than most people realize. Even at the present time, medical etiquette is so strong in military hospitals, that a Colonel, an old and

experienced doctor, will hesitate before interfering with the youngest medical officer's treatment of a case, even when he feels in his heart it is mistaken, and will shut his eyes to habits and incompetence, in a way that could happen in no other corps in the army. Thinking people feel there is a danger to the community, even in civil life, in the way one doctor stands by another, no matter how inefficient or unworthy of confidence he be. No one but another member of the profession can say a doctor has made a mistake, or done wrong, no matter how flagrant the case may be. The patient is generally dead, the friends and relatives are ignorant, and the nurse, even when she knows, is trained not to speak. But after this lesson, an efficient, conscientious doctor, when he knows things are wrong in a hospital, knows lives are imperiled or lost by the habits of incompetence of other men, sometimes inferior to him in rank, though he break his heart over it, will keep quiet lest worse befall liim-lest he himself be deprived of his chance of being useful. He will do his own work, and shut his eyes to what goes on around him. And he will be wise.
If a man appointed and paid to inspect is punished and dismissed for making a real report on what he finds, instead of patting every one on the back, as is usually the case, what would happen to just an ordinary officer if he dared to speak? If the public stand for it, they deserve what will come to them. But what of the helpless soldiers?
That is written by an experienced nurse who knows what is going on in some of these hospitals. I have no desire to make things seem worse than they are, but I should like some explanation from the minister as to why the department deserted Dr. Bruce wdien he was attempting to perform a very important public duty.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is correct to say that the department deserted Dr. Bruce. Dr. Bruce made a certain report which aroused a good deal of controversy. The subject was investigated by another board, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) seems to be under the impression that that board was composed of one British officer, and that Canada was not represented on it at all; at least, if he is not under that impression himself, he conveyed that impression to the committee. The board was composed of Surgeon-General Sir William Babtie, K.C.M.G., C.B., V.C.; Colonel E. C. Ashton, G.O.C., C.T.D., Shorncliffe; Colonel J. T. Eother-ingham, C.M.G., A.D.M.S., 2nd Canadian Division, B.E.F.; Colonel A. E. Ross, C.M.G., A.D.M.S., 1st Canadian Division,
B.E.F.; Lieutenant-Colonel J. M. Elder, No. 3 Canadian Hospital, Boulogne. I do not believe you could find four names in the medical profession in Canada that would command greater respect than those.


John Howard Sinclair: Dr. Bruce was not a member of the second board?


Robert Laird Borden: No, but I understand he was present and had the opportunity of making representations.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He says not. He says he was called to give evidence, but was not permitted to attend the sittings of the board.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand he was permitted to make his representations to the board. He may not have been permitted to attend their deliberations, but that is a somewhat different thing from what I stated.
So far as the medical service overseas is concerned, it is under the direction of a gentleman whom I believe to be a very competent officer. I saw something of him and heard a good deal about him when I was there this year. Surgeon-General Foster is a gerjjleman who has had considerable experience in the Canadian permanent service. He went across the Atlantic early in the war, and has had the advantage of a wide experience over there, and when new arrangements were made nearly a year ago, he was selected for the position which he now holds, namely, head of the Canadian Medical Services overseas. I believe he is discharging his duties efficiently and well, and that the services are being efficiently conducted. Of course, the experience of a person who visits hospitals and sees the patients is not by any means conclusive, but in justice to the management of the Canadian hospitals overseas, and in justice to the management of the British hospitals which I visited-and I visited a great (many-I am bound to say this: although I inquired very frequently, indeed of almost every man whom I saw in the hospitals, whether they had any cause for complaint or any suggestion or representation to make, I never heard from fir^t to last in the. thirty or forty hospitals I visited in March and April of this year, a single complaint from a Canadian patient, or for that matter, from any patient, and I never saw anything in any one of these hospitals that would call for a critical remark. The men all seemed to be well eared for, comfortable and contented. As far as I could judge everything that could be devised for their care and comfort had been done.
As far as the V.A.D. hospitals are concerned, there are none of these at present under the Canadian system. There are some, however, under the British..system and I visited some of these, but I saw

nothing to excite criticism or comment on their management. I should be very sorry to believe that the Canadians who have gone overseas and have been wounded in this war or are suffering from illness are not being properly cared for; I believe that they are.
The work of the Canadian Army Medical Corps in the fight at Vimy Eidge has been described to me and it indicated a remark-, able degree of efficiency. The arrangements for moving back the wounded and caring for them at once were remarkably thorough, and there was nothing left undone that one could suggest. I remember reading a letter quite recently from a Canadian physician who went overseas about two years ago. Dr. Andrew McPhail, of McGill University. The letter was not written to me, but to a friend who showed it to me. I am sorry I have not it here to read to the committee because it would impress upon the committee the splendid efficiency of the arrangements that were carried out by the Canadian Army Medical Service in that battle. Those arrangements reflect the highest credit upon every one concerned in them. The arrangements were thought out just as carefully, so far as they concerned the care of the wounded, as any of the other operations. When, in Ithe midst of the fight, through sudden change in weather conditions, it became necessary to have 600 or 800 additional blankets brought up immediately, although that call was absolutely unexpected, those blankets were provided within less than one hour. The arrangements from first to last struck me as indicating the highest degree of efficiency in the care of our wounded at the front, as disclosed by what took place during and after that battle. With the profound conviction I have that the Army Medical Service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force is thoroughly efficient, I would deeply regret that the impression should get abroad through this country from anything said in this committee that the reverse is the case. I am convinced that the men who are serving in the Army Medical Service of the Canadian Expeditionary Force are not only .men of excellent knowledge and wide experiences, but that they are men animated by the highest devotion to duty. They have not spared themselves in this war. They have gone to the very firing line whenever necessary. There have been many casualties among them. I have seen their ambulances with scores of shrapnel and bullet marks on them. Those men are 252
right out in the very midst of the fighting, whenever it is necessary that they should be there. They do not stay behjnd. They and the orderlies under them go forward to where the wounded men -are lying. I believe these men are doing as good service for Canada and the Empire to-day as any men in the Expeditionary Force, and that too much credit cannot be given to them for the .splendid spirit by which they are inspired and the splendid work they have done.


Mr. PAKDEE:: I fully appreciate the
remarks the Prime Minister has made. It is not in the mind of any one here to question the fact that the Army Service Corps is one of the best in the world. We all know they are doing splendid work. As the Premier has said, they are performing the most wonderful service. They take their chances along with the rest of the soldiers. But, if I understand it, the Bruce and the Babtie reports which are now under discussion do not refer in any way to this. The only thing those reports refer to is the treatment of the wounded in the hospitals in England, and the point is, is that right or is it wrong? The Premier eays that he Ghould be very sorry to see any doubt east upon the service 5 p.m. in this committee. But when we come to consider the Bruce and the Babtie reports, I ask this committee if it would not be well to set the whole matter before the people, and have the reports placed on the Table go that we may know where we are. It has appeared to me for some weeks, as it must have struck many members of this committee, that there is an air of mystery which should not exist concerning this affair. It should not 'be so, as a matter of right to the Canadian people' who are entitled to know what is being done so far as their relatives and their wounded are concerned. And the reason why the matter should be cleared up is that if this state of mystery continues it will not help recruiting. Ae I understand it, Dr. Bruce is one of the most eminent men of his profession, not only on this continent, but probably one of the most eminent to be found anywhere. On account of the alleged existence of certain conditions in England, he was sent to make a report. In one of the paragraphs of his report he says:
In view of the unanimity of my confreres who contributed in so important a measure to my report, may I briefly outline their eminent qualifications for the unpleasant but necessary task which they so cheerfully and ably performed.



Then he gives the names:	Col. Reid,
Col. Wallace Scott, Col. Wilson and Col. Walter McKeown. I do not know any of these men, and I have not the faintest idea who they may be; but, knowing the reputation Dr. Bruce holds in this country, and knowing the class of man he is, I am perfectly satisfied he did not take these men with him for the sake of making a biased report. He took them for the purpose of helping him to do the work he was sent to do. He consulted them, and they brought in a report finding, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has shown, 23 grounds upon which the Canadian hospitals are no.t being properly administered, and making 23 recommendations as to how these wrongs may be righted. In their report they say: Do these things, in order that conditions may be bettered. Then what happens? Col. Babtie goes over, taking certain eminent medical men with him, and he makes a report in contradistinction to the Bruce, report, and says that in certain things Bruce is all wrong, and Babtie is all right. You have it on the Prime Minister's own admission that Col. Babtie is a most eminent medical man. You have not only the admission of the Prime Minister that he is an eminent medical man, but the English Government has said so, because they put him in charge of one of the most difficult medical transport services they had; and, eminent though he was, he sofentirely failed that the English Government have practically had to take the matter in hand and censure him. We have the Bruce report, and we have the Babtie report, and in connection with this Babtie report, the man who made it has come to grief through want of real medical knowledge along the lines he took.
Then, Sir, we have the Jones report, and with that I shall not deal. But we have this fact, that Dr. Bruce, in all fairness, considering his reputation, whether as a medical man or as a citizen, having been criticized in the Babtie report, should have had the human right to reply and say wherein he was right and wherein General Babtie was wrong. Again the mystery-why, I know not-but for weeks we have been endeavouring to get that reply from Dr. Bruce so that we might argue the question out and find, at least to our own satisfaction, whether we are right or wrong. As I understand it, this second Bruce report seems to have vanished into thin air. The Minister of Militia says he sent it to 
the minister overseas. The minister overseas says he never got it.


Albert Edward Kemp: What authority
has my hon. friend for that statement?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I have a letter here, written in the early part of this month by a man who had. seen the overseas minister [DOT]and the overseas minister says he nwer , got that report. That, I submit, is fairly good evidence. May I now ask if the minister has a copy of that report, and if he has, whether he will lay it on the table of the'House? May I expect an answer?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already
given the answer. As far hack as the 31st tday I said:
It is not the intention of the Government to lay it on the Table without first submitting it to the overseas Minister of Militia to whom in the ordinary course it should be presented, as it relates to matters under his immediate jurisdiction. Whether or not the report will afterwards he laid upon the Table,
1 am not for the moment prepared to say. I speak not of my own knowledge when I refer to the contents of the report, because It is voluminous and I have not had time to read it hut I understand that a portion of it is not responsive to anything in the report of the Commission over which General Babtie presided and that it is not made in respect of any matter upon which Colonel Bruce was asked to report. Whether that is the case I am not now prepared to say, owing to lack or time to make the necessary examination. 1 am thoroughly of opinion, however, that the report should first be submitted to the Overseas Minister of Militia.
That is what I said on the 31st May, and that is the position to which I still adhere. If the minister of the overseas forces has not received it, I do not understand the reason for that, because the Minister of Militia and Defence forwarded it to him. It is possible that it may have gone down in some vessel sunk by a submarine, but we have no reason to suppose that such is the case. It is a proper suggestion that we should ascertain by cabling whether he has received it, and we shall do that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I have never been a
member of a Government and so I am not familiar with the procedure of Governments, but I cannot understand, when the second Bruce report came, even although as the Prime Minister has said, it refers to matters that are within the knowledge of 'the 'minister overseas, why Sir George Per-ley should have to revise that report before it was given to the members of this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
he ishould revise it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Practically, th*e Prime
Minister agrees 'with me, because he says that, as the minister overseas has to do with matters, that are contained in the report, it ought to be .submitted to him. Am I rigiht in that,?


Robert Laird Borden: I say it should have been submitted to Mm in the first place.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Dr. Bruce was appointed by this Government to report on certain things. He was not .appointed by the minister overseas, but by order in council here, to report and give his findings. I submit that if he were to give an unbiased report he would go over there to report and without having reference, near or remote, to Sir George Parley, he would come hack with that report, and the Government should lay that report upon the table of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend quite understands the situation. Colonel Bruce was not appointed by order in council. He was appointed by the then Minister of Militia and Defence to make inquiry and report. His report would naturally go to the Minister of Militia and Defence. It would not be sent to the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of the Naval Service; it would be sent to the minister who appointed him. After that report had been made, or about the time it was made, a change took place by which the duties that had up to that time been discharged by the Minister of Militia and Defence were divided, and in the future a portion of fcho.se duties were .to he discharged by the Minister of Militia and Defence, and a portion of the duties were to be discharged by the minister of the overseas service. The particular matters to which the report related came under the jurisdiction conferred upon the minister of the overseas service, and therefore, for that purpose, he ocupied the position which the Minister of Militia and Defence occupied in (the first instance. That is the reason why I say the report should have been presented to Sir George Perley in the first instance. I .should like to make this plain further to my hon. friend-we are speaking of this document as a report. It is not a report in the ordinary sense.
It is rather the criticisms or observations of Colonel Bruce in respect of the report made by the board of. which General Bab-tie was the president. It was not ask for by any minister or- by the Government; but he exercised his right, 252J
as he understood it, of making a reply to the conclusions that had been formulated in the report made by the board to which I have just alluded. So that, in the strict, technical sense, it is not a report but rather his reply to or observations upon the report made by that board.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Along that same line of * reasoning, may I submit to the minister that, as it was only comment upon the Babtie report, if it should not be submitted to this House, and if it was not a report proper, why should it be submitted to the Minister of Militia overseas? But the Prime Minister says that it was. As I understand, it is then in this position, that the second Bruce commentary or report, whatever we may desire to call it, was made in answe.r to the Babtie report, that that commentary upon the Babtie report was sent here, I suppose, to this Government, to the Minister of Militia, or to my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: It did not come to me.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then the Minister of Militia no. doubt got it. It got to the Government somehow. Then, after it gets to the Government, the Government says that this is of such importance and it is such an integral part of the Babtie and Bruce reports, that, in order that the matter may be kept perfectly straight, .and as the minister overseas has to deal with these matters, and as these matters must not be submitted to the House of Commons or laid on the Table in the form of a commentary or report, we must send this to the minister overseas in order that it may have his "O.K."
Am I right up to that point?


Robert Laird Borden: I would not say absolutely right. I will explain the position as I understand it. We say it should be sent to the minister overseas, as it related to questions under his jurisdiction and as to which he takes the place of the Minister of Militia. It should go to him in the regular course, but it should go to him for another purpose. I have already pointed out that it was not in response to any request of the Government, or of the Minister of Militia and Defence, or of the minister of the overseas service that it was sent. It contains some matters perhaps relating to the Babtie report, and a good deal of matter, which as I understand, does not relate either to that, or any other report. I am so informed

by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, who made a study of it, and made a report upon it to the Government. I jsay it should go to the minister of the overseas service in. order that he might consult his officers in regard to it. It might be *necessary to make some explanation or .statement. I should suppose the minister *<of the overseas service would submit that , commentary or criticism to Surgeon General Foster, who is at the head of the service over there, and .ask him whether any of these criticisms, whatever they .may be, are well founded, and if they are well founded what he proposes with regard to them. All that would seem to me to be a very proper and fair way of dealing with it. So, it was really sent to the minister of the overseas service, not to obtain .hie O.K., hut for the two reasons: First, because he is the proper minister to whom it should be addressed, and, second, because the matters to which it relates are under the supervision and direction of himself and his officers, and it ought to be submitted to his officers, if it contains any matter of a serious character, in order that we may learn what they have to say about it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I will concede what the Prime Minister has said, for the sake of argument-that it ought to be submitted to the overseas minister, and to Surgeon General Foster, that it might go through the proper channel to be O.K.'d and sent back here. The great point is that it should be here, or we should have a copy. It is now two months since it was sent. I think my request a reasonable one when I ask that the report, commentary, or whatever name the Government might like to give it, be wired for at once, that it be brought hack, and placed upon the table of the House.
Of course this question has nothing to do with the treatment of the wounded men in France or Flanders; their initial treatment in those countries is the very best; the Army Medical Service Corps is one of the best in the world. But this deals with the treatment of the wounded in England. We should have the Bruce report with its recommendations, and the Babtie report with its counter recommendations, and the Jones' report, and the final analysis-if it may be taken to be the final analysis of Colonel Bruce. That report ought to be before us, and if it is not before us, we should find out why it is now in the hands of the minister overseas. We might have a day to discuss it, because I think it is of the utmost consequence. The effects may be very far-reaching. The relatives of 
those wounded soldiers are interested, and in order that their minds may be set at rest, and in order that recruiting may not have the least set back whatever, the question whether the Babtie report or the Bruce report is right should be settled.


Robert Laird Borden: We will telegraph to Sir George Perley and find out whether the document has reached him. We will also telegraph him with respect to his view in regard to laying the document upon the table of the House, with or without any observations which his officers may desire to make with regard to it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The Prime Minister has said that the second report, or commentary, made by Dr. Bruce was not asked for by the Government. It is the unofficial report of an official investigation. If the Government did not ask for it-and the Government does not seem to want it would there be any impropriety in Dr. Bruce making his reply public himself?


Robert Laird Borden: I am really not in a .position to answer that, because it might relate to matters that it would he undesirable for Colonel Bruce to make public. It might be an advantage to the enemy to know these things; iit might'be i& detriment to the public interest, and I should not like to answer my hon. friend.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Can the hon. Minister of Militia inform me if he has received .a cable from Dr. Bruce within the last few days, in regard to the second report, and the publication of it?


Albert Edward Kemp: I received a cable from Dr. Brace about .a week or ten days ago, merely saying that he wished ito have the report laid on the Table, or to have it made public, or .something of .that kind.


John Howard Sinclair: The question as to the contest between Dr. Bruce .and Dr. Babtie is not of very much importance to the people of this country, but I .should like to know whether any reforms have been introduced by the department to right the abuses referred to in Dr. Bruce's report. He has .spoken of some very vital questions. I have the highest regard foT the Canadian Medical Service. I know of a great many men from my own province who volunteered to take part in that service, and I know that many of them are among the .pick of the medical men of that province. I .am not aware that we sent any incompetent doctors from the province of Nova Scotia, but it appears from Dr. Bruce's report, if

we can rely on it, that men have found their way info the service that were unfit for the *position. The question is of vital importance. The civilian can choose his own doctor. If .any of the hon. gentlemen around me require .a doctor they select the best they can find, if they are able to pay for the service; but the soldier has to take what is given him; he is under the direction of a certain doctor who is looking after the ward, and his life is involved in the competence of that doctor. He has no choice, and therefore it is >a question of the *most vital importance that the Government should not have doctors in the service who are not fit for the duties devolving upon them. This is what Hr. Bruce says in regard to that matter:
The personnel of the Canadian Army Medical Corps has been greatly hampered by the granting of commissions to medical men whose ability in civil life, and, in some cases, whose well-known habits were such as to reasonably preclude them from being honoured with a commission in the C.A.M.C.
It has been found on investigation that many of the officers who have been given commissions have been failures as medical men at home, or are over age, or are drug fiends, or addicted to alcoholism, and these officers are not only of little or no use as C.A.M.C. officers, but their presence on an overseas unit is a detriment to the efficiency of that corps.
That is very strong language. If that statement is true, we have men in the service who are drug fiends or who are addicted to alcohol-men who should not be in the service at all. Did the Government take any action with a view to getting rid of these incompetent doctors?


Albert Edward Kemp: The member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) opened his remarks by stating that none of these doctors, so far as he knew, came from the part of the country which he represents. I can say the same thing with regard to the part of the country that I represent. So far as my knowledge goes, the same remark applies to the whole of Canada, with some few exceptions. No doubt some of these doctors who were addicted to drugs got overseas-I cannot speak definitely on that point. A few doctors, however, were sent back from the front- out of the very large number that went over. The very best medical men in the country are overseas. In Toronto there are scarcely enough doctors to do the work required in the ordinary practice of medicine. The very pick of our doctors went overseas; I am confident that no reflection can be made in general upon the medical profession in that regard.


John Howard Sinclair: Dr. Bruce does not reflect generally upon the doctors who went overseas; he says that certain doctors have been given commissions who are unfit for the service. The minister has not answered my question, which was: Has the department got rid of these doctors, or are they still in the service? It is not necessary to say that we have good doctors over there; we all know that some of the most eminent medical men in Canada are in the service. But we cannot assume that Dr. Bruce made up this report out of whole cloth; we cannot assume that there is no truth in his statement. Will the minister answer my question as to whether these men are still in the service?


Albert Edward Kemp: I thought I had made myseP perfectly ole.aT; I intended to, at any rate. Courts of inquiry were held in respect to. certain doctors, a/nd those doctors who were found incompetent to carry on their work were -sent back to Can-ad a.


John Howard Sinclair: AfteT Dr. Bruce's report was put in?


Albert Edward Kemp: That has nothing to do with Dr. Bruce's report.


Mr. OLIVER:: This is a matter of very deep concern to the people of Canada. There have been between 75,000 and 100,000 casualties m oror Canadian forces, spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There is not a settlement, town ot village in Canada in which some member of the community has not suffered casualty at the front. When a discussion such as this is *brought forward at this time, it is very unsatisfactory to the people of Canada who are interested to' find that, instead of the Government standing up and saying what they have done specifically to cure the conditions set forth in Dr. Bruce's report, the minister makes a general statement that things were not good, hut that now they are better; thalt they are not good in the service of other countries, and that we cannot expect to have them any better in 'Canada. That, I submit, is not a satisfactory answer, and it is not made any better Iby the defence of the Prime Minister thiat the medical service at the front is 'beyond question. The medical service at the front is not under consideration. Dr. Bruce has not reported on the medical service at the front; a defence of that service brought into ia discussion of Dr. Bruce's report is, if it was intentional, made for the purpose of drawing attention from the matter under discussion. The situation in not improved by the known facts of tli*
397G

case as set out in cold type in the reports that have been placed om the Table. After two years of war, the then Minister of Militia, on the evidence gathered by him by personal observation, came to the conclusion that a reorganization or improvement of the medical service in England was necessary or advisable. He selected, for the purpose of making inquiry, and for the purpose of reorganizing that medical service if inquiry should develop that it needed reorganization, one of the most eminent surgeons in Canada. Evidently, whatever other mistakes the then Minister of Militia may have made, he made no mistake in that appointment. The report of Dr. Bruce, dated September 20, is a most complete review of the medical or the hospital situation in the British Isles so far as it concerns the Canadian forces. It is evidently undertaken by a man who has the confidence of experience and reputation. He sets out in good plain English the conditions as he finds them and makes specific recommendations for the improvement of those conditions. Did the Government act on that report? They did not. As soon as the report was made public, there was a noise throughout England, from one end of the country to the other. Bruce's report was discussed in the English papers. What was the trouble with Bruce's report? In some portion of his report he had declared that it was more advisable that Canadian wounded should be cared for in Canadian hospitals by Canadian surgeons and physicians than that they should be scattered indiscriminately throughout the hospitals in the British Islands. Because he reported that, his report was criticised from one end of England to the other. For what reason? On the question of the medical treatment received by the Canadians? Not at all; but on the question .whether it was desirable or not to educate them in Imperialism, if you please, by spreading them around amongst their Imperial fellow-soldiers.


Mr. HANNA:: Have you any objection to that?


Frank Oliver: 
Albert Edward Kemp: Did ray hon. friend say that the Prime Minister stated he did not want this done because it might injure recruiting?


Frank Oliver: I understood that.


Six EDWARD KEMP:: 
Frank Oliver: He .said it would not be wise to have too much said about the facts.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: He said it was contrary to the national interest.


Frank Oliver: He said it was contrary to the national interest that confidential information contained in the report should be made public.


Albert Edward Kemp: It might give information to the enemy.


Frank Oliver: We shall have to say this, that so far as the Government are concerned in connection with this report, they certainly have been careful to give information neither to friends nor to enemies. This report, which was published in England as soon as it was made, which was printed in England for public distribution, which was published in the newspapers in England and spread from end to end of the United Kingdom within .a day or two .after it appeared, has never yet been printed in Canada fox the information of the people of this country, and even the English reprint that is here would never have been laid on the table of the House had a demand not been made on the Government for that measure of publicity. Yet, that being the case, when the question is raised again, and Dr. Bruce's reply to the B.abtie investigation is asked for by this House, we .axe told in effect that the Government have this report in their hands -and they will make it .public ox not as they .please.
Dr. Bruce is .at the present time in the British service. He .is not in civilian life. He is in a position in which ihe may be condemned to the limit and he has not the .privilege of reply. The .abuse of the power of the Government to prevent Dr. Bruce from making a public statement in justification of hi.s own position cannot have my support. As a member of this House of Commons, this free Parliament of the people of Canada, speaking for the people who are interested in this matter even more than Dr. Brace or the Government is, I for one demand the publication of Dr. Brace's statement .at the earliest possible date, and if it is not published I will hold the Government .as condemned, as not daring to publish t'he truth, as unwilling to justify or permit to be justified one of the Canadians who have .suffered and are .suffering in this war, and whose service has been a credit to Canada, as it is to-day admitted to be a benefit to the British military service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In view of the .minister's statement that he .received a cablegram from Dr. Brace asking him for the publication of the report, does the minister intend to comply with the request of Dr. Bruce or not? I take it that the minister has a copy of the report in his possession.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend was in the House when the Prime Minister made his very full statement. He stated that he intended to cable Sir George Perley in regard to the matter. I asked him whether he intended to cable himself or whether I should, and he said that he would cable. He stated over and over again that he did not want to lay the report on the Table until he had heard from Sir George Perley. That is what I understood him to say; I do not know whether my hon. friend understood him differently.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What the Prime
Minister said was this. He read the statement he made on the 31st of May, when we asked him to bring down the report, in which he said he was sending it to Sir George Perley for his examination. Dr. Bruce communicated ten days ago with the Minister of Militia to vhom he had sent the report; the report was not sent to Parliament. What answer did my hon. friend make to Dr. Bruce's cable?


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not reply to it, .as it called for no reply.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
say that at no time since the 31st of May has he had any communicatjon with Sir George Perley as to whether he received the repeat, and what he had to say about it?


Albert Edward Kemp: The report was
sent to Sir George Perley, as stated by the Prime Minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did he acknowledge receipt of it?


Albert Edward Kemp: He has it in his
possession.
' Mr. MACDONALD: The facts, then, are these. My hon. friend has a copy of Dr. Bruce's report, and Sir George Perley has a copy, but Sir GeoTge Perley has not communicated his views on the report to the minister. Why, therefore, does not the minister lay on the Table the report which he has in his possession?


Albert Edward Kemp: Because I am not going to override the Prime Minister's wishes. I am subject to the Prime Min-

ister; he is not subject to me. He has stated what he intends to do about it, and I am not going to do anything different.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then there is this
confusion between my hon. friend and his leader. His leader stated that he was going to cable Sir George Perley to find out whether he had received the report. My hon. friend says that he knows Sir George Perley has had the report for some time, and has taken no exception to it. There is therefore no reason why the report should not be published. The minister's explanation of the situation is quite different from the Prime Minister's.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is no difference so far as I can see.


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister
thought the report might have been sunk.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend the Minister of Militia is in a position at all events to relieve the mind of the Prime Minister as to the fate of the report, because as the hon. member for South Renfrew remarked the Prime Minister expressed some fear that it might have gone down in a ship that had been torpedoed. The Minister of Militia is able to reassure the Prime Minister that that fate did not befall the report but that it is now in the hands of his colleague the Overseas Minister of Militia. The Minister of Militia here has also a copy of it. This discussion as it proceeds becomes increasingly valuable, because almost every other minute it elicits a new admission-an admission which the time of the committee should not have been taken up in eliciting at all. Why all this mystery, all this desire for rfelay in this connection? Why is it that this committee and this House and this Parliament are treated in this way? As I recall the statement made by the Minister of Militia, who, I must say, is usually very, very frank indeed with the committee and with the House, he stated first of all that he had not received the original report. He was questioned! several times about the Bruce report and eaid that it had not reached him. Then he admitted receiving some mysterious letter from an unnamed place from some one.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have all the letters in my possession, too.


Charles Murphy: He kept up the mystery in that way-


Albert Edward Kemp: Who kept up the mystery? I did not.


Charles Murphy: The mystery was kept up. My hon. friend has been very unfortunate in the mails. Some perverse fate seems to be pursuing him in connection with this supplementary report.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would my hon. friend be good enough to state plainly what he means. Does he mean to insinuate that I have given information to the House in connection with this matter which was not true?


Charles Murphy: I am not making any insinuations, but endeavouring to recall what the minister said. My memory may be at fault in some immaterial particulars. I was merely pointing out that from the inception of this discussion an atmosphere of fog has been thrown around this whole thing which the committee and the members of the Opposition have been unable to penetrate. I was pointing out that the Minister of Militia stated some months ago, when inquiry was made about this report, that it had not reached him, and he repeated that statement over and over again when questioned in the House. Then he admitted that he had received a letter later on, but that it was undated or unsigned or did not contain the sender's address.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is absolutely correct.


Charles Murphy: And because of that he could not tell us about the report. I am only recalling these things to show what a long process was gone through before we finally nailed down somebody to something about this report. To-day, again, the same performance goes on, and the Overseas Minister of Militia is conveniently brought in at different stages. At one stage it is uncertain whether he received the report. At another, we are told that he has received it. The Prime Minister reads a statement he made in the House two months ago, when he said that he was going to communicate with the Overseas Minister of Militia. Two months have elapsed, and apparently he has not done that yet.
Remember, Dr. Bruce is naturally solicitous about his own reputation and anxious to have the veracity of his statements established. Dr. Bruce, it seems, has cabled the minister asking that the report be laid on the Table. That reminds me that my hon. friend was not just as candid as I gave him credit for a few moments ago, for he made that admission only upon being questioned from this side of the House. He

did not volunteer that statement; it was dragged out of 'him.


Albert Edward Kemp: I answered the
question when it was asked. The information was not dragged out of me; I had quite forgotten about it.


Charles Murphy: So the standard set up
by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia is this. He, as Minister of Militia, as a servant of the people of this country, does not consider himself under any obligation to place the facts concerning any matter in his department before this committee, unless it should happen that some member on this side of the House has personal knowledge regarding it and asks the minister a question about it. I submit that this is a most improper position for a minister to take. He should give the committee all the information at his disposal, and so save the time of the committee and the time of the House.
What was the position assumed by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister must have been in possession of the information that is in the possession of the Minister of Militia. The Minister of Militia says that a copy of this report is in the hands of the Overseas Minister of Militia. The Prime Minister gets up and professes not to have any knowledge of that, and intimates as a reason for not having any knowledge of it that the report may have gone down in some ship that was torpedoed. He was going to cable to-day to ascertain what the man sitting in the next chair to him knew, and could have told him if he had only turned in his direction. I submit that that is not treating this committee and this House and this country properly. This is too serious a matter to be trifled with in this way. "Trifled" is the only parliamentary term that I am permitted to apply to it, but I would apply a much stronger term if the rules of the House permitted me to do so.
My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has properly drawn the attention of the committee and of the Government to the responsibility of the Government in this matter. That responsibility is so grave, and this is a matter that comes so intimately home to so many people in this country, that I submit to the Minister of Militia that in justice to himself, in justice to the Government of which he is a member, in justice to the committee and to the House of Commons and the people of this country, and quite irrespective of what his leader has said, it i6 his duty to see that the cable
is sent to Sir George Perley this evening and that no more delay takes place.
I submit we should have this matter cleared up by to-morrow at the very latest and that this committee should not sit from day h>
day, passing the estimates of my hon. friend while this air of mystery surrounds such an important question. A cablegram from Sir George Perley will let us know what his position is, and what objection he has, if any, to the production of this report. Candidly 1 am sick and tired of this fable which is spun from the other side of the House to the effect that this, that, and the other'thing cannot be produced because it may give information to the enemy. To use a vernacular expression, that should be about played out. My hon. friend will remember that I made a motion for the production of a mobilization scheme of the Canadian forces which I understand was drawn up in 1913. This was a scheme with which everybody in and around Ottawa was perfectly familiar and which was a matter of common gossip. Instead of being carried out it was ignored, and this Government by reason of ignoring it has lost for the country tens of millions of dollars. I asked for the production of a copy of that mobilization scheme and the minister requested that the matter should not be pressed, that it was undesirable in the public interest that the documents should be produced. This scheme was four years old, yet it was supposed it might give information to the enemy. I recall this only to show my hon. friend the Minister of Militia that he is the victim of a system, and for the sake of his own good reputation and the honour and benefit of the country that system should be got rid of as quickly as possible. He can make a beginning in that direction by seeing that a cable is sent to Sir George Perley this evening, so that we may have a reply by to-morrow at the latest, and may know exactly where we stand with regard to this supplementary report of Dr. Bruce. I may remind my hon. friend that his ex-colleague asked a very pointed question about this matter, and received very little satisfaction. From the question I should infer that the contents of this mysterious report are not, after all, so mysterious or so hard to get at as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and my hon. friend the Minister of Militia would have this committee believe. I again press upon the minister the absolute necessity, in the public interest as well as in his own interest, of having a cablegram sent tonight.	.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The Homse again in Committee on Bill No. 39, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton iand Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.
Mr. Rainviille in the Chair.
Mr. T. J. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, I
regret that the other evening an error was made in connection with the striking out of sections 1 and. 2, which related to the town of Dundas. The schedule, which contains the agreement between the town of Dundas and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway company, should have [been struck [DOT] out at the same time, and I noiw move that the schedule be struck out.


George Perry Graham: The other night some of us questioned the propriety of passing the measure, as no one seemed to know whether or not it was right. But if the Government, the member for Wentworth (Mr. G.
C.	Wilson), and the chairman of the committee, have all agreed, I suppose it will have to go through.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I think I am safe in promising the hon. member that he will not be troubled with this Bill any more. It has been agreed between the town of Dun-dias and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway company that the clauses be withdrawn. There will be no more controversy.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in 'Committee of Supply, M.r. Rainville in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: While greater attention has been paid to that portion of Dr. Bruce's report which deals with the distribution of the Canadian wounded in hospitals in Great Britain, really the most important feature of his report and the one upon which he lays the greatest stress is the condition that results in the landing and maintaining in England of large numbers of men unfit for service at the front. It is with this point that Dr. Bruce deals most fully in his report on that question. He shows there is a condition in England that is detrimental to the efficiency of the military forces of Can-

ad'a and is seriously burdensome upon the treasury of Canada without any resulting benefit. In fact the result, as cducumistances are now, is a double loss, because the men who are not of military value in England would be of industrial value in Canada, and Canada is deprived of their services in industrial life, while we are receiving no benefit from them in military service. That at least is the evidence of Dr. Bruce, Dr. Jones and Dr. Babtie.
It is necessary that the people of Canada should understand to what extent this condition has prevailed and what it means to the people of Canada that it does prevail, and who is responsible for its existence. Seme weeks ago the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) stated from his place in the House that there were 12,900 medically unfit men in service in England, and he recommended, very properly, that these men be brought back to Canada for industrial employment. I have asked for a statement of the number of medically unfit men who have been brought back to Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am not sure
whether those statistics have been given to the House. A great number of statistics have been furnished. All of those statistics which will be available are now available, and if these figures have not been given and if we have them I shall bring them down.


Frank Oliver: These figures were not contained in the statement made by the minister on a previous occasion. I have, however, a statement on that point that I shall take the liberty of placing before the House, and that is sufficiently startling. I have here a statement in regard to sixteen battalions going overseas during 1916. They are as follows: The 96th, Saskatchewan; the 111th, London, Ontario; the 113th, Lethbridge, Alberta; the 130th, Perth, Ontario; the 136th, Port Hope, Ontario; the 140th, St. John, New Brunswick; the 145th, St. John, New Brunswick; the 146th, Kingston, Ontario; the 151st, Edmonton, Alberta; the 152nd, Weyburn, Saskatchewan; the 179th, Winnipeg, Manitoba; the 189th, Fraserville, Quebec; the 142nd, London, Ontario; the 160th, Walkerton, Ontario; the 161st, Clinton, Ontario; the 168th, Woodstock, Ontario. Of these battalions, the 96th arrived in England with a strength of 770. Of these 111 were unfit for service, being a percentage of 14.43. The strength of the 111th of London, Ontario, was 635; the number

unfit for service was 185, the percentage of unfits being 29.13.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does my hon. friend mean unfit for active military service at the front?
Mr. OLIVER. Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Or entirely unfit? Some men are passed as unfit for service in France, or at the front, but are still retained in the reserve battalions. Does my hon. friend mean that these men are relegated back to civil life, out of the service entirely, or has he figured on that?


Frank Oliver: I have been asking the minister for these figures. I am giving the figures of the men listed as unfit for service at the front, the men who will never go to France.


Albert Edward Kemp: Not necessarily. They may not at the moment be fit for service. They may not be ready to be classed in Category A, but they may be fit for service after a while. There are several categories in the table which I presented. It does not follow that alj these men are not fit for service ultimately.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that they
will all be unfit finally, but they were unfit o;n their 'arrival in England, and I will give some further facts as to why they were unfit, which will show they will never go to France. This may not apply to all, but it will apply to a large proportion. I want to know what is the policy of the Government in regard to these men who can never go to France. The 113th Battalion, Lethbridge, Alberta, had 879 men, 153 unfit for service, percentage 17.14. The 130th of Perth, Ontario, 554 men, 64 unfit, percentage 11.55. The 136th of PoTt Hope, Ontario, 472 men-less than 500 when they arrived in England-and of that number 144 were unfit for service, 30.50 per cent. The 140th of St. John, New Brunswick, 822 men, of whom 18 were unfit for service, 2.19 per cent. The 145th of St. John, N.B. 524 men, 82 unfit, 15.66 per cent. The 146th of Kingston, Ontario, arrived in England with 576 men, of whom 72 were unfit for service, 12.2 per cent. The 151st of Edmonton, Alberta, arrived in England with 907 men, 136 unfit for service,-14.99 per cent. The 152nd of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, 742 men, 187 unfit, 25.20 per cent. The 179th of Winnipeg, Manitoba, had 890 men, 116 were unfit, 13.03 per cent. The 189th of Fraserville, Quebec, 561 men, 99 unfit, 17.64 per cent. The 142nd of London, 561 men, 164 unfit, 29 peT cent.
The 160th of Walkerton, 997 men, 140 unfit, 13 per cent. The 161st of Clinton, Ontario, 740 men, 67 unfit, 9 per cent. The 168th of Woodstock, Ontario, 604 men, 87 unfit, 13 per cent. The average percentage of men unfit for service in this list of sixteen battalions was sixteen. There was sixteen per cent of the men who arrived overseas unfit for service in France.


William Cameron Edwards: Are those figures oflicial, from the department, or what is the source of that information?


Frank Oliver: I am giving these figures on the best information I have.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the information?


Frank Oliver: It would not be of any value to the hon. gentleman to give the source of information. I am giving the House the best information I have on the subject, and it will be for the department to show these figures not correct, if thiaf is the fact.	.


William Cameron Edwards: That is hardly reasonable.


Frank Oliver: That is the best I can do at the present time, but I am satisfied it will be found the figures are correct.


Mr. STEELE:: When were these men declared unfit? Immediately on landing, or some time after?


Frank Oliver: I presume as soon after landing as .a medical examination is ordinarily held. The statement I have is that the men, on landing in England, were medically unfit for service in France. They were perfectly healthy men and good for civil life, but the .point I desire to make is in the case of these sixteen battalions, sixteen per cent of the men sent over to England were of no military value to us, while they would have been of industrial value had they remained at home, and I am anxious to know if the department intends to bring them back, or what is its policy in regard to these men, and how many of theim are there?


William Cameron Edwards: I want to say, on what I believe is good, sound and reliable information, that I do not think the hon. gentleman's figures are correct, in regard to the 146th.


Mr. TAYLOR:: Perhaps I can give tlhe explanation. I take it from the numbers of these battalions that they went last fall.


Frank Oliver: Some time during 1916.


George Taylor: Last fall the 'authorities in France made a new rule, excluding 'ail over 40 years of age, and all under 20, from service in France during the winter. I think the hon. gentleman will find that these two arbitrary exclusions, applying only to the severe weather of the winter, account far nearly 'all these unfits of whom he has been reading to the House.


Frank Oliver: Whatever reason there was for their unfitness, the point is that these men were enlisted for military service in France. The man who is not in a condition to perform military service in France has no right to be enlisted.


Michael Steele: Does my hon. friend take into account the number of men who took sick on the overseas journey and were quarantined upon their arrival? In the 168th Battalion, with which the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is quite familiar, a considerable number of men were quarantined immediately upon their arrival in England.


Mr. NESBITT:: They were not sent back.


Frank Oliver: Sixteen battalions, comprising 11,234 men, arrived in England, and of that number of men 1,825 were medically unfit, an average of 16 per cent.


George Taylor: Not medically unfit.


Frank Oliver: I mean unfit for service in France. I have here the causes of unfitness in regard to twelve of these battalions. In these twelve battalions 1,367 men were listed as unfit for service in France. The cause of disability were as follows: under age 515, over age, 334.


William Cameron Edwards: That bears out the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor).


Frank Oliver: To some extent. Of course, those who are over age will never be fit for service; those who are under age will become fit in time.


George Taylor: Those who are over age are fit now, because in the summer they take men up to 45, whereas in the severe winter they exclude those who are over 40.


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend say that they bring back from France in the winter the men who are over 40 years of age?


George Taylor: No, they do not send them to France when they are over 40. They send them when the fine weather comes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What do they do with them when the winter comes round?


George Taylor: -Unfortunately, very few men last that long. It is- a very lucky battalion whose men, sent out in the spring, are still serving the next winter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Many of them have been there two years.


George Taylor: The casualties, for instance, in the 7th Battalion from British Columbia in the first year of its service were 1,500, the total strength of the battalion being 1,100.


Frank Oliver: That is hardly the point. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that my figures were misleading, because men were not allowed to go to France during the winter, because of their being over age, would be allowed to go in the summer. If they went in the summer, what happened to them when the winter came around? My hon. friend says that they would, all be killed by that time.


George Taylor: A large proportion of
them would be invalided, either killed or wounded.


Frank Oliver: Suppose they did not
happen to be invalided?


George Taylor: Those who were not invalided would be kept in France. This age limit of 40 is quite new; it was introduced only last December. When these men were enlisted in Canada, 45 was the age limit, whether for service in France, England or Canada. But the experience in France showed that men of that age were not able to stand the severe weather in the trenches; therefore last December an order was made to send forward to France no more men over 40 during tha winter months.


Frank Oliver: The only difficulty about my hon. friend's explanation is that the date of the information that I have here is October 27.


George Taylor: I hope the hon. gentleman does not want to hold me to a day. I say December, because I was there in December. It is possible that the order was issued shortly before I got there; I know that it was very new when- I got there.


Frank Oliver: My information is dated
October 27, and it relates to those battalions which had been going over some time during the summer. Certainly, there fore, that was previous to the special rule which my hon. friend mentions.


George Taylor: An hon. gentleman reminds me that it -was early in November that we reached England, not December, as I stated.


Frank Oliver: In any case the date of
these figures is certainly previous to the rule my hon. friend has mentioned.


Mr. MORPHY:: Suppose it was, would
these men not be kept a certain length of time in England in order to complete their training? That would run them well into December or January, when they would be singled out in accordance with the method set forth by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor).


Frank Oliver: The state of facts that I
am placing before the committee existed before the date my hon. friend speaks of as the time of the introduction of this new Tule.


George Taylor: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong about his dates, because the numbers of the battalions that he refers to indicate that those battalions were in summer camps last summer. My battalion, for instance, was the 131st; it was not unduly delayed in Canada. Most of these numbers are higher than 131.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that the position will have to stand as I have stated it. My information, bearing date the 27th October, relates to the arrival in England of battalions before that date and to the conditions which existed in regard to these battalions at the time they were reported upon. Let me give the figures, then:	Of these 1,367 men out
of twelve battalions, 515 were under age 334 were over age. There were 200 with flat and defective feet, 63 wilth defective vision, 27 with varicose veins, 15 with defective legs, 13 were immature, 13 lhad defective iheart, and 187 bad miscellaneous defects. As to those who were over .age, or who were otherwise permanently physically defective, the department will have to (answer to the people of Canada for having taken them over to England when they did not intend to use them in France. They must answer also, for keeping them in England instead of returning them to industrial employment in Canada. That is the point I wish to make, and that is why I have asked the Government so frequently for the figures in regard to this matter, which is a very serious one. Very few people in Canada thought that, as the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) started, 'there were
12,900 of these men in England who could not be of military value to our country. If there were 12,900 there .at that time I w.ant to know how many have already been returned to Canada, because I can hardly imagine that the department has not from time to time returned some of these men to this country. A burden has been placed upon the resources of 'Canada by putting these men in military service for which they were not fitted, and the industries of Canada have been hampered by reason of these men being taken out of industrial life. That is not management of which this country has any right to be proud, or upon which the Government can .plume itself as having taken reasonable measures to win the war.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman, I assume, will admit that all these men were medically examined before they left Canada by competent medical practitioners.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no. I have the Babtie report on that point. I have already placed it before the House, but seeing that my hon. friend raises the question, I may as well let him know what Dr. Babtie has to say about it. Dr. Babtie says:
The Board is satisfied that there have been large numbers of men passed who ought not to have been passed by the (medical officer; but it was perhaps inevitable under the circumstances of raising the Canadian Expeditionary Force that examinations could not be conducted with all the care necessary. This it believes to have been due partly to inexperience on the part of the examining medical officer, partly to hurry, partly to carelessness, and lastly, in some instances, to the opinion of an examining medical officer being overridden or ignored by commanding officers.
This report is dated 22nd December, 1916. Dr. Babtie goes on to say:
These defects in recruiting continue to exist despite medical examinations by recruiting medical officers, by battalion medical officers of adjoining units and before sailing for the United Kingdom.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman suggest any way in which the Government could have done better than they did in appointing reputable medical men throughout the whole country for the purpose of examining soldiers?


Frank Oliver: The conclusion of the
Babtie commission is that they did not.
-Mr. MORPHY: What is your conclusion?


Frank Oliver: This is what Dr. Babtie
says.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My hon. friend should not say that. He did not read that.


Frank Oliver: The medical examiner who is careless in his report is surely not a reputable examiner.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The best medical man might sometimes be careless.


Frank Oliver: He cannot maintain his reputation on actions of carelessness.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Government cannot supervise each man's work.


Frank Oliver: But Dr. Babtie uses the expression that this condition is partly due to inexperience.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Inexperience in examina

tions for purposes of war.


Frank Oliver: That is to say, the Government are appointing inexperienced examiners.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: At the beginning of the war there was no medical officer experienced in examining troops for overseas.


William Cameron Edwards: How much experience had Dr. Bruce along that line?


Frank Oliver: Thjs is not Dr. Bruce's opinion. I am giving Dr. Babtie's opinion; but Dr. Babtie, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Jones all agree specifically that this condition has existed in Canada; that it exists without excuse, and that it is a great and unjustifiable burden upon the people of Canada and militates against the military efficiency of our forces overseas. That is the position.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Can the hon. member give me the figures for the 110th Battalion?


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures for the 110th Battalion; I have the figures for the 111th.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Where is the 111th Battalion from?


Frank Oliver: London, Ontario.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think the information the hon. member has is accurate.


Frank Oliver: Either the information that I hold in my hands is cprrect, or it is incorrect. The Militia Department have the information that I profess to be giving to the House, and they can verify it or contradict it at their convenience. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that the information is correct.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Last fall orders were
given that before any troops should pro-

ceed overseas, the medical officer of the battalion had to pass on every man that that man was medically fit for overseas. I know of four battalions. After they arrived in England, they had a great deal of sickness-spinal meningitis, measles and so on. Each week the medical officer of the battalion had to send in a report of the number of men who were fit, and all those men who were quarantined were put down as unfit to go to France. Perhaps that may account for some of the large figures the hon. member has given.


Frank Oliver: I have given details of
the classes and none of them is in that class. They would be a different class altogether. These are the men who are permanently unfit; that is, they are men who should not have been enlisted and who should not have been passed after they were enlisted.


John Stanfield: How did they get
past the board?


Frank Oliver: That is due to the inexperience of the board. If Dr. Babtie, Dr. Jones and Dr. Bruce do not agree upon anything else, they all agree upon that. It is not my argument or contention; I am giving the very best authority available on the subject. There is no doubt about the facts, and the facts are deplorable. As the matter has not been brought up, I think I can find in Dr. Bruce's report, a list


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member said that several hundreds of those were turned down for being under age. He would not call such men permanently unfit.


Frank Oliver: 
William Cameron Edwards: Does varicocele make
a man permanently unfit?


Frank Oliver: He has varicocele, senility, too old. Another man has deformed legs. The disabilities of others are: dyspnoea, defective feet, index finger missing; middle finger, left hand deformed, varicocele ; deformed left hand, unable to flex fingers, unable to march; age, varicose veins; over age, rheumatism; age and debility; heavy weight, 215 pounds, with poor feet, unable to march; age and general physical condition; flat feet and fits; bad feet, sluggish mentality; age and debility; myalgia, subject to spells of dizziness; age and debility; chronic bronchitis, over age; age, general physical condition; mentally unfit; hernia, one leg one and one-half inches shorter than the other; varicocele interferes with marching, refuses operation; age and debility; large bunion, age; age and debility; age and debility; weak back; involuntary urination, dyspnoea; age and teeth; deafness and over age; height 4 feet 9 inches, weight 112 pounds, spinal caries; atrophied left arm, no development since nine years; amputated thumb of each hand; glass eye, 1 tooth upper jaw, 17 lower jaw, over age; severe varicocele, asthma, dyspnoea; aortic (regurgitation; deafness both ears.
I am not a medical man, but I think the medical men who are in the House will agree that there could not have been efficient medical examinations, or the men who are in these conditions could not and would not have been enlisted.
So the case is absolutely proven that the Department of Militia in raising these battalions did not employ, as they should have done competent and reliable medical officers. As a result the country hais been saddled with an enormous cost, and the efficiency of our troops at the front has been correspondingly reduced, while the industrial condition of the country has been placed at a disadvantage.


Michael Steele: These mien my hon. friend has referred to were members of pioneer battalions.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend
is wrong, hut I do not see that it makes any difference. Some oif these men were of the 52nd, 40th, 44th, 2nd and 1st Pioneer Battalions. If they were not fit for service at the front, it does not matter what kind of a battalion they were enlisted in; we had no business to enlist them, and the Government is responsible for enlisting and having kept them.


Michael Steele: My hon. friend will notice that on page 95 of the Report it says:
I am enclosing herewith a nominal roll of a few cases which have passed through this office, and would call your special attention to the enclosed roll of one unit, namely, the 2nd Pioneer Battalion, from which some thirty-eight or foity men alone were discharged under A.F.B. 204 as useless from physical defects.


Frank Oliver: I do not catch the purpose of my hon. friend in drawing attention to the fact that these are pioneer battalions. If so many very, veTy bad cases were found in one battalion, surely it is proven beyond all argument that the medical officer examining for that battalion was certainly not efficient. One occasional case may get by, but with a list like that, there is no question that the examining officer did not do his duty.


Michael Steele: The medical examination *for a pioneer battalion is not so strict as for other battalions.


Frank Oliver: These men were not accepted Wihen they got to England, but were culled out, and very properly so. I wish to draw attention to another matter in this connection. Of the sixteen battalions in the list I have here which were sent over to England, one was a little over 500 strong, and five were under 600 strong. None of them were at full strength. As a matter of fact, we sent sixteen battalion establishments across the water when we only had men enough, after the culls were taken out, for eight 'battalions; that is, we sent over a double supply of officers for the number of men we sent over.


Albert Edward Kemp: What authority has my hon. friend for saying that we sent over a full quota of officers in battalions that were not at full strength?


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend say that he did not?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am asking my hon. friend a question.


Frank Oliver: My full belief is that he did send over a full quota of officers in eacti
case.


Albert Edward Kemp: Only in proportion to the number of the rank and file.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is Minister of Militia, and knows what he has done and what he has not done.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is absolutely right.


Frank Oliver: I have some personal acquaintance with one of these battalions.

I see that it is under strength, and I know that it went over with a full quota of officers. I do not know why that battalion should be treated cfifferently from any other battalion.


William Cameron Edwards: Which battalion was it?
. Mr. OLIVER: The 151st. I will admit tnat it is the nearest to full strength of any battalion in the list, with 907 men. A battalion, I think, is something over 1,100 men.


Albert Edward Kemp: lit is 1,035, including officers.


Frank Oliver: I have no reason to suppose that this battalion was treated differently from any other battalion, or to think that when the full allowance of officers went over with that battalion, a full allowance of officers did not go over with the other battalions.


Albert Edward Kemp: Not at all.


Frank Oliver: I suppose my hon. friend will admit that a lieutenant-colonel went over with each battalion?


Albert Edward Kemp: Very likely.


Frank Oliver: The principal officer went over, and those next in command, I suppose? The position is this: We sent over men enough for eight or nine battalions, and we sent over officers out of proportion to the number of men. That will have to be admitted, because we sent over 16 lieutenant-colonels when we only had men enough for eight or nine battalions. We knew before those battalions sailed from Canada that there was no position on the other side of the water for some of these 'colonels, but yet we sent them over and I am afraid we are keeping them over there. Now that is a condition for which there is certainly no excuse, and it does not tend to efficiency or satisfaction. When we were discussing this matter in the House before, some hon. gentlemen said:	"If reinforcements are wanted in France, you must take the men and leave the officers." Very true, but we have a military organization- and a military administration in Canada, and when we deliberately authorize the raising of battalions over and above our possibilities, we are responsible for having given that authorization, and responsible for the consequences of it; and when we were sending these battalions over under strength, if we had dealt honestly and fairly with these battalion officers we should have said to them before they went over: "You have not raised a full battalion, and therefore you cannot go to England." It would

have been a more decent thing to do to stop them on this side of the water, rather than to send the battalions over with a full quota of officers, and then turn the officers adrift or keep them on the paylist without duties to perform. Such a condition of affairs could only result as it has resulted, in spreading dissatisfaction with military service throughout the country. In the first year of the war we had a large measure of military enthusiasm, which would have responded to the full to any reasonable call that might have been made upon it, but the administration of our military forces has been such that the enthusiasm has been killed, and then the Government comes to us and says: "The patriotism of our people has declined and we must now resort to compulsory military service." The position is absolutely unfair; it is unjust; it is an attempt by the Government of the day to protect the mismanagement of our military forces by discrediting the patriotism of our people.


Albert Edward Kemp: The question my hon. friend referred to in the latter part of his remarks is one which has been discussed on more than one occasion during this session of the House. There were quite a number of battalions sent over which were not up to full strength. The number of officers sent with those regiments was in proportion to the number of the rank and file, and the commanding officer was left to choose the officers he should take with him. The commanding officer knew before be left Canada that he was going over in command of a battalion and that he would not likely be able to go to the front* but that he would be returned to Canada. His officers also knew this. The junior officers had the privilege, of course, of reverting to a lower rank. The situation was not one for which the Government was responsible. Recruiting dropped off and those battalions could not be filled up, and there did not seem to be any prospect of them being filled up, so it was thought better to send them over as they were. In view of all that has been said on this point, I do not think it necessary to go any further with it, beyond stating that the situation was well understood. Tire officers in command of those partly completed battalions knew all the circumstances before they went over. At the same time, I have always contended it would not have been fair to those officers to have robbed them of even their commands by preventing them from taking their battal-

ions overseas as they stood. Some of those officers performed very good service when they reached the other side; others have come back to Canada, and some have gone hack into civil life.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How many such officers have returned to Canada, say in [DOT]the last year?


Albert Edward Kemp: I could not give the exact figure, but the number was fairly large. Every day there are men reverting to civil life, because there is nothing further for them to do. I have letters from many of them stating they are perfectly satisfied. They have done all they could, and it was not their fault that they could not get to the front, or that they could not recruit their battalions to full strength. This is a situation which has come about quite naturally and for which no one is to blame. Every one did the best he could to get those battalions up to strength.
My hon. friend has also referred to a number of battalions for which he has statistics. I do not know where those returns came from, and I do- not know on what they are based, or who is responsible for them. However, taking the returns asi he gives them to the House, I understand thirteen per cent of the whole number were thought to be unfit for service when they reached England.


Frank Oliver: Sixteen per cent.


Albert Edward Kemp: If my hon. friend had said twenty-five par cent were unfit for service at the front I would have felt it was a very good showing indeed. Those men arrived after the hardships.of a sea voyage; many of them in a condition very different *from their condition when, they sailed. Besides that, as my hon. friend has pointed out, a large proportion of them were under age. Now, what does "under age " mean? Under the voluntary system imen have been taken from 18 to 45 years of age. Within the last two years, I think, it has been decided that no man shall go- to the front unless he is at least 19 years of
9 p.m. >age. So those men who enlisted here in good faith at 18 years of age and went across would not be able to go to France until they were 19. Men of 45 were unable to get to the front, because they could not -stand the climate. Tlhese two reasons account for the majority of those who were not fit to go to France at once. Apart from that, o<ur men are not fit to go into the trenches immediately they reach England, because they
have to receive considerable intensive training and preparation before they are fit for the firing line. As has already been pointed out, they are divided into categories, A, B, C, D land E. There are five classifications under category A; there -are -three iclassifioa-ti-ons under category B, -and there are three classifications under category 0. All those men were made use of. If a man in England, although not fit for the -trenches, is cap-able of performing some other duty, -it is just as difficult to arrange to get him home as it is to get -a mian out of the trenches. There are iall sorts of duties to be performed on lines -of communication, clerical duties, base duties, preparing camp, land so on. I need not weary the House with a summary of the strength of -all the units of the C. E. F. in England on the 14th of M-ay, 1917. This statement was laid on the table during the time the Military Service Bill wias under consideration. There were 126,241 men in England at that time; 26,359 of those men were in category Al, fit for the trenches. The others were undergoing training and were in different categories, preparing for the higher category. In order to understand how these imen are qualified, and what is done -with them in England, I should have to weary the committee with facts and figures, and I do not wish to do it to-night. This material has -already been placed on Han-s-ard. It is a l-ong document, showing the subdivision in each category, and why the men are not fit -for the trenches immediately they arrive in England. I have the -docu-m-ent before me, land I could have copies of it prepared -and furnished to any member of the committee who may desire the information. These imen were enlisted in Cahiada in good faith. Of course, -there wiere some oases -of -men -slipping -through the doctors' hands, as was explained this afternoon, without having passed a proper medical examination. My *hon. friend referred to. the men with flat feet. There has been more attention paid to that of late. It is pretended those men cannot march as well as the others, but, in every other way they are just as fit for the trenches. The examination i-n this regard has been -made more rigid -lately. I read to the Bouse this -afternoon a statement showing that out of about 1,600 troops reaching England lately there were only five who were unfit for service, and I gave the reasons why those five were unfit. The statistics which my hon. friend read to -the House were in reference to a pioneer battalion. Medical examination for a pioneer battalion or ia forestry battalion is alto-



gother different from whia>t if) is for infantry, *artillery or cavalry.	_
These men do not undergo the same medical examination, but they are able, for the most part, to perform the duties for which they enlisted. The occurrence of these things in the early days of the war is no reflection upon the great bulk of the medical men. They were generally civilian doctors, unaccustomed to military regulations, and, of course, we were all new to the game. But the regulations have been strengthened and made more exacting, and, after we had a certain amount of experience, the results were very satisfactory.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This whole question would be very much more clear if the Government had been in a position to tell us whether they proposed to act upon the Babtie report or the Bruce report or the Jones report. They take the position of discrediting the Bruce report; they apparently do not intend to pay any attention to it and have taken the ground that Dr. Babtie's report completely answered everything contained in the Bruce report, and that there was nothing to be done. It will be remembered that in the Mesopotamia matter Dr. Carter, a medical man who stood in exactly the same position to Dr. Babtie as Dr. Bruce stands in regard to Dr. Babtie in the Canadian matter, was honoured by the British Government on account of having done very worthy service. The Government do not propose to have anything to do with Dr. Bruce's report. Let us look at some of the cases that are mentioned by Dr. Wilson, whose report is incorporated in that of Dr. Bruce:	Lt.-Col. Wilson
tells us of a man who went over there, Private Empson, who is 72 years of age? Is there any way under heaven by which a medical man, unless he was a political heeler, as they have been in many places, would pass men of 72 years of age? Then it is to be found at the same page of the report, page 97, that Private Alwright was taken out of a tuberculosis sanatorium previous to embarkation. On what principle would there be any justification for taking a man out of a tuberculosis sanatorium and sending him across to fight?


Albert Edward Kemp: Who did it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It will be found at page 97 of the report of Dr. Wilson. Private C. H. Baird was blind in the left eye and seven-eighths blind in the other eye, so that he was fifteen-sixteenths blind. Under what possible organization could such men as these be permitted to go to the other side on any service 
whatever? On page 94 we find the case of a young man, 16 years of age, who weighed 80 pounds. He had infantile paralysis, which left him with weak and undeveloped muscles in the right hip and thigh. He was passed by a doctor in Pembroke, and again examined at Quebec and passed by another doctor. He has done no military duty since he went over.


Albert Edward Kemp: Was he in a pioneer or an infantry battalion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was in the 224th.


Albert Edward Kemp: A pioneer battalion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That makes no difference. What is the use of sending men 72 years of age, and blind, and men out of tuberculosis sanatoria, and with weak and undeveloped muscles? Then we find the cases of Private Dickson, 67 years of age; Private Jarvis, 52 years of age; Private Macdonald, 52 years of age, and Private Lockie, 52 years of age. These men were of no use over there. These statements are made upon the authority of men who, in regard to this medical service, so far as Canada is concerned, were doing exactly what Dr. Carter did with reference to Mesopotamia. The minister does not say he is doing anything in regard to all these reports about men who should never have gone and who have cost this country hundreds of thousands of dollars. On the contrary, the position of the Government is to discredit Dr. Bruce and his inquiry. The Prime Minister told us he would not bring down Dr. Bruce's report; he wanted to send it over to Sir George Perley because possibly there might be something in it which Sir George might want to answer. He sent it over some months ago, and Sir George Perley has it. The Minister of Militia has a copy of it, but will not show it to the House or to the country, and the consequence will be, if the Government maintain that position, that the session will close and the country will not have that report. That is apparently what the Government intend to do. The Government have no right to get any estimates through this House when they refuse to produce that report. It is contrary to every principle of constitutional privilege and parliamentary practice that, in regard to such a vital question as this the Government should ask Supply without giving necessary information, or should put forward such a flimsy excuse as they have done. What is there about Sir George Perley, who is he anyway,

that he should be the one man upon whose bidding the Parliament of Canada should wait for two months in order to find out whether he has something to say in regard to this matter? Is he any greater man than Dr. Babtie or Dr. Jones, both of whom made their answers in proper time? The first report of Dr. Bruce was made to the Minister of Militia here and was submitted to Parliament in due course. So was the report of Dr. Jones. So was the Babtie report. And when Dr. Brace deals with these important matters which we have been discussing and the remedying of which is in the interest of the prosecution of the war and of the country, he sends the report to the minister here, but it is not submitted to Parliament, and the excuse of the Prime Minister is:	I wanted to send it to Sir
George Perley, and I did so, and he has got it; we cannot tell whether we are going to bring it down or not. Is Sir George Perley greater than this Parliament or than the Canadian people? He has grown very big since he left this country. He did not seem to be possessed of such wonderful qualities when he was in Parliament with the rest of us. When did he become such a great military genius, and when was he endowed with such superlative qualities that Parliament must wait upon his pleasure? The position of the Government, in view of the facts given to the House and the country by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), in venturing to ask for Supply without giving that report, is one of the greatest pieces of effrontery we have ever had in this Parliament. The Government evidently do not intend to bring down the report and the session will probably close, and no report will be brought down.


Mr. GERMAN:: It seems to me, following the line of discussion of the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that there is some very distinct and. strong reason why the Government refuses to lay on the table of the House the second report of Dr. Bruce. The hon. Minister of Militia knows what that report contains. I do not know what it contains as a matter of positive knowledge, but I have some inkling of its contents. It probably contains a condemnation of Sir George Perley, by reason of his interference in regard to Dr. Bruce's Teport. I think it also condemns this Government very severely for the very thing the hon. gentleman from Edmonton has brought to the notice of this House to-night,
253)
namely the examination of the men before they left Canada. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost to Canada, and the pension list has been enormously swollen, by reason of the very inaccurate, unwise-and careless examination of recruits before1 they left this country for England. I quite agree with the statement of the hon. gentleman from Pictou that the Minister of Militia should not be allowed any Supply until that report is laid on the Table and givien to the public of Canada. Dr. Bruce was an official of the Government. He was asked by the Minister of Militia to make a report, which he made. After that report was made, a second investigating committee was appointed in England to criticise that report, and they did criticize it, and Dr. Bruce has given his reply to that criticism. That reply, whatever it is, the people of Canada are entitled to have, and we should know its contents before money is voted for the carrying on of the affairs of the Militia Department. I feel just as strongly as the hon. gentleman from Pictou that the report must be given to the people of Canada before Supply is voted further for the militia services.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, during the transportation of the troops through the province of Quebec, especially by the Intercolonial, during the years 1915 and 1916, the soldiers who were being conveyed in the passenger trains have behaved in a manner not only obnoxious, but sometimes most scandalous.
I do not remember whether I wrote to the Militia Department about it, but, at any rate, I did report the case to the railway department in Moncton, and as member for the county, taking up the defence of [DOT] the citizens of my county, I have felt obliged to do it, for matters had become almost unbearable. I don't know where those chaps were coming from, for they seemed very little civilized, but all I do know is that they did mot speak French, and they must have come from the western provinces; that instead of conforming to the usages of civilized people, they behaved ruthlessly, neither more nor less. I will now read to the House a letter which I felt compelled to write to the general manager of the railway in Moncton, under date of August 21, 1916:
Sayabec, August 21, 1916.
J. K. McNeillie, Esq.,
Supt. Gen. C.G.R.,
Moncton, N.B.
Dear Sir,-
I write to inform you that every time I travel on the trains, since the soldiers are he-

ing transported, the passengers on our regular trains are constantly insulted hy those individuals who sing, yell, smoke, drink, vomit, and turn upside down everything in first and second class cars, to such an extent, that it is a disgrace for the .administration to tolerate such things.
We hear a great many people swearing against the. Conservative Government, for tolerating such conduct, and I think it is your duty to have this condition of things remedied at once. The employees are powerless.
We must prevent those individuals embarking on regular trains, or otherwise have a special car on each train, and further more have one or two policemen on train to keep them in good order. This state of things cannot be tolerated any longer, because it is prejudicial to the railroad which will lose passenger traffic, and also to our political prospects.
Those individuals insult men and children, and lay down in the alleys of the cars, and it is a dangerous matter to disturb them. X saw the porter on the car, at Valcartier, insulted, last night, in the most brutal manner, and I feel that those poor employees are not sufficiently protected against those brutes. A small number behave themselves properly, but the large number should not have access to those passenger cars.
Believe me, dear sir,
Tours faithfully,
H. Boulay.
It took about three weeks to get an answer to this letter, and finally the following reply, which was not very satisfactory, was received. I do not know which minister the manager refers to in his letter, whether it is the Minister of Militia or the Minister of Railways.


Albert Edward Kemp: What is the date -of the letter?


Herménégilde Boulay: September 8, 1916. It reads as follows:
Moncton, N.B., 8th September, 1916.
H. Boulay, Esq., M.P.,
Sayabec, Que.
Dear Sir,-
Referring to your letter of the 21st ultimo, matters of this kind must be referred to the minister so that I regret I can take no action.
Tours truly,
J. K. McNeillie. I
I do not think it was proper for the Department of Militia to. allow those men to travel on railroad trains in that condition, without having officers to look after them. Eor the last two years it has been a real disgrace, and, as a representative of a large county in the province of Quebec, through which those men are supposed to travel, I should not like those scenes to be repeated this year, and I urge strongly upon, the Department of Militia or the Department of Railways-I do not know which

has charge of such matters-to look after these men, and see that officers are put in charge of them, or that they be not allowed to travel on passenger trains. People complained several times to the superintendent, and they have complained to the general manager at Moncton, and I suppose they received a reply similar to this letter.
Mr. EDWARDS; Does the hon. member think they should he put on cattle trains?


Herménégilde Boulay: They should be put on proper trains for soldiers, or, if put on passenger trains, there should be somebody to look after them.


Albert Edward Kemp: Were these men from Valcartier camp?


Herménégilde Boulay: I do not know where they were coming from, because they could not talk French.


Michael Steele: Were they all brutes?
Mr. BOULAY7: They were acting like brutes.


Michael Steele: I am very much surprised to hear a member of this House call the men who are going to the front to fight for us brutes.


Herménégilde Boulay: From the way they were conducting themselves, no one could say anything else of them. I do not say they were all behaving that way; there were many real gentlemen among them, but too many of them could not behave themselves.


William Cameron Edwards: How did the conduct
of those soldiers to whom my hon. friend refers compare with the conduct of the Laval students, at the Montreal meeting, for instance?


Herménégilde Boulay: We never have the Laval students on these trains; I cannot say how . they would behave.
(Translation): Mr. Chairman, I beg the House to .allow me to. add a few words as to- the organization of the battalions. There is some complaint that the province of Quebec did not enlist as largely as she ought to have done. I will point out that several reasons have prevented our soldiers from enlisting in larger numbers, and among these reasons I may mention, as one of the most important the breaking up of our battalions after they had gone across. I will cite as an example the case of the 189th of Rimouski and Temiscouata. This regiment had been recruited ~ by oompatent officers and under the formal promise that these officers would lead them oil the battlefield. I do not know what were the reasons,

but as soon as the battalion had reached England its officers were put aside and replaced by people who were perfect strangers to the soldiers of the 189th. The latter wrote home, informing their folks of what h.ad happened, and I am convinced that the disorganization of that battalion did largely contribute to prevent any further enlistment. I am prepared to *assert this .fact, for I ihave personally heard a large number of young men repeat that they would not enlist to submit to the fate of their comrades who had left with the 189th.
Now, I would like to have from the hon. Minister of Militia a declaration whether the regulations of the department permit the inflicting of punishments such .as those which are reported to have been, meted out to -the Canadian soldiers in England. It is reported, for instance, that soldiers have been forced to remain with their arms crossed for ten .or twelve consecutive hours.; another punishment which was inflicted, according to reports, is forcing men to run during the same length of time, with five minutes' rest at intervals, of fifteen or twenty minutes, and a 75^pound load on their shoulders. If military regulations contain such punishments nowadays, it seems to me that is a downright shame. I understand that such penalties can have been inflicted a hundred years ago.; but in our present state of civilization, men who are going to. risk -their lives on the battlefields should not be given such punishment. I would ask the hon. minister to tell me if such is actually the case; these reports circulate in my district, and, I repeat it, they are of such -a nature as to prevent many well-disposed young men from enlisting.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend refers to the .punishment of soldiers in England for committing certain offences. Tlie punishment meted out to any soldier from Canada would be the same as the punishment meted out to any soldier who enlisted in Great Britain. I do- not know all the circumstances to which my hon. friend refers; there has been no complaint with regard to severe .punishment of our soldiers while in England or in France. There have been punishments, but there have been no complaints. I -cannot pass any judgment upon the matter to which my hon. friend refers unless I -have the particulars before me, or have an investigation made. My bon. friend refers also to the breaking up of the 189th Battalion. That was a very good battalion, indeed, but what
happened to 'it happened to battalions from all over Canada. You cannot keep a battalion intact very long. As was explained in the House to-night, some men drop off for various reasons -and are not fit to go to France. The moment the men go to France the wastage is very great and a unit has to be consolidated with reinforcements from other battalions. In the early stages of the war, when we saw a battalion going out of Canada we always felt that there was a battalion that was going right across the water to England and to France as .a unit. We did not understand then as well >as we do now the exigencies of war and the wastage which takes place in the battle line. Owing to these conditions, battalions from all over Canada have h.ad to be broken up; no condition existed with regard to the 189th that did not exist with regard to -all o'ther battalions.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. -Chairman, I wish to. .say a few words about the. medical examination of our soldiers. I heard, a few minutes ago, some hon. members on the other side of the House criticising the Government for not having subjected our soldiers to a minute medical examination before sending them over to England, and I really believe that there has. been -some laxity in that regard. I will mention one case in order to show what were the shortcomings in this connection. Soldiers who had enlisted in the 150th, the 178th, and the 233rd, and who were being sent eastwards, met with a serious railroad -accident, their train leaving the track; some of them were killed outright and many others wounded. Some of these men, thirty-seven of them in all, were carried over to Partridge island, near Halifax, where they were examined three, weeks after their landing -and finally sent back home. I do not understand the reason of that trip in which the lives of these people were greatly exposed. These soldiers, were all of them French Canadians, and all of them told me they would have preferred being sent across the ocean, where they would .have been given the necessary care and could have later done their duty as well [DOT]as the other soldiers forming part of the regiment. Iif, on the other hand, thes-e men. were not fit to go and fight, it seems to .me they should have been spared the hardships of such a long voyage, and the country would .also have been saved the amount of their pay, of their allowances, and th.e other costs thereby incurred. I do hope that, as far as this' is concerned, the-Government have taken such measures that:


Herménégilde Boulay: No. This happened every time I was on the train, and it also happened when I was not.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am surprised
my hon. friend did not report the matter. He may have reported it before I was Minister of Militia, because he says that this occurred in September, 1916. His proper course, as a member of Parliament, would have been to report it to the Minister of Militia of that day. It is an improper thing for a soldier to conduct himself in any place in any other way than as a gentleman, and when soldiers do that sort of thing they are liable to be reprimanded by their superior officers, and they should be reprimanded. But I do not agree with the contention that soldiers should not travel on regular passenger trains. Our soldiers are citizens of Canada; they are on the same level as we are, and there is no reason for supposing that they will not conduct themselves in a proper manner. I have travelled on trains with soldiers in every part of this country, and I have never seen a soldier on a train conducting himself in any other way than that becoming a gentleman and soldier wearing the King's uniform.


Herménégilde Boulay: I do not know if they
were conducting themselves in the wiay I have described intentionally in the province of Quebec, but if the minister asks for a report from every conductor who has taken soldiers on passenger trains, either the limited or the express, he will see that what I say is not exaggerated. We waited because we were always expecting that this abuse would cease. The trainmen reported the occurrence every time to their head officials, but they could never get satisfaction. It was only when we got sick of the whole matter that I decided to report it myself and I thought it was to the railway officials that I should report because they were closer to us than is the Minister of Militia.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I would like to ask
the minister as to the age limits of soldiers enlisting. Am I right in saying that 18 is the minimum and 41 the maximum age?


Albert Edward Kemp: The age limits in Canada are from 18 to 45 under voluntary recruiting.


George Ewan McCraney: When a recruit offers to enlist does he have to make an affidavit as to his age?


Albert Edward Kemp: He signs an attestation paper and swears to it.


George Ewan McCraney: I think it is a notorious fact that in the army there are many men under 18 or over 45. Do all these men sign an attestation paper?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


George Ewan McCraney: And are there no cases in which ambitious recruiting officers have winked at the attestation papers which were obviously signed by men outside the age limits? The reason I am calling the minister's attention to this matter is that one hears and reads of so many cases of this kind. I have here an item whifch appeared in the press in Montreal only a day or so ago:
Pte	 said to be the youngest soldier
who west to the front with any of the Canadian contingents, and probably one of the youngest soldiers of the Empire to go into the trenches, who has been missing since last Fall, is now
listed as presumed to be dead. Pte....
was only fourteen years of age. When he went to enlist, he gave his age as eighteen and was quickly accepted. He apparently fell in the battle of the Somme in which his battalion, a French Canadian regiment, was engaged. He has a brother in the army, who has been wounded.
:I cannot understand how a hoy of 14 could be accepted by a recruiting officer, even though he signed an attestation paper and swore to his age, without that recruiting officer being guilty of assisting in a perjury. I could understand it if the hoy were 17 or so, but this kind of thing has been going on to such an extent that I cannot but believe that there has been connivance on the part of the recruiting officers.


Albert Edward Kemp: When did he join
the forces?


George Ewan McCraney: I have only this newspaper item which I shall be glad to give to my hon. friend. I do not propose to introduce this young man's name here. Another instance was brought to my attention when a father came to see me in March last. His son had enlisted in a battalion on the, 12th of March this year. The boy was born

on the 7th of March 1902, and was consequently only a few days over fifteen. I have not seen the boy myself, but I understand from the father that he is quite a boy, with no appearance of eighteen. However, he was taken on, and his father came to see me about it. I drew up a declaration by the father setting out the proper age of the boy, and sent it to the officer commanding at Regina. Subsequently, I procured a certificate of birth from the register general of Ontario, which confirmed the information which the father had given me. The commanding officer wrote me in reply:
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 22nd March on the above marginally noted subject.
This boy swore that he was horn on the 1st March 1899. Now he could hardly be ignorant of his age to the extent of three years, and the country has been put to some expense, and I would like to be perfectly satisfied that this boy is under age before granting his discharge. If this boy's father proves he is only fifteen years of age, he also proves that the boy committed perjury.
Awaiting your further information on this subject, etc.
I understand that the boy .signed some paper, but he did not fully appreciate what he was doing. He certainly did not understand that he w.as swearing to something that was not true. He belongs to a good family, and I am quite certain that if he had believed ho was doing anything more than was usually connived at by recruiting officers he would not have put himself in the position of being branded for the rest of his life as a perjurer, as this commanding officer attempts to do. When he wrote like that, 1 felt that this was not a subject for me to discuss with him, but to bring to tlhe minister's attention. When a commanding officer puts it up to a father that his son, barely over 15 years of age is guilty of perjury because the father asks for his discharge, he forgets that his own recruiting officer must have been guilty of connivance. 'I felt that the commanding officer was guilty of a most improper action in endeavouring to be an accessary to the perjury which was already committed. Perhaps the minister can tell u.s the extent to which the recruiting of men over age and under age has gone on, and perhaps give us figures as to the number of men who have been rejected because they were under age.


Albert Edward Kemp: The first case that my hon. friend referred to occurred at Val-cartier, I think in the first contingent that went overseas. Perhaps, there was a little

more laxity in connection with that expedition than with later contingents. With regard to the enlistment of men under age, some may have known what they were doing and others may not, but the practice the department has invariably pursued has been to release any boy under age, upon application from his parents. This also applies to the enlistment of boys under age who have gone to England. When it is made clear that they are under age, they are returned to Canada, although under the law, after being enlisted for three months, we could hold them. It is difficult to know (just where to place the blame. I have known of boys under age getting in under false pretenses, if you choose to call it that, and it would never be known that they were under age until they were about to be sent overseas, and then it might De found out and they would be discharged. Or a boy under age might enlist during the winter and his age not become known until the next summer. I have no doubt that in some cases the parents have acted in collusion. In other cases boys have enlisted in spite of their parents. Some of these boys are quite as big at fifteen or sixteen as boys of eighteen, and very often boys of eighteen look under sixteen, but everybody knows that that is the case. Where large numbers of men are enlisting, and when there is great anxiety to get men into the ranks, possibly as great care is not taken as should be taken. Particularly does this apply to the early days of the war, with the unfortunate result that the country is put to some expense. I do not know whether we can go so far as to charge with perjury every boy under age who enlists, because I believe that many of them do not fully appreciate what they are signing. But, as I said, the invariable practice of the department has been to let these boys out when their age has been proved.


George Ewan McCraney: I am not objecting to the fact that boys under eighteen have enlisted. This Parliament has given its own judgment on the question, because in the Bill providing for conscription we have made the minimum age 20 years. As the minister says, there are many boys under 18 who are physically better fit than many others over that age. I do not object at all to those boys who have the enthusiasm and the physical ability joining the ranks, but what I do object to is the attempt on the part of the commanding officer to brand a man as a perjurer for the rest of his life

because he has signed an attestation declaring that he is of a certain age, when probably he was in ignorance of the full force of what he was doing.
I would like to ask the minister a question on a subject which has been discussed on more than one occasion. In doing so, I do not wish any reference I may make to it to be understood as casting reflections upon either members of this House or others who have gone overseas. I have been told that there are many officers in the Old Country who are simply hanging about, who decline to be reduced from the ranks to which they were originally appointed, yet they will not go to the front, and they will not come home. This has been a source of complaint and irritation to the young men who have been induced to go over, and who find that those who have been in charge of them are unwilling to expose their lives to the dangers which the privates are called upon to face. I think the country would like information as to the extent to which superior officers have not taken a lower rank in order to get to the front. I hope it is not to a very considerable extent. Perhaps the minister can tell us the number of colonels, say, who have gone from England into France with lower rank, and what lower rank they have taken? I trust it will be understood I do not make these remarks in any spirit of criticism, or with the idea that the men are not doing their duty.


Albert Edward Kemp: I thought I had a letter in my possession from which I should like to quote an extract. I do not find it at the moment, however. This letter came to me with respect to a colonel who reverted to major. He was a naan of very high stand* ing, and he said he was very happy to be able to do it. As a matter of fact, a good many officers have reverted to lower rank. A great many lieutenants, for instance, have reverted to the rank of sergeant. My hon. friend is not quite right in saying that they will not go to France, and that they will not come back home. A number of the officers in England would be very glad to go to France if an opportunity offered.


William Manley German: Are those officers under pay in London?


Albert Edward Kemp: Some of them are under pay.


William Manley German: Why should they be?


Albert Edward Kemp: They are coming back 'to Canada all 'the time, and many of them are reventing to private life.


William Manley German: What have they done beyond going to London and staying there?


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend knows what they have done. They have raised regiments 'and ihattadijons in this country. Some of them have not been able to raise full battalions, but they did the best they could. They did .all the country asked them 'to do. When they reached England their regiments were broken up because of military necessity, iand' their men were drafted to fill up other regiments and to fill gaps at the front. Those officers are in a difficult position. They are not cowards at all. There are just as good men who have never had the privilege of going to the trenches to fight as there are in the trenches. The difficulty is our .system has resulted 'in surplus officers, who are reverting to civil life as fast as possible. It iis not their fault that they did not succeed in getting to the trenches, and I would not want the impression to go .abroad that these men have done anything else but their whole duty in trying to get to the front.


George Ewan McCraney: To what rank would the colonels and majors usually revert?


Albert Edward Kemp: I suppose a colonel would revert to the rank of major, if he reverted, and I presume a major would revert to the rank of captain.


George Ewan McCraney: I met a young man who bad been through the battle of Vimy Ridge, and I understood from him that Colonel Norman Laing, who recruited the 65th from Saskatoon, waited in England for a good many months and finally Teverted to the rank of lieutenant. He
10 p.m. went to France and took part in the battle of Vimy Ridge.


Albert Edward Kemp: He deserved a great deal of credit for that.


George Ewan McCraney: And I understood that he was the only colonel who had reverted to the rank of lieutenant and had gone across. Perhaps the minister could give us some information on that point.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not any information on-the point at the moment. I am very sorry.


George Ewan McCraney: I am very pleased to have an opportunity of mentioning Colonel Norman Laing's name in this connection. He is 'a personal friend of mine land it is altogether to his credit that he took the action that he did.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Can the minister give u-3 'Same information about Mr. Olivar Asseiin? I understand he enlisted as a miajoT in Montreal. If it is not a secret, I would like to know whether he has reverted to a lower rank, and where he is now?


Albert Edward Kemp: He is still a major.


Charles Avila Wilson: Is he 'at the front?


Albert Edward Kemp: He has been in the hospital for the last month or so.


Charles Avila Wilson: Wounded?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, he is ill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I took up the case the other day of a young man who is under age, but who is in England with a signal corps. His father had a very serious accident and the another wants the hoy home. I tt'iik the deputy minister wrote to me that he had written to England. If it is possible to do anything to expedite the matter' I should be glad, as the people are now in their haying and anxious to gei the hoy home.


William Cameron Edwards: In regard to the matter of the reversion of officers to lower ranks in order to get to the front, when I first heard of this practice I thought it was a hardship; but on consideration I can see that it is in many cases only fair and is decidedly in the interest of the men in the trenches. A man may have been connected with the militia for years, going out for twelve days annually for drill and rising to the rank of major or colonel. He raises a Tegiment and goes overseas with it. It may be better that such a man, who has had no actual experience of modem warfare, *should be asked to revert to the rank of lieutenant or captain, as otherwise he might be placed in command of men who had been in the trenches for a year or a year and a half and had fought their way up to, -say, the rank of captain. Certainly the men 'in the trenches would ibe much safer under the command of the experienced fighter. But, while saying this,- I believe that in 'such cases the allowance paid to-the officer's family should not be reduced to those of the rank to which he reverts.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is the regulation.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not know that.


Mr. KNOWLES:: 
Albert Edward Kemp: The passports come under the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. The rules and regulations are laid down by the British Government, and we have acted upon them. Duly qualified nurses are allowed to go over and there are extreme cases where others have gone. A lady came to my office to enlist my sympathy in respect to getting overseas, but the Under Secretary of State turned her down and she did not go. I do not think there is any question of influence about the matter, and I do not know of any favouritism. The rules are very stringent, and there are many women over there now who would be better in Canada; and it is not desirable that any women should go to England unless the circumstances are very serious indeed.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister will acquit me of any thought of accusing him of favouritism, but evidently, from what the minister says, there are cases which the Government, through the Secretary of State's Department, recognizes as exceptional. The minister knows enough about ladies to know that every lady thinks her case is exceptional. If not he has a great deal to learn. There is a danger, if the minister is not able to assure me that the rule is never broken, that these ladies will think that I am unable to get them the dispensation which somebody has secured for these other ladies. What would the minister call exceptional circumstances? If a lady's extreme passion is to be by the side of her husband, would that be considered an exceptional circumstance? Or would it

be so considered if she had an idea that the husband's charms may be lavished on some other woman and she ought to get over there-or what would he call exceptional circumstances? I ask the question very seriously.


Albert Edward Kemp: I know of one case where a lady went over to get married, the idea being that it was desirable that as many ladies should be married in war times as possible, provided the matches were suitable ones. These people had been engaged for about two years or more. It was a bona fide case, and the lady was given a passport to go over. Has my hon. friend anybody in mind who wants to get married?


George Perry Graham: I have a case.


William Erskine Knowles: It is a very common predicament. I think the Government will find they are adding to the problems of the war very much ilf they take on themselves to decide what marriages are desirable and what are not. But if the 'minister has the personal gift and is able to constitute himself a successful match-maker, we are fortunate indeed in having such a minister. But still I do not quite understand the situation. The minister might tell us what he considers exceptional circumstances. I am not going to tell the affairs of the ladies with whom I have the honour of an acquaintance, but they have far stronger reasons than those given Iby the minister. The minister's case is a very ordinary one, for it is very common for a girl to want to marry an officer after he leaves for England, and I should think exceptional cases would be very frequent. Perhaps the minister would give me the information. This is Teally a matter associated with the war, and therefore under the Militia Department. Under what circumstances would wives be permitted to go to their husbands?


Albert Edward Kemp: They often go
over when their husbands have nothing to do with military affairs.


George Perry Graham: The minister has given
me something I have been waiting for for some time, the exceptional case. A case came under my notice such as he described, where the passports had been given. An officer engaged to a young lady on this side of the water anticipated getting married in a month or two, but was called to go across. When he got to England he found he was likely to remain some time, and cabled for the young lady to come over, but I was unable to obtain a passport. The circumstances were such as outlined by the minister. I could give all the necessary requirements to make this an exceptional case, if there is such a thing, but what I was interested in was the answer given to the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) as to the pension and pay of the officers. I imagine a number of officers would be more inclined to revert if they thought their pay, and the amount given to their families, would not revert at the same time. A number of officers in England can get to the front by reverting. They are not unwilling to revert, as I understand it, but it will leave their families and themselves in a very bad predicament, owing to the reduced pay which they and their families will receive. I know several cases of that kind. I had a letter this week from a young man who left his family and went over, and has been there for some time, and he said he would not mind reverting at all, but would not like? to see his family on the road, and he is not a man who would take anything from the Patriotic Fund-die does not feel like doing that. In 1914, when this matter was being discussed, I put the question to the Prime Minister, perhaps in a little different form. I asked him the question: if a man goes overseas as a captain or major, and over there takes a lower rank, would his pay be for the lower rank, and would the pension to his family be according to the lower rank? The Prime Minister gave me an affirmative answer in both cases. That was his opinion at that time. If there are different regulations since, I think it would be in the public interest that we should all know about them. Suppose a man is a captain in England and can only get to the front by reverting to a lieutenancy. What pay will he get if he reverts, and what amount will his family get? Will the pay remain that of a captain, or will it be reduced to that of a lieutenant?


Albert Edward Kemp: The pay will be
the pay of the rank to which he reverts, but the separation allowance, in the case of a married man, will be the same as if he had not reverted, and the pension would be the same-according to the higher rank. If he reverted from captain to lieutenant, he would get lieutenant's pay, but, if he is a married man, the separation allowance would be that of a captain, and his pension would be that of a captain.


George Perry Graham: The difference to his
family would be the difference in the assigned pay, practically, because he would
399S

not be able to assign as much of his pay to his family under the lower rank as he would under the higher.


Frank Oliver: I would like to know if
the position is still as it was some months ago in regard to non-commissioned officers who are members of battalions which have been broken up and sent over to France. Some time ago the condition was this: noncommissioned officers were all compelled to revert to the rank of privates, and lost their pay as non-commissioned officers, and their opportunity for pensions. I would like to know if that is still the position?


Albert Edward Kemp: The situation inregard to that is the same as the situation in regard to the question raised by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). The pay is that of the lower rank, and the separation and pension that of the higher rank.


Frank Oliver: How long is it since this latter arrangement was given effect to?


Albert Edward Kemp: About six months ago.


Frank Oliver: In the case I refer to, these men reverted more than six months ago, but I got the information from them less than six months ago. Would that new condition be retroactive?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, it would be retroactive.


Frank Oliver: The instance I mentioned here was that of a battalion sergeant-major, who, when he went to the front, took the rank of private, and took the private's pay, when he thought he was- getting a continuation of the sergeant-major's regimental pay. When he was wounded, and came back and was boarded to be sent back to Canada, he found out that, instead of having money coming to him, he was in debt. Would that retroactive pay be of any benefit to this man?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am afraid the sergeant-major misunderstood the regulations in that case.


Frank Oliver: I understand the minister to say that the non-commissioned officer who now reverts on going to France receives the pay of his former rank?


Albert Edward Kemp: Receives the pay of the rank to which he Teverts.


Frank Oliver: He was a battalion sergeant-major, and became a private, and he understood his pay as battalion sergeant-

major was continued. He had been drawing his battalion sergeant-major pay after he was wounded, but when he was settled up with, to be sent back to Canada, he found, instead of being a comfortable sum of money ahead, he was actually in debt to the department. Will the new regulation be retroactive to the benefit of that man?


Albert Edward Kemp: The regulation would give him the pay of a private. Unfortunately he had been drawing the higher pay, and when the books were balanced he found himself in debt. That was the unfortunate situation. Nevertheless, when a man reverts he gets the pay of the rank to which he reverts. The separation allowance and pension, however, are of the higher rank from which he has reverted.


Frank Oliver: He will get the pension of a battalion -sergeant-major?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Although he was in the position -of -a private when he was wounded?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes. And the separation iaillowan.ee, if he is a married mian, would be of the higher rank.


Frank Oliver: He was not a married -man, but he had a dependent mother -at the ti-m-e.


Albert Edward Kemp: The -separation 'allowance could have gone to the dependent -mother at the pay f-o the higher /rank, if the father was not living.


Frank Oliver: Why iis it necessary that the non-commissioned officer should become a private upon going to France? His position -is different from that of the commissioned officer, especially of the battalion commissioned officer. The battalion commissioned officer loses his rank because he is not in -comm-and of -a sufficient number of men to warrant his retaining it. But the non-commissioned officer goes with the draft of the battalion to which he belongs; he goes with the men with whom he was associated -as non-commissioned officer. I am at a loss -to know why, under normal conditions, a non-commissioned officer should be degraded -to the position of private when he goes to France.


Albert Edward Kemp: Of course, he is not forced to do it. There is only one sergeant-major in a battalion.


Frank Oliver: I was not speaking of -a battalion -sergeant-major; I was -speaking of the ordinary sergeant or corporal.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Frank Oliver: Why should they have to revert? When a platoon is going to France, why should not the non-commissioned officers who accompany that platoon retain their rank?


Albert Edward Kemp: There may be a surplus of certain grades of non-commissioned officers. Moreover, these men may be anxious to get to the front as soon as possible, and their anxiety is such that they are willing to go as privates rather than wait until some other opportunity occurs. They are not forced to revert in rank.


Frank Oliver: I understand that they are compelled to go; that it is not a matter of option with them. The non-commissioned officer is not in the position of an officer; he must go if he is sent. That is to say, the rank that he has attained and the pay that he has been receiving are taken from him without good reason. In a case like that I think it would be fair to adopt the suggestion that the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) made in connection with commissioned officers: that the pay and allowances of the non-commissioned officer who, for reasons over which he has no control, is compelled to serve as a private, should be continued.


George Taylor: I should like to put in a word again in support of the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliyer). I am sorry to have to say to the minister that he is not quite informed about what they do with non-commissioned officers in England. The non-commissioned officer when he goes to England is treated very harshly indeed. As the hon. member for Edmonton says, he has no option at all; he automatically becomes a private.
Originally the non-commissioned officers went to England as acting non-commissioned officers, and if they were found to be qualified and to be fit in every way to hold their rank, they were confirmed in that rank in England. But because there was a surplus of non-commissioned officers, a large number having accumulated in England, they made the harsh rule that in future no noncommissioned ranks should be confirmed in England, and that upon their arrival in England these non-commissioned officers should become privates, no matter what
their qualifications were. When the minister remembers that the qualifications of a sergeant are the same as those of a lieutenant, that the examinations are identical and that the certificate is obtained in Canada largely through the enterprise and at the expense of the non-commissioned officer, he will realize that a very great injustice is done to these men and that when they go over they should not be obliged merely to take a chance upon their getting their rank back again. When I was told that these non-commissioned officers could go across to France as privates and that, if they were eligible for promotion, they could very easily get that promotion in the field, I inquired whether any steps were taken to ensure that that promotion should come to them in the field; whether, for instance, any lists of qualified non-commissioned officers were sent over to France. The answer came from headquarters in London, through the department here, that no such lists were sent over; that it was left entirely to chance whether the qualifications of these men were ever recognized.
I want to mention another instance which has occurred in connection with the reverting in rank of non-commissioned officers. We are told that if they are killed, the pensions paid to their widows are continued at the rate for non-commissioned officers. It is quite true that there is an order in council directing that their pensions shall so continue. But we have in Canada a Pensions Board which, so far as my experience with it is concerned is not much troubled about orders in council. It seems to act upon the principle that the widow of a noncommissioned officer gets only what she can prove she is entitled to get, and if she has no friends, lives a long way from here or is not in a position to put up proof, she gets the very lowest amount that the Pensions Board can give her, which is the pension of the wife of a private soldier. I have a case of that kind before the Pensions Board now. As- commanding officer of a deceased sergeant, I have submitted to the board all the proof possible and have referred them to headquarters here for absolute proof. The hoard, however, have declined to recognize the widow's claim because the Record Office in London persists in telling her that this man died as a private. It is quite true that he died ae a private, but he had before him the guarantee of this Government under order ini council that if he died as a private his widow would be pensioned as the widow of a sergeant. I cannot make the Pensions Board

recognize this fact. They simply keep travelling around in a circle, like the old Circumlocution Office, and they come back after a series of letters to the assertion that the Record Office says that the man died as a private and that his widow is to get the pension of a private's widow. I have deferred taking this matter up in the House because there is a resolution on the Order Paper dealing with the Pensions Board, and I thought that the proper time to take up a matter of this kind was upon the consideration of that resolution. But in case that resolution is never reached, I should like to call the minister's attention to the necessity for seeing not only that when noncommissioned officers get to England they get some advantage for the qualifications they secured here, but that the Pensions Board shall be made to. recognize the contract of this Government with the soldiers and their widows.


Albert Edward Kemp: An ordeT in council in respect to a matter of that kind has to be obeyed by the Pensions Board.


George Taylor: But they do not obey it.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) to say that the difficulties thrown in the way make it impossible to grant the pension as he suggested; at least, he has a case of that kind in mir.d.
I will ask my deputy to draw the attention of the Pension Board to this matter again to see what their answer is to the arguments put forward here by my .hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) laud my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor).


Frank Oliver: In this connection, it was drawn to my attention by the men with whom I conversed that the non-commissioned officers at the base in England, who remained there in comfort and safety, retained rank and pay, while the non-commissioned officer who went to the front and risked (his life and did the flighting, went as a private. That is neither fair nor reasonable, and I hope the minister will take some means of adjusting the matter so that a man will not be penalized because of the service he renders.


Albert Edward Kemp: I shall be glad to take up that matter also.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: When an officer reverts to. a lower rank, is there any one to tell him what his pay is going to he at the time of reversion? A few days ago I

brought to the notice of the department a case somewhat in line with what the hon. member for Edmonton has said. It seemed to. me to be a case of very great hardship. W^hemone o'f our best young men from the Six Nations tribe, who had served with distinction for the past two years and won the Military Cross and several other horn ours on the field, got 'honih a short time ago, he was informed that he had been overpaid during the three years of his reversion of rank in England to the extent of about $317, and his pay and his wife's separation allowance were stopped until the $317 was made up. I wrote the department stating that this seemed to 'be an extreme ease of hardship. I think steps have been taken to adjust the matter, buit a case of that kind should not occur. I am not (blaming the minister at all, because I 'believe such cases occur on the other slide. But when an officer reverts in rank to a lower grade, there should be some one to tell him at the time what his pay is going to be. It is not right to send a man in a bill for money spen t during three years, and I hope that will not occur in many cases. I have had to deal with other cases of hardship in regard to pensions. This is perhaps not the proper time to 'bring up such questions, but tlie Government should -be more liberal in the matters of pensions, especially to the lower ranks.
It does not seem to be right to ask a widow to swear that an only son was her sole support, and to provide that unless she does so she cannot get anything. I had a case of that kind a few days ago. A widow had lost her only son. She had taken some bank work and because she was doing this work, it was proposed that she should receive no allowance whatever, although her only son had been killed at the front and her husband had been dead for some years. Whoever is in authority in those matters should be a little more liberal. When an officer reverts to a lower grade,^as many have done in order to get to the front, he should have a distinct understanding when he leaves for the front on what basis he is to be paid and what separation allowance 'his wife and family are to receive. The minister probably knows the name of the man whose case I have mentioned. I have mentioned it to him on a previous occasion.	[DOT]


Albert Edward Kemp: These unfortunate questions of overpayment occur now and again. I think this man's name was Smith, but the matter is being adjusted. The Min-

ister of Finance is the responsible minister in Tegard to pensions. That question does not oome up under these estimates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will 'the minister
tell us whether the Minister of Finance intends going on with his resolution in regard to pensions? It has stood on the OrdeT Paper for a long time. It was understood at the time it was put on the Order Paper that the matter was to be referred to a special committee, as was done last year. As we are nearing the end of the session, it is desirable that the matter should be brought up at once, because in all parts of the country questions are being brought up in regard to inequalities of pensions.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Minister of
Finance was in the House a few moments ago. If my hon. friend or some other hon. member will ask him when he comes in again, he will probably be able to give an answer to the question.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that when I was out of the chamber a little while ago, there was some discussion about soldiers'under the age of eighteen years serving in the ranks. I have had two cases drawn to my attention in the last few days. I have sent them forward to the deputy minister and he has been kind enough to say that he will forward them to the authorities on the other side. One of those cases was a boy whose date of birth is the 3rd day of June, 1901, so that he would be sixteen years old on the 3rd day of June this year. This boy, I am told by his parents who live in my constituency, is in France at the present time. His brother was killed in France some time in May. This boy is very young and his parents are anxious about him. His father was away from home at the time the boy enlisted, otherwise, I do not think he would have been permitted to enlist. The other case is from the same district. The young fellow was born on the 15th of November, 1900, so that he would be about sixteen years and eight months old. I understand this young fellow is in Witley camp, Surrey, England. I can give the names and numbers of these soldiers, but it is not necessary that I should do so. What is the policy of the department in regard to these boys? Is it possible to order this boy in France back under the circumstances? If so, that ought to be done because he is altogether too young for active service. The other boy who is in England is not quite in the same position, because he is a little
older, but in both cases their parents are applying to have them returned. Is it possible to have that done?


Sit EDWARD KEMP:: We had this question up while my hon. friend was out of the chamber. It has been the policy to discharge all the young men under age. As soon as our attention is directed to a case, we get the birth certificate or other proper evidence of birth. It is difficult to know on whom to place the blame. Sometimes the fault is the boy's; sometimes it is the parents'. We refer to England demands for discharge of boys who are under age. My hon. friend refers to one boy in France.
I do not suppose that the parents made an application to have the boy taken out of the ranks while he was in Canada. They sometimes delay making application.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that they wrote some letters about him to the department when he was at Aldershot, but nothing was done, and then they wrote me.


Albert Edward Kemp: If my Ihon. friend will forward the data to my deputy, or to the department, and will enclose a birth certificate-there is very little difficulty, as a rule, in getting that-we will have it forwarded overseas.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I want to call the minister's attention to a condition prevailing at Halifax, and which, perhaps, is not to be found anywhere else in Canada, There, since the beginning of the war, two local regiments have been doing duty at the forts. I am not sure whether the full strength of the regiments are so engaged, but I think that is probable. As I understand it, these men do not receive the separation 'allowance.


Albert Edward Kemp: They are a part of the garrison 'at Halifax, are they not?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose so.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did they not take the place of the permanent force who went overseas?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so, but, of course, the garrison duties have been greatly increased since then. These regiments are engaged at McNab's Island, York Redoubt, and such points as that. To all intents and purposes, they are in the same' position as if they were serving overseas, as they have to give up their work and are unable to live at home. I think these men should be granted the separation allowance.


Albert Edward Kemp: The 'married men get 45 cents a.day subsistence 'allowance.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Many of these men have represented to ime that they should receive the separation allowance.


William Cameron Edwards: Do their families live at Halifax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They would, but the men are unable to live at home, and are unable to carry on their ordinary business. I would like the minister to give this matter some consideration, because I think .a great deal can be said 'in favour of 'these men being paid the usual separation allowance, and I certainly think they should 'receive it.


Albert Edward Kemp: The subsistence allowance for married men amounts to $13.50 a month. The separation allowance is $20 a month.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was not aware that the subsistence allowance was so large. At all events, I submit that these men are entitled to the full separation allowance. The case of such men is rather different from that of the forces doing duty almost anywhere else in Canada. They are constantly on duty; they have to give up their ordinary work, and, furthermore, they cannot escape this duty, because they are called out. I really do think that they are entitled to the ordinary separation allowance.


William Cameron Edwards: I confess I have never been able to understand why this distinction is made between the subsistence allowance and the separation allowance. I am not a military man, and there are many things in the military line that I do not understand. There may be a good reason for this distinction, but it seems to me that a married man who is separated from his family, even if he is only doing garrison duty at Halifax or some other part of the country, should receive the $20 separation allowance instead of the 45 cents a day subsistence.


Albert Edward Kemp: The regulations in regard to this matter have been in force since the war began. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that there is some difference between the man who enlists for service in the city of Halifax, where he is in touch with his family, and to some extent, perhaps, with his ordinary business, and where he has a guiding hand over his family affairs, and the man who goes into the

trenches and undertakes all the hazards of warfare as it is carried on in France and Belgium to-day. I might point out that the 45 cents a day subsistence allowance is what the permanent force were getting whose place these men took.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But they were volunteers. In the case I am referring to, the two local regiments were called out, and they could not avoid doing duty; that distinction should be taken into consideration. They were called out, I suppose, under the authority of the Militia Council or some other body. I trust the minister will promise me to give the matter some consideration.
I wish to call the minister's attention te .another matter, and perhaps I can best illustrate by giving the facts of one case. A Canadian, soldier went overseas as an officer, and for some reason was courtmartialed and degraded. Later on he joined a British regiment as a private. The department continued to pay the separation allowance to his wife, who was residing in Halifax, without knowledge of his having left the Canadian service, and in this way some $300 or more was paid to her. Subsequently the department's attention was called to the fact, I think by myself, that this man had ceased to be a member of the Canadian force. Regularly since then the wife of this man receives a notice from some branch of the Militia Department requesting her to refund the amount that was improperly paid to her. The amounts were undoubtedly received and used by her in good faith.	There are no doubt a
great many cases of this kind; I have heard some of my fellow-members speak of them, and I would like to know what the policy of the department is in regard to such claims. In most cases it will be found utterly impossible to collect them. It seems to me that it means a great deal of labour on the part of some officials of the department to be sending out these notices regularly, without much hope of accomplishing anything. If bona fides can be established, if it can be shown that there was no fraud, I think the Government might as well abandon their claims on these women and wipe the accounts off the slate altogether.


Albert Edward Kemp: There have been quite a number of cases where men are far away from their homes and their families, and they are discharged, or something happens to them, and the wife or the one

to whom the separation allowance is assigned, draws it; but, they are not all innocent. When they endorse the cheques, they have to certify that the husband is still serving in the forces. This is printed in good plain English on the backs of the cheques, and they read it at the time of en-dorsation. No doubt there are cases of hardship, but it is very difficult for me to make a statement here that the Government would be permitted to forgive all claims of that kind, because if I did so it would be unfair and unjust, for the reason that most of those claims -arise in respect of people who know what they are doing when they endorse the cheques.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand the minister to say he will be able to give the House the figures as to the unfit men who were in England, and those who have been returned to Canada?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of those who were unfit when they enlisted, not those who became unfit after enlistment, such as the list I gave the House to-night.


Albert Edward Kemp: I cannot see how you could trace out a thing of that kind. How can you get a statement showing that the men who might have been returned from Great Britain were medically unfit when they enlisted? I can assure my hon. friend from Edmonton that I have, since I have been minister, exerted myself to give any information desired by the committee or the House and I shall continue to do so, but in regard to this particular point I do not see how it is possible to get the information. If I thought the information could be obtained I would certainly undertake to obtain it, and bring it down to-morrow; but, as I say, I cannot see how it can be done.


Frank Oliver: Of course, it is not for me to say how it can be done. At the same time, I should imagine the medical records would be complete.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will look into it to-morrow morning, and if the hon. member for Edmonton will draw my attention to it again I will give him a further statement. If the information can be obtained he shall have it.


Frank Oliver: In view of the statements in the Bruce, the Baibtie and the Jones reports, this is the most important statement the Government can place before Parliament with reference to the cost of the war and the efficiency of the work done. We
are informed that there- have been enlisted and gone overseas, or are enlisted for overseas service in Canada about 340,000 or
350.000	men. Those are our effective enlistments. I believe we have 130,000 men in Prance. We have had in the neighbourhood of 100,000 casualties, of which I suppose it would not ibe unreasonable to say that possibly twenty-five per cent would not be permanent, which would leave about
75.000	as permanently disabled. In other words we have 130,000 men in France,
75,000	permanent casualties,
11 p.m. making 205,000 effective men ac-* counted for out of 340,000 or
350.000	enlisted. There are still 135,000 men to be taken into consideration. How many of those 135,000 are available for service in France? Because, we must remember we are not fighting this war in Canada nor in England. We are fighting it in France, and it is only the man who is able to fight in France who- is of military value to the Dominion of Canada. Either those 135,000 men are not of military value to Canada, and should not be on the pay list-


Albert Edward Kemp: They are all being made use of in England or in France.


Frank Oliver: I do not think the minister is absolutely accurate when he says they are all being made use of. I understand from these reports that there is an effort to keep them in employment as an excuse for their being on the paylist. That is not what we should -be trying to do. We are trying to put men on the fighting line in France to keep them there, and to support them there. If we have 135,000 men who have not been on the fighting line we want to know whether they are fit to go or not, and whether they are a force we can Tely on to reach the front ultimately. The reports of those commissions certainly throw very grave doubt on the efficiency of an unknown proportion of that 135,000 men. We need those men. -So. far as we know they are industrially efficient. If they are not fit for France they are fit for Canada, and they should be either in France or in Canada, or perhaps in England -simply on the way to France. I urge upon the minister that the question I have asked him is a most important question to the people of Canada, as fixing their position in this war, and as to what they have done and what they are able to do. In the past we have deluded ourselves by speaking of the number of men enlisted, when, as a matter of fact, of those nominally enlisted 75,000 were not in service or were found to be un-



fit after enlistment, and left the service. We were not doing ourselves or our cause any good 'by claiming an enlistment of 418,000, when we really-had an ,effective enlistment of a little less than 350,000. We were not doing ourselves any good by claiming an enlistment of 350,000 it, as a matter of fact, a considerable proportion of that number is not fit for the firing line, which is the only place we need soldiers. Any place else a great deal of the work can be done by stenographers or people who are militarily unfit; but we do not want to have to make a pretense of having raised an army of 350,000 men if any such proportion of them as these reports indicate are unfit for the firing line. Let us get down to business and know what we have done, what we can do, and admit that we have not done what we have not done.


Mr. SOHAFFNER:: Like the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) I should like to ascertain how many unfit men were permitted to enlist. The statement of the minister ,is absolutely true, that neither he nor any other man can give the number of men who were unfit when they enlisted; that is absolutely out of the question. In southern Manitoba when the battalions were being enlisted in small towns

and by this means eight or ten battalions were raised that would not otherwise have been raised-the men were examined by the local doctors. It. is true that these doctors were inexperienced in that kind of work, but I believe they did the work honestly, and I can use no better word. The men from Manitoba were gathered at Camp Hughes and there they began their training. The camp had not been running for two- months before a board of three members of the Army Mediical 'Service visited it. The men were stripped, and I believe honestly examined to the very best of the ability of this board, who were as efficient as any three man who- could be found. Some men were discharged. These doctors who discarded these men could not say whether they were unfit when they enlisted. As a medical .man, I am prepared to make the declaration, and I challenge contradiction, that it would be impossible for the hoard to affirm that many of those men were unfit when they enlisted. The battalions went on drilling, and in the fall, before being transported overseas, they were again inspected by a mediical board and still more men were discarded. They went overseas, and before being transported to France were again examined and .more men discarded. It would 'be impossible for the Minister of 
Militia ox any other man to say how many of them were unfit when they enlisted.


Frank Oliver: The minister has brought
down a full statement of the discharges of men in Canada. There should be no serious difficulty in giving an equally full statement about the discharges in England before the troops go- to France.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understood the bon. member to ask the minister to give the number of men who were unfit when they were enlisted. That is impossible.


Frank Oliver: The minister has given
the number of men who were unfit when they enlisted but who were discharged in Canada. I whs endeavouring to secure a detailed statement of those who were discharged for like causes after their arrival in England.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the hon.
member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) is quite right. These battalions have gone before boards more than once. They were weeded out and weeded out until they were almost disheartened. Then in England more of them were set aside as not fit to go to France. My bon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is under the impression that quite a number of these men might be returned to Canada for industrial employment. There are very few men who are not doing some military duty in England that would have to be^one by a man who was fit for the trenches if they were not doing it. We cannot get those men back. I have had relatives ask for the return of men' who are doing police duty, but they will not let them come back. They are as necessary for that work as they would be for work in the trenches. There is no such surplus of rank and file in England as my hon. friend thinks. There is no surplus at all. If men went over in the earlier stages of the war who were unfit for service, they would have been returned long ago unless they were usefully employed.


Frank Oliver: I have given the count as it has been given to me of the number of men we have. We should have 135,000 men available f-or the firing line. We are told we have no such number. I forget what the number is, but we are supposed to have something like fifteen or twenty thousand men in England fit for the firing line. What is the condition of the rest? If they are not fit for the firing line, why are they there?


Albert Edward Kemp: They are being
prepared for the firing line. They get far

more intensive training in England than in this country. Training has. undergone an evolution since the war began. They are giving more intensive training now, and preparing men foT category A, working up all the time.


Frank Oliver: What proportion of the
135,000	men does the hon minister think are fit for the firing line, or will become fit?


Albert Edward Kemp: Out of the 126,241 there were 7,981 officers, 26,359 in Category Al, fit for the firing line. .


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Which" means what?


Albert Edward Kemp: Perfectly fit for France. There were 26,927 in A2 almost ready for France. There were 5,147 in A3, the next class. Then we come to A4, 383 under 18 years of age, and 3,086 over 18. I do not know what that means. Then we come to Category B, which has three classes. Category B is the class training men to get into Category A. I have before me the exact particulars, in a very long and complicated document, explaining how this 126,241 gradually, as far as possible, get into Category A. Of that number there was a large number in hospitals. I think this table appears in the Prime Minister's speech on the Military Service Bill, and will be found in Hansard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am constantly in receipt of requests from the parents of soldiers overseas, asking if their sons could not obtain leave of absence. In most cases they are men who have, been wounded, or who have been on duty overseas almost since the beginning of the war, and who, for apparently very strong reasons, would be entitled to a leave of absence. I suppose every member of the House receives some similar request, and it is impossible to trouble the department each time with each particular case, and I would like to have from the minister, if possible, some declaration of departmental policy in respect to this matter. In many cases my correspondent will refer to the fact that in his or her locality there is some officer, or man who has returned from overseas on leave of absence, and naturally they think his case was not so deserving as their own. Upon that, of course, there may be a great difference of opinion, but there is a feeling on the part of interested persons that there is some partiality shown in giving leave of absence to certain officers and pri-254J
vates. I am sure I need not elaborate the idea, because the department probably have similar cases before it more than once every day. It may be impossible to make a statement of policy upon a matter of this kind, because cases may differ very much, but I should like to know the ground upon which leave of absence is secured on behalf of any person overseas.
SiT EDWARD KEMP: The applications are more numerous every day, I think. There are various reasons given for asking that relatives be returned to Canada. The question is a very difficult one to handle. My hon. friend will understand that occasionally a very sincere ,and affectionate father or mother will chaTge favouritism in certain circumstances. There is no isueh thing as favouritism in the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: By whom is it determined?


Albert Edward Kemp: By the necessities of the troops in France. A man who has had sick leave is frequently returned to Canada to convalesce, and if his recovery can go on as well in Canada as in England, or elsewhere, he is allowed to come out. A board can examine him in Canada, to find out whether or not he is fit to go back to the front, and if he is not fit his leave can be extended on the recommendation of the Military Medical Board. There are requests made to us on account of the father or mother being 'ill, or one or the other having died, or some financial trouble. In an army of three or four hundred thousand men there are tragedies happening every day-every hour of the day-in respect of their relatives who are behind them. In a city of three hundred thousand people there are many accidents happening every day, and many pathetic incidents. All these things are reflected on the department, to a certain extent, in the prosecution of the war. The requests are very numerous, and we answer all of them, whether verbal or written. These requests are usually written, and it is desirable they should be in writing, so that they may be investigated, but where a man is medically fit for his duties as 'a soldier just at the present time, it is very, very difficult to get any leave of absence. Sometimes the relatives of soldiers in Canada make application to have their sons returned to Canada when the sons do not want to be treated in this way, *and it is very embarassing for the man to be told he has bqen granited leave. He does not like to leave his comrades. He is

singled out 'as a .man *who wants to get away and obtain some preference over the others. It is .a difficult matter to 'handle. On the 1st of February, 1917, I issued a circular which at that time and 'at the present *time covers nearly 'all the different forms -of requisitions that are made for the return -of soldiers from the front. There are ten iin all.
It shows the procedure which ought to be taken in each case; I will send a copy of it over to my hon. friend. They are used every day in the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who is the ultimate judge of the matter? The commanding officer of the battalion in which the applicant is enlisted?


Albert Edward Kemp: The proper way to proceed is for the applicant himself to make application through his commanding officer at the front; then the case is rested on a solid foundation. But unless there are excellent reasons why it should be granted, the leave of absence is not granted to a man who is physically fit for his duties in France or in England. I do not know of any cases in which such requests have been granted, unless it has been in the case of men under medical treatment who can pass -through their period of convalescence here as well as they can in England. Many persons who have occasion to receive applications of the kind to which my hon. friend refers ask the Militia Department to furnish them with copies of this circular in order that they may be able to answer the many questions that they get in respect to the return of soldiers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know several cases of men who enlisted for overseas service, were passed by the local doctor, but, when the battalion came to go overseas, were directed by the Medical Board to remain at home because they were not medically -fit to go across. In some cases these men were drafted into home defence battalions.
I 'have in mind several coal miners who were perfectly willing to go across, but who were compelled under these conditions to remain in Halifax in a home defence unit. They have no interest or heart in their work, and they want to get back home.
I have also in mind the case of a coal miner who enlisted in some unit which is now at Camp Borden, but who was declared medically unfit on account of heart disease. He has been retained in the service, but of course he has lost all interest in his work and is anxious to get back to his mine.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is he doing home, guard duty?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He enlisted in some unit which had to be sent to Camp Borden for training; evidently it was not an infantry unit. There does not seem to be much use in keeping men who have volunteered for overseas service but who have ultimately been found to be medically unfit. If the man to whom I refer particularly would be more useful in some occupation connected with the industrial life of the country, he ought to be allowed to go.
I have a question to ask with regard to separation allowances. A young man, the only support of his sister, volunteered to go overseas, and was assured by the recruiting officer that in the event of his going his sister would get separation allowance. A similar statement was made with regard to the Patriotic Fund-about which there is no misunderstanding in our province, because the local authorities deal with it. The young man went away and left his sister on the farm, but she got no separation allowance; she simply got the assigned pay. It seems to me that separation allowance ought to be extended to cover the case of a man who leaves behind a dependent-mother, father or sister, as the case may be. I have in mind also the case of an officer who went overseas. He had married a very respectable lady. I do not know what could^have gone wrong, but he refused to authorize her to receive the assigned pay. She has a family. Is any parental authority exercised by the department to cover cases where men who go to the front do not provide for those whom they leave behind? One more question: Is the recruiting throughout the country being main-taFned, and will it be maintained in its present state? .	[DOT]


Albert Edward Kemp: There is no regulation in respect to the granting of separation allowance to a sister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should it not
apply to a dependent?


Albert Edward Kemp: We should open
a very wide door if we made a provision of that kind. This, however, is a question which is before the special Pension Committee. When -a man's separation allowance is assigned to- the party whom he wishes to get it, the assigned pa>
also goes to that party. A man cannot withhold the assigned pay.
Mr. MAiCDONALD: Suppose he will not assign the pay?


Stir EDWARD KEIMP:: There is no regulation applying to officers in cases of that

kind. Does my horn, friend know a particular case where an' officer refused (both separation allowance and assigned pay?
iMr. MACDONALD: He has said nothing about either. He refuses the assigned pay.
Sir EDWARD KEMP,:	He has to sign
a card with regard to the separation allowance. There is no- way of getting 'after an officer who does as my hon. friend has mentioned. As to the recruiting, it is going on as usual; everything is -being done to get recruits, the same as hitherto. However, the work is being confined almost entirely to the regimental recruiting offices. The officers who have hitherto recruited and who have been -specially paid iare -being absorbed *again into civil life as fast as possible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I -see by the paper
that Mr. Knight who is connected with the War Veterans' Association was speaking in Hamilton the other night and made very grave complaints against the Government in Tegard to the treatment of returned soldiers. He made some comparisons between Canada and Australia in that particular. What are the special requests from returned soldiers which the Government have not granted?


Albert Edward Kemp: I thought the Government had granted everything in reason that they had asked. What has my hon. friend in mind that the returned soldiers have complained of? Many difficulties in respect to returned soldiers are being overcome from time to time.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Knight was -speaking at the Win the War meeting at Hamilton.	*
-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	How many recruits have been obtained in the month of July?
Sir ,EDWARD KEMP:	I have not yet
received the returns for July.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the report
of Mr. Knight's speech:
He criticised the Government in no uncertain tone. The fabric of the present Government was never designed to meet and deal with the present great crisis, he said. Inefficient men were given positions that they should never have received. 'The Government is rotten with patronage', declared Mr. Knight, with heat. 'We have not got the best men representing us in the House.' No honest effort has been made by the Government to look after its returned soldiers, declared Mr. Knight. It seemed the policy of the Government to give the returned man the lowest sum he would accept and get rid of him as quickly as possible. He contrasted this state of affairs with the method pursued
in Australia, where, he said, the returned soldiers were being looked after and provided for much better than in Canada.
I am not familiar with the facts, but I want to know what Mr. Knight has been asking the minister to do that he has not done.
'Sir EDWARD KEMP:	I am much surprised at the remarks by my hon. friend. The War Veterans' Associations from all parts of Canada met in this Chamber about three or four weeks ago and everything that they had to say, they said, and the . most of the requests they made were reasonable and could be complied with. This M!r. Knight at that time ventilated his grievances and they were not very numerous. I do not 'understand the grievances to which he refers.	.


Frank Oliver: With respect to this matter of reversion o-f rank on going to France, is there -an order in council on the subject or other information that could be laid on the table of the House that would indicate under what conditions an officer Teverts to lower rank on going to France the first or the second time?


Albert Edward Kemp: I will lay the
order in council on, the Table to-morrow.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest that the committee rise. We have been sitting a long time, and I have no doubt the minister, as well as any other hon. member, would like the committee to rise. It is true we have taken up nearly two days without passing an item, but that is a very significant matter. The minister will realize that military affairs are uppermost in the mind of Parliament and of the country, and there are a great number of matters to be discussed which are perhaps not necessarily relevant to the items before the committee. It matters very little whether an item is passed to-day or not.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is surely no objection to passing one or two items before we rise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps -there is no objection to doing so, but that will not expedite matters.


Albert Edward Kemp: If we passed one or two items, we would feel that we had done something.


George Perry Graham: That is reasonable. A minister, when he is in Supply, wants, when he goes home, to be able to say:	I
have made some progress. As the hon.

member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has suggested, all the expenditures for war, which are enormous, are really relevant to the discussion on these estimates. Tney do not refer to the items under discussion, but the understanding was that all these matters could be discussed, and that understanding is being carried out.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Sir Edward Kemp, the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Wednesday, August 1, 1917.