1917-02-05

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. A. E. Kemp.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the recommendation of His Honour, the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 26th ultimo respecting the appointment of Mr. Herbert D. Throop as a clerk in subdivision B. of the Third Division of the Library of Parliament, was concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of giving a very direct contradiction to a statement that appeared on Wednesday, January 24, in L'Evenement, a newspaper published in the city of Quebec. I would have been able to correct this sooner, had I been better acquainted with the language in which the statement was originally printed. The article begins with large headlines:
Hon. Mr. Oliver, late Liberal minister, requests immediate conscription in Canada. This Liberal leader lets the cat out of the bag. He declares that if the Liberal party came

back to power, conscription would be enforced at once. Mr. Oliver reproaches Mr. Sevigny for not preaching immediate enlistment to his
constituents during the campaign.
The article goes on:
It ill becomes Mr. Cannon to charge the Conservative Government with the intention of enforcing conscription in Canada. It is evident to those who follow the debates at Ottawa that were a Liberal administration in power conscription would come at once. Hon. Mr. Oliver, one of Sir Wilfrid's first lieutenants, let the cat out of the bag when in the warmth of his oratory he stated:
'The true policy to follow, and which the present Government should Immediately adopt, would be to enforce conscription throughout Canada. Recruiting is not satisfactory, and this expedient would settle the whole question.'
The left-
That is the Opposition.
-seemed to receive this declaration with marked satisfaction.
Further to confirm Mr. Oliver's remarks we find the following extract in the report of yesterday's sitting, which is very significant. Mr. Oliver criticises the Government for his apparent lack of organization, and the system followed in recruiting men, and declares that, in his opinion, had things been managed differently, Canada could to-day count her 500,000 men. "We must not forget,' says he, 'that more than 50,000 men who had enlisted since the beginning of the war, have been later rejected for physical unfitness. Our duty is to send to the firing line half a million men absolutely fit from a physical standpoint.' The only possible solution, according to Mr. Oliver, is the establishment of conscription in Canada. Mr. Oliver was particularly aggressive throughout his speech which can be summed up thus:	Conscription is necessary in Canada.
Mr. Oliver then alluded to the campaign now being waged in Dorchester, and made it a pretext to attack Jdr. Sevigny because he did not choose to make of his electoral campaign a recruiting tour. Here is how Mr. Sevigny addresses his constituents; said he:	'Every
one has a duty to perform in the present war. Some have enlisted to go to the firing line, but those who remain have nevertheless a very important duty to fulfil, that of providing for our agricultural needs, and other requirements.' Mr. Oliver felt indignant at such manner of speech, and claimed that Mr. Sevigny ought to have impressed upon his electors the necessity of enlisting for active service. Mr. Oliver judges that the Government has not the question of military enlistment much at heart, and reiterates his request that conscription be enforced.
I desire to say that the assertion contained in this article is absolutely untrue; and if I would be permitted, I would like to read from the speech referred to the only remarks of mine that included the word "conscription" or related in any way to that matter. It will not be very long and I wish to have the matter absolutely settled. On Tuesday, January 23, 1917, on

page 80 of the Unrevised Hansard I am quoted as saying:
Voluntary service has never had a chance in this country under the administration of our friends. For my own part I have said in this House before, and I am prepared to say it again, that in the case of such a world struggle as we are now engaged in National Service is the only logical service; National Service, I say, that will call up the manhood of the nation for military service. But it must be recognized that there are many things that are right in theory that it is not possible to put into practice. I do not challenge the Government because they have not put conscription in force, although they talked it, hinted) at it, and tried to get credit for it without doing it. The fault I have to find is that, depending on voluntary service, we never gave voluntary service a fair chance.



$100,000,000 LOAN FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
On tlie motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 19, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.-Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On the Preamble.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Are the holders of United Kingdom war loans or Anglo-French war loans subject to taxation?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Where?


Rodolphe Lemieux: What I want to make clear is this: Would the holders of those coupons have the same standing as the holders of the Canadian war loans as regards taxation that may be imposed?


William Thomas White: In Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows that there is a Dominion jurisdiction and a provincial jurisdiction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking of the
Dominion jurisdiction.


William Thomas White: We have exempted from taxation proposed under the authority of the Dominion Parliament the securities which we have issued to meet our war expenditures. There is no such exemption in the case of any other securities, so far as I am aware, whether of the United Kingdom or of any other country.
Bill reported.



QUEBEC HARBOUR LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Blain in the Chair:
1.	That it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Corporation of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, hereinafter called the Corporation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of one and a half million dollars, as are required to enable the Corporation to carry on the construction of. such terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the port of Quebec.
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these Resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances, shall be deemed to be money required to construct and to be part of the cost of construction of the said terminal facilities, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of one and a half million dollars.
3.	That the Corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances, with statements showing total expenditure on different items in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	That the Corporation shall upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance, debentures of the Corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum.
5.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these Resolutions, shall be payable by the Corporation out of all its property, assets, tools, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall be a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after, all debentures or bonds issued J>y the Corporation-amounting-to the sum of one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, under Chapter forty-eight of the Statutes of 1898, Chapter thirty-four of the Statutes of 1899, and Chapter thirty-six of the Statutes of 1907.
On resolution 5:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I desire certain information with respect to this matter which, if not convenient to furnish now, may he given on the second reading of the Bill to be based upon these resolutions. And before the second reading, will the Minister of Marine and Fisheries please lay upon the table a plan showing the works that have been carried ont and those now in progress.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What amount of security is already outstanding against Quebec harbour, and what is the financial standing of the corporation of the Quebec Harbour Commission?


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The amount advanced to
the Harbour Commissioners by the Government since these works were undertaken by

authority of the Statute of 1913 is $5,500,000, and in order to complete the plans that have been approved a further expenditure of $1,500,000 is necessary. In addition, there are bonds outstanding in connection with the old scheme of haribour development there, certain of which are held by the public. In all the Acts that have been passed, provision is made that bonds issued by the old commission to private individuals, and still in private hands, shall take precedence over the advances made since 1914. As the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) knows certain other advances were made by the Government in the old days, upon which no interest was paid. I think there is fair reason for believing, in view of the development of the harbour and the increase in the revenue, that the interest on these will be ultimately paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the
amount?


John Douglas Hazen: It was placed on Hansard when the Act of 1913 was introduced, and has been stated several times since, but I have not the information at the moment.
The Bill to be founded upon this resolution-it is practically a copy of the resolution-is in the same terms as the Acts of 1913 and 1914. Since the commencement of the harbour development under the commission, the revenues of the harbour have increased very largely. In the year 1913 the revenue from the harbour was $126,000; during the last year it was $288,000, an increase of $162,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the revenue during the intervening years?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the figures, but the revenue has increased year by year. It is expected that when this work is completed very much more business will be done than has been done in the past. That is why, even under existing conditions, we ask that the work be proceeded with so that at the earliest possible date the harbour will do the very much larger business which is expected upon the completion of the work and obtain the increased revenue which will naturally result. It is anticipated that much larger vessels will in a short time ply on the St. Lawrence river, and owing to the fact that between Montreal and Quebec there the channel is not deeper than thirty feet, vessels of more than that draught will have to make their terminus at Quebec. From the standpoint of common sense and ordinary business prudence, I think it 
would be a very great mistake not to proceed to finish this work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What changes have been made in the personnel of the Quebec Harbour Commission?


John Douglas Hazen: Of the $1,500,000, $700,000 will have to be spent during the present year. Probably it will be three years before the total amount is expended. Advances will be made from time to time, probably covering a period of three seasons. The original commission consisted of Sir William Price, chairman; Mr. Gravel, who comes from the south shore, and Mr. Letellier. Sir William Price resigned as chairman of the commission and the other commissioners forwarded their resignations at the same time. The reason given by Sir William for his resignation was that he had very extensive business affairs on his hands; in addition to that he had enlisted for overseas service and, having raised a regiment he expected to go to the front. He would not, therefore, be able to give that attention to the duties of the position which its importance demanded. A new commission was accordingly- appointed, consisting of Mr. L'Esperance, formerly member for Montmagny, Mr. Gravel, former commissioner, and Mr. Pennington, a gentleman engaged in the lumber industry in the city of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is Captain Murray's position?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Murray is harbour master. He was appointed by the old commission, of which Sir William Price was chairman.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suggest that the next time this matter is taken up, a map should be placed upon the table shewing the progress of the work.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a proper suggestion; I shall be delighted to comply with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that work to be executed in the river itself, or will it be necessary to expropriate land?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that all necessary expropriations have been made. About $127,000 worth of dredging is to be performed. An addition is to be built to the elevator, and the elevator conveyors have to be completed. The two latter items will amount, I believe, to nearly $800,000. These are the principal works to be carried on, though a further work is necessary in connection with the completion of the wharf.,


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. iriend arrange with the Minister of Railways to have wheat brought from the West to that station?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that the harbour commissioners wall do their utmost to have wheat brought from the west to that elevator. Wheat did come to the elevator during this year. The commissioners were handicapped, I believe, by a lack of facilities for getting the wheat speedily from the elevator to the ship, a floating elevator being used for that purpose. When the conveyors are built that difficulty will be overcome. They were hampered, also, by the fact that a million bushels of grain had to remain in the elevator a considerable length of time because of difficulty in getting it out, during which time many millions of bushels could have gone through the elevator. The harbour commissioners fully believe that upon the completion of the elevator they will do a very large business in shipping grain from the port of Quebec, particularly in view of the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern railways are now running into that city. I may mention that the revenues of the Montreal harbour commission last year were the largest in the history of the harbour. Besides paying all expenses, outstanding bills, and interest, the Montreal harbour commissioners had a surplus of something like $25,000 or $30,000. A very large grain business was done last year in the city of Montreal, and it is reasonable to expect that as the Canadian west grows and as its production of grain increases more ships will go to Montreal and Quebec. Moreover, as the hafbour facilities at these ports are perfected, there will be larger shipments from Canadian ports and not so much through American ports.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From information that I had from a colonization agent last fall, the business done by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway between Cochrane and Quebec and Amos was excellent. The road was very much encouraged by the support given to it.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I notice that the loan is secured by debentures of the corporation repayable in twenty-five years and bearing interest at 3i per cent. Does the minister -expect to secure money at that rate for these bonds, or is that the rate that is asked from other corporations of a similar nature?


John Douglas Hazen: It is not believed for a moment that the Government can borrow
money at 3} per cent. Authority is given to the Government by Parliament to make advances from time to time to the harbour commissioners of Montreal, and, in this case, to the harbour commissioners of Quebec, for the carrying on of work that is approved by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. This money the Government of Canada advances to the harbour commissioners who pay interest at the rate of 3i per cent. It is a rate which, at the time this policy was first embarked on, when financial conditions were very different from what they are at present and the country could borrow money at a rate pretty close to three and one-half per cent, involved little or no charge upon the country. Under existing conditions, of course, the country cannot borrow money at three and one-half per cent. But at the same time, in view of the fact that this is a splendid public work, that the work that is being done by the harbour commissioners at Montreal, is in the interest of the West and of every part of the country that .the very be6t facilities should be afforded for the handling of the freight and traffic of the country during the summer from the ports of Montreal and Quebec, it has not been thought desirable to increase that rate of interest. As a matter of fact, to the extent of the difference between the rate of interest paid by the commissioners and the rate paid by the Government on money it borrows, the country does assist the harbour commissioners. But it is fair to remember that in other parts of the country very large sums of money are spent for the development of the harbours by the Public Works Department upon which no interest at all is charged to ^ the local authorities. It is true that from those harbours that are under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department certain revenues are derived in the shape of fees; but, as a rule, I do not think the revenue received at any of those harbours would, under normal conditions, pay three and one-half per cent interest on the public money that has been expended to develop them. I refer to harbours like Port Arthur, Toronto, St. John, Halifax, Victoria, Vancouver and [DOT]others.
. Mr. SINCLAIR:	The commissioners at
Quebec seem to have made a great mistake in not going to the Public Works Department instead of to my hon. friend because apparently had they done so they would have got off without paying any interest.

In looking over the Estimates I find four or five millions of dollars proposed to be voted by the Public Works Department for improvements at Toronto, Port Arthur, and other harbours; and there is no reason that I can see why Quebec should not be treated in the same way as Toronto. I think the Government ought to state what their policy is in regard to harbour improvements throughout the Dominion, and that one system should be adopted for all harbours of this kind, instead of allowing large sums to be spent on ce rtain harbours without any interest being paid, while in other cases interest is charge 1,
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill 23 to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all orders in council bearing date after the declaration of war limiting the authority or administrative scope of the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a return, showing the names and post office addresses of all purchasers of fish scrap from the reduction works at Canso in 1916, showing the price paid by each of said purchasers.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and1 other documents 'received by the Government during the years 1915 and 1916, relative to the repairs required on the breakwater at Souris, P.E.I.
Mr. Lemieux.-For a tabulated statement showing the number of printing contracts given to private firms between 1911 and 1917, including the name of each firm and the amount paid yearly.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of all correspondence, notes, memoranda and other documents addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to their respective departments, concerning the ferry between River du Loup, Tadoussac, St. Simeon, St. Catherine and Escoumains, from January, 1912, to December, 1916, and respecting the contracts with the Trans-St. Laurent Company, the Quebec and Levis Ferry Company, and also regarding the steamers Mahone, Pilot and Queen.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the quantity and value of exports in following commodities for the first nine months of present fiscal year:-
Horses; brass and manufactures of same; wheat; breadstuffs ; oats and grain other than wheat; automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles and parts of same, including engines and tires; railway cars and parts; chemicals; copper and manufactures of same; cotton manufactures; explosives; iron and steel and manufactures of same; firearms and munitions; leather and

manufactures of same; meat and dairy products ; alcohol; vegetables, dried and canned: lead; wearing apparel of all kinds; zinc and manufactures of same; paper and manufactures
of same.
Mr. Fortier.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and ether documents concerning the cancelling by the Post Office Department of the rural mail contract granted to Hyppolite Lambert of St. Antoine, in the county of Lotbinidre, Que.

Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For a copy of all papers, telegrams, orders in council, etc., with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Schaffner, late Collector of Customs at Middleton, N.S.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving this
motion I desire to say just a word or two, but I hope that I shall be able to advert to the matter later on in, the session when the papers have been brought down. The motion asks for a copy of all papers, telegrams and orders in council in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Schaffner, Collector of Customs at Middleton, in the county of Annapolis. Mr. Schaffner, I- am informed, was the Collector of Customs at the port of Middleton for a great number of years, and on the 27th December last he was dismissed under the following notice from the Commissioner of Customs:
Ottawa, December 27, 1916.
L. P. Schaffner, Esq.,
Middleton, N.S.
Sir,-I am directed to inform you that under order in council of 22nd December, 1916, you are dismissed from office as Collector of Customs of the port of Middleton, Nova Scotia, on account of political partisanship.
Under the direction of the department, Mr. Schaffner was removed from office. I am informed, whether accurately or not I cannot say, tout I believe my information to be accurate, that he .vas not a political partisan and had not been guilty of any conduct which might be strictly termed partisan for a great number of years at least. I am prepared to assume that he was guilty of no partisan act, at least since 1911, and I submit that if his head were to fall for such a reason, he should have been removed a very long while ago. Mr. Schaffner is an elderly gentleman* not enjoying good health, and his only son, I believe-I may not be correct as to that- has been fighting overseas in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, was wounded, and is at the present time in a hospital in England. The man appointed in his stead was

a young man eligible for service abroad and twenty-five years of age.
I ask the attention of the House just for a moment or two to point out one or two objections to the action of the department in dismissing Mr. Schaffner. It has been pointed out already that the present Administration occupy the Treasury Benches by grace of the Opposition, or of Parliament, and not by the consent of the people of this country. I think it is a fair statement for me to make that since October last, unless for very well founded and serious cause, the Government should have done nothing except carry on the war and such other things as were necessary in the administration of the civil affairs of this country. Whether or not Mr. Schaffner was guilty of political partisanship during the last two or three months, at least since the expiration of this present Parliament, which was, I think,on October 7, 1916, he should not have been removed from office for such a cause. The Government have given notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for an extension of the Parliamentary term. That question will come up later for consideration by Parliament, and I assume that every hon. gentleman will be prepared to deal with it upon the then existing facts. But they can hardly expect a fair and absolutely non-partisan consideration of that proposal by Parliament, or the country, if they continue carrying on a partisan government during the extended term, the term which was given them purely and solely for the purpose of carrying on affairs relating to the war. On November 27, 1915, an order in council was passed by the Government which I would like to read to the House. I have not a copy of the order, but I am reading it from a publication known as the Military Hospitals Commission Bulletin, and it is as follows:-
That in making appointments to the Government iCivil Service, preference be given to the returned members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, especially those who through disability caused by active military service are unable to All their previous occupations; such appointments to be subject to the provision of the Civil Service Acts and to be made with due regard to the capacity of any applicant to discharge the duties of the position to which it is proposed to appoint him. I
I submit that under that order in council, if this Government deemed it proper to dismiss Mr. Schaffner, they were in honour bound to fill that position by the appointment of a returned soldier. If Mr. Schaffner had been guilty of any reprehensible conduct what could be more proper and correct than the appointment to the office of his son, who has actually served at the front, and who is to-day in hospital? Then, if that courtesy would not be extended to the dismissed official, there are, I submit, in Nova Scotia, many returned soldiers who are quite capable of filling such a position. That order in council, which I have just read to the House, I understand, was intended to apply to the inside service; at least it was subject to that narrow interpretation and in order to make sure that it applied to the outside service as well, another order in council was passed on October 12, 1916. I have not a copy of that order in council, but the publication which I am reading summarizes it in the following language:-
Both in the Inside and Outside Services preference will be given to men' who have served overseas and been honourably discharged, especially to those unable to fill their previous occupations owing to disability caused by active military service, and no examination fee will be required. During the war, no male of military age without a badge shall be appointed.
The objections which I wish to urge against the removal of Mr. Schaffner from office are, first, that he should not have been dismissed at all. I say that he was not guilty of partisan conduct. But if he was, the offence was committed many years ago, and the friends of the Administration if they wished to exercise their right to demand his dismissal on that ground, .should have done so long ago, or at all events before the expiration of the Parliamentary term on October 7, 1916. I say that the Government have no right now to exercise their power of dismissal of civil servants for an offence of political partisanship committed long before October 7, 1916. Acts of this nature are not calculated to secure, from Parliament or from the country proper and fair consideration of the proposals which the Government have presented to Parliament for the extension of the present parliamentary term., and which proposals naturally find considerable support in Canada. I say further that the Government, having decided upon the removal of Mr. Schaffner, should have observed the terms of their own order in council passed in October, 1916, to the effect that in future appointments to the Civil Service, both l'nside and Outside, preference should be given to returned soldiers.
The Government, in this case have openly disregarded their own order in council of

October, 1915, and the supple-
4 p.m. mentary order in council passed on October 12, 1916, which latter states that " during the war no male of military age without a badge shall be appointed." Surely the Government meant that this order in council should be enforced. At least, I should not like to believe that they ivere attempting to deceive the public, and had no intention of adhering to the principle laid down in their order in council. In view of all the circumstances, I submit that Mr. Schaffner should be restored to office, and the Government should not be content to rest under the imputation of having made an appointment in contravention of their own order in council. If Mr. Schaffner is not restored to office, the new appointee of the Government should be removed, and a man appointed whose qualifications come within the terms of the order in council which I have quoted.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: I have no objection at all to the papers being brought down. I should like to say a word on the motion. The hon. gentleman knows that there has been a standing rule for a great many years that any official who takes part in a political campaign or interferes in politics in any way shall be liable to dismissal, a statement to that effect by a member of the House of Commons to the head of the department being considered sufficient evidence on which to dismiss the official. That has been the practice not only since 1911, but during the time the hon. gentleman was sitting on this side of the House, when many dismissals took place by the Liberal Government simply on the word of the member representing the constituency concerned. In the present case, Mr. Schaffner had evidently been interfering in politics. I was so advised by the member representing that constituency, and I acted on the rule which has been followed for the last fifteen or twenty years. Personally, I dislike to dismiss an official, but at the same time I think we all agree that when a person accepts a Government position it is much better that so. long as he occupies that position he would not interfere .in politics, no matter which side he supports. This official certainly knew the rule, and that he was liable to dismissal. With reference to the young man who took the place of Mr. Schaffner, I understand that he had offered his services for overseas, but had been rejected. The statement, therefore, of
[Mr. A. K. Maclean. [
the hon. member that this man was fit for overseas service and should have gone to the front falls to the ground.
With reference to the orders in council which the hon. member has referred to, 1 believe that the Government are acting on them right up to the very letter. So far as my own department is concerned, since these orders. in council were passed, we have done everything in our power to have every vacant position filled by a returned soldier. I have done that in many cases, and am still doing so. Whenever a vacancy occurs in any constituency I make every possible effort to get a returned soldier to fill it, and if there is no returned soldier available in the locality, I get a' returned soldier from some other locality to fill the position temporarily, until a returned soldier from that particular district returns home and will accept the position.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand the minister to say that before he made the new appointment he had evidence that the appointee had been rejected for oven-seas service, or has the minister obtained that information just lately?


John Dowsley Reid: I had evidence at the time we appointed him that he had been rejected for overseas service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose the records will show that.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether it is in writing or not, but at all events that is the information I obtained.


Mr. MACDONALD:: In filling these positions does the minister regard a man who has been rejected for overseas service, as on the same footing as a man who has returned from the front.


John Dowsley Reid: Not at all. I insist on filling the positions with men who have been injured at the front.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were there not many men in Nova Scotia who had returned injured from the front and were available for appointment foT the position of Collector ,of Customs in Middleton?


John Dowsley Reid: There was none I knew of in that particular county. Furthermore, the salary is very small, and on that account it is often difficult to get a returned soldier to accept these positions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the salary? *	.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not remember just now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose about $800 or $900?


John Dowsley Reid: We are having difficulty even at the present time in getting returned soldiers to fill some of these positions in the Customs. I am adhering strictly to the rule that every position must be filled by a returned soldier who has cpme back home injured. In cases where we cannot get a returned soldier we get some man to fill the position temporarily either one who ha.s been rejected for overseas service, or perhaps the son or brother of a soldier at the front until one of that family returns from the front.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then I assume that the minister will treat this appointment as a temporary one only.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the hon. minister informed, before dismissing Mr. Schaffner, that he had a son fighting in the Canadian forces who was wounded and in a hospital at the time Mr. Schaffner was dismissed?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I was not informed; but I was informed later on that this gentleman had a son at the front who was slightly wounded, and if this son comes back and js wounded, he will have an opportunity, if he so desires, of getting a position in the ' Customs Department. Whenever any vacancies occur, returned soldiers are taken on irrespective of politics and locality.
So far as those who have been taken on are concerned, I do not know what their politics are nor what part of the country they come from. That is the policy I have been following and that, I believe, every other member of the government has been following.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are not joking-about that?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not joking at all. The hon. member cannot refer to a single instance where we have not taken on returned soldiers irrespective of politics, creed or locality.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who recommends
them?


John Dowsley Reid: What we do is this


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The district patronage committee.


John Dowsley Reid: We get their names from-the Militiary Hospitals Commission, the Pensions Board, the different soldiers' organizations and from membets. Their names are taken down, and after the men are examined, they are given positions in some department wherever a vacancy occurs.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is that the way in which the Minister of Railways is running his' department?


John Dowsley Reid: [DOT] I am running my department, and he is running his, and I am satisfied he is giving the returned soldiers every possible opportunity. I defy any hon. member opposite to point to any case where that course has not been followed in the Customs Department since the order in council was passed.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Mr. Speaker, as the member making the recommendation upon which this dismissal was made, I desire to say a word or two before the resolution passes. With the manner of bringing thi3 matter before the House to-day by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), I have no complaint to make, but I am bound to think that had the hon. gentleman been fully seized of the facts, he would not have made the speech which he did. I am also bound to think that the friends of the dismissed officer and perhaps the dismiss, ed officer himself, who exerted themselves to have the hon. gentleman bring this matter up, were not serving the best interest of that official; because it is incumbent upon me to make certain statements which I

would not have made of my own free will, but which in self defence I must refer to in public. I am free to admit that in connection with this matter I have erred, but my fault, as I see it to-day, does not lie in the fact that a few months ago I made the recommendation for the dismissal of Mr. L. P. Schaffner of Middleton, but rather in the fact that I did not make the recommendation shortly after the election in 1911, because, as my hon. friend has intimated, this Mr. Schaffner, before the Dominion election of 1911, was an exceedingly offensive, active and obnoxious partisan. He was one of the individuals who frequented every loafing place in the town attacking myself, attacking the Liberal-Conservative party and rendering himself obnoxious in every respect to the members of the Liberal-Conservative party. Of course, had I been so minded, I could, immediately after the election of 1911, have made a recommendation to the minister and procured his dismissal. I was, however, seized with compassion for the individual. While I have made some recommendations for dismissal in various parts of my constituency which I represent, Mr. Schaffner is the first resident of my own town who has lost office by' reason of the change of Government, and it was because of sympathy and not because of my expecting to gain any political advantage that he was allowed to remain in office as long as he was. I well remember meeting Mr. Schaffner on the day following the Dominion election, and I well remember the look of distress and woe upon his countenance on that occasion, a look somewhat similar to the expressions on the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite since the Dorchester election, and I was struck with pity.


Mr. MARCIL:: Easy. You have not heard the full story of the Dorchester election yet.


Avard Longley Davidson: No, I have not heard it, but I have seen it depicted on the hon. gentleman's face. We have nothing to fear from the story of the Dorchester election. The Conservative party can hear the full report with considerably more pride and satisfaction than the Liberal party can hear it.
I told Mr. Schaffner on that occasion, being struck with sympathy, that, notwithstanding his offences in the past, he had nothing to fear; all he had to do was to go and sin no more.. But Mr. Schaffner did not see fit to do that. From that time

to the time of his dismissal he kept up the same old practice. Some time afterwards I heard of Mr. Schaffner attending a caucus of the Liberal party in the town of Middleton, a meeting at which candidates to represent the party were nominated, a meeting when work on the revision of voters' lists was done. I went to some of Mr. -Schaffner's friends after that and I asked them to point out to Mr. Schaffner that if this thing continued he could not expect to retain his position. I believe, and, in fact, I have been informed that Liberals on that occasion, and on various occasions since at my request, have gone to him and pointed out to him how unwise it was for him to do anything of the kind. That, however, did not prevent him from going on with this kind of thing, until last summer, an offence of what I regarded as an intolerable character was committed by him. No doubt Mr. Schaffner has heard the words uttered by my hon. friend from Halifax imputing crimes and misdemeanors against this Government, charging the Government with dishonesty and with misappropriating funds; but unlike the hon. members of this House, Mr. Schaffner evidently took those words seriously and believed them; and so I found that last summer, when Americans were coming over to get goods out of the customs house, they were gravely informed by this man that the money he was collecting by way of duty was going to Ottawa to be stolen and that there was a corrupt Government in power. I could not countenance anything of that kind, and I did not think it was just that an officer of that character should be retained in office. Mr. Schaffner was not only guilty of acts of offensive partisanship, but he was guilty of gross irregularities in the conduct of his own office.
Matters were brought to me which, if I had reported them to the department, would have led to an investigation; but, out of consideration for Mr. Schaffner, I put the offence on a milder basis and made the recommendaion I did. I am Teady to stand before my constituents and justify to the limit the action I have taken.
What the hon. minister has stated in reference to the appointment of a successor to this man is absolutely correct. The person appointed temporarily to fill the office is a young man of excellent habits and ability. At the very opening of the war he Offered himself for service abroad, and it was with great disappointment that he found himself turned down. His rejection

was followed 'by a long illness, from which he has just recovered/ He is not now in a condition of health to engage in anything like strenuous work. In the absence of any returned soldier in the constituency, I thought he should have this position temporarily. I went over the list of those from the county of Annapolis who had returned from the front, but found none who would be eligible for this position. Had I found one eligible it is quite likely I should have regarded his claims upon the office as higher than those of the gentleman who received it.
The complaint is made that this officer, Mr. Schaffner, has been dismissed, notwithstanding the fact that lie has a son serving .at the front, a son who has been wounded. I believe that Mt. Schaffner has a son at the front who is doing good service for his country, and that he has received some slight wounds, because of which he has been in the hospital for a short time. But I understand it is nothing very serious, and that he will return to the front shortly.
I congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite on their new-found concern for the soldiers at the front and even for the relatives of those soldiers. Last session my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and other hon. -gentlemen from Nova Scotia seriously attacked, not a relative of a soldier at the front, but actually a gallant soldier himself, who was doing sterling service for his country at that time, and who has since made the supreme sacrifice, has given his life for his country. I refer to the late Mr. Gore Foster, of Halifax. At that time it was incumbent upon me to maintain the cause of a gallant soldier against the very violent attacks of these hon. gentlemen. I am glad their attitude towards the soldier has changed and that, while last session they were ready to attack an absent soldier who was fighting for his country and his flag, and to attack him cn very paltry grounds, they now hold that even the relatives of soldiers are -sacred and shall not be touched, no matter what they do. If the party to which the hon. member for Halifax belongs is sincere, it has an excellent opportunity to show it. At this time there is vacant in the county of Annapolis a position very mhch better than that which Mr. Schaffner has lost, the position of Registrar of Deeds for the county.
If the hon. gentleman is so concerned for Mr. Schaffner, he could show That concern by having him appointed to /this vacant position. A position in the gift
of the Liberal provincial Government. We will wait to see how sincere these hon. gentlemen are in this matter.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :: I confess to a feeling of surprise when I heard the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) present facts to show that, even in this time of war, civil servants are dismissed for offences which evidently are hoary with age. I say I was surprised that this should be done at this time, when I myself and every other member of this House holds his seat not by the voice of the people but by the voices of himself and his fellow-members. I concur in everything that was said by the hon. member for Halifax on that subject and hold with him that in view of our present tenure of office we should be very careful as to the scope we give ourselves, and should devote our efforts simply to the accomplishment of those purposes for which this extension of time was given us. But in his zeal for dismissals the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) is only following the example of his party in the province of Nova Scotia. I think the most conspicuous case of dismissal in the province of Nova Scotia was the practical dismissal of our lieutenant governor. When war broke out, we had as lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia a distinguished gentleman who was well qualified for his position and who had taken a particularly active part in providing for the soldiers at the front and those going tc the front. Now, if any officers should be continued in their positions during the period of the war, those officers are the lieutenant governors, and- this is particularly true of the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia. But we had those who desired his dismissal sitting, as it were, on the steps of Government House at Halifax, watching not merely the calendar but the clock, yes the chronometer, to determine exactly when the lieutenant governor's term expired, according to London time. They would not even wait until business hours of that day in Nova Scotia, but they dismissed him by meridian time at Greenwich. This shows the extreme desire for dismissals in Nova Scotia even in the case of a lieutenant governor -the special representative in the province of His Majesty the King. For their action in this case, I assume, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) himself, is particularly responsible. And with this as expressive of the gospel of the Tory party in Nova Scotia, we need hardly won-

der at what they may do in the case of a mere custom house officer.
But is it not surprising to see the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) descend to such minor things as these? Very few hon. gentlemen in this House * hold the high distinction that he holds as a Canadian statesman. Most of us are ordinary politicians, obliged to give attention to political matters and to look after such things as electoral lists, so that we shall not make any bad friends among the people. But another and higher plane upon which the politician finds no place or standing is that occupied by statesmen. In support of the claim which I make for the hon. member for Annapolis, we have sworn testimony on the records of the High Court in the province of Nova Scotia. That being the case, we expect of him conduct becoming a statesman. Of course, if this evidence went to a jury they might measure it more closely and weigh it more carefully when they were told that this sworn -testimony was the evidence of the hon.. gentleman himself. But it could not be said that the hon. gentleman, when he solemnly swore that he himself was a statesman, was an independent witness. 1 wejl remember meeting the hon. gentleman in my county at a court session, which was largely brought about by the manoeuvering and manipulations of the hon. gentleman when he was attending a local election. While going through my county on that occasion he had a happy faculty of talking glibly about dismissals. His methods were very shrewd. He would go to a postmaster, say, on the north shore in Victoria county and say: You have a post office; you had better vote for our man, and you will hold your office.


Avard Longley Davidson: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman has absolutely misrepresented me, and he has done so after having listened to evidence taken in court in which! he .tried to establish these facts-evidence which was absolutely and entirely-oontrary in every particular to the statement which the hon. gentleman has made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think I am out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
North Cape Breton must accept the statement o.f the hon. member for Annapolis.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman says.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. gentleman desire me to Tepeat what I have said?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am up against just
what I expected.


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask the hon. gentleman to take back his assertion to the effect that I had gone to office-holders and advised them not to vote, on the assurance that they would hold their offices, or words to that effect.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member would be well advised to accept the statement of the hon. member foT Annapolis as to what was done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will comply with
your ruling, Sir, if we understand each other as to what the ruling'is upon. I understand the hon. member for Annapolis to be referring this House to certain evidence that was given before a judge in the county of Victoria.


Avard Longley Davidson: I said nothing of the
kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
says that I failed to prove certain tilings in that court. I submit that that is not the kind of statement upon which I am bound to accept anything he may say in this House.


Avard Longley Davidson: I rise to a point of
order. I do not think there can be any doubt in this matter. The hon. gentleman has said that I went to certain office-holders in the county of Victoria and assured them that if they were to stay home from the polls they would hold their offices.' That statement is absolutely false. Furthermore, -as I have said, it ought to be within the knowledge of the hon. gentleman that the statement is false, because he tried to establish something of that kind and dismally failed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for North Cape Breton must accept the statement of the member for Annapolis-that is very clear. No action outside of the House would qualify that rule. I may point out to the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria that the motion under consideration is with respect to the production of certain papers. I do not think that the address which the hon. gentleman was making with respect to the hon. member for Annapolis has any bearing upon the matter before the House. I hope, therefore, that the hon. gentleman will bring his remarks

to bear more closely upon the question which is under consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have for a long time had the privilege of addressing this House, and I am aware of my responsibilities and the scope of any po-wer in addressing the Chair. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will at all events keep as close to the line as did the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred. He went far afield; he covered all these grounds, and so did the hon. Minister of Customs. They dealt with our conduct- what we used to do, what we did and what we did not do. In coming to the point that I purpose making, I have the right to deal in a general way with the conduct of the hon. gentleman, who represents the county of Annapolis in respect to the matter of dismissals. Beyond that I shall not go. While I may not come to the point as directly as you, Mr. Speaker, might think proper, I will get there, if you permit me, even if by a somewhat circuitous route.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. Minister of Customs and the hon. member for Annapolis were not, I think, out of order in referring to a matter of policy. That is an entirely different matter from dealing with the personal actions of an hon. gentleman who makes a speech in the House. The hon. gentleman would be well advised to confine his remarks to the subject before the Chair.


Avard Longley Davidson: I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman has not withdrawn.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. While the hon. member for North Cape Breton has the floor it is not in ordeT for any hon. gentleman to interrupt, except on a point of order.


Avard Longley Davidson: Then I rise to a point of order to remind you that the hon. gentleman has not withdrawn the statement to which I objected*.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I heard the hon. member for Annapolis properly, he complained that I said that in the county of .Victoria he was asking people to remain home from voting, on the promise of their getting offices, or on the threat that they would lose their position. I said nothing of' the kind. Unless a guilty conscience accused him, I do not see how that came to the hon. gentleman's mind. I think it is open to members of the House, even jocularly, if you like, to say something about our friends in the House who are zealous in the discharge of their duties, particularly in the matter of dismissals. I was simply observing that my hon. friend had put himself on the pedestal of a statesman, and that the dismissal of a poor old man in the county of Annapolis, after his having been left in office nearly six years after the change of government in 1911, was not the act of a statesman. I was pointing out that my learned friend was not living up to his old oath, when he swore that he was a statesman in the court of Mr. Justice Russell in the province of Nova Scotia. He was asked: Are you a politician?-asked by Mr. Lovett, a gentle-man well known to you Mr. Speaker-are you a politician Mr. Davidson? And he answered: no sir, I -am a statesman. I am looking for great things from great sources; and you will pardon me also when I point out that this proud bird, the eagle, which is [DOT] supposed to deal with this thing, that this great bird, the statesman-eagle of Annapolis, has fallen on such poor, small prey as this ppor man who was dismissed from office. After all we shall come to this conclusion that an insect is still but an insect at most, though it crawl onOhe head of a queen, and after this, notwithstanding the records of Mr. Justice Russel's court and the sworn testimony, we shall have to deal with the member of Annapolis, knowing that he has the same old feet of clay we were accustomed to in the days gone by. We were told that this man Sehaffner had on the morning of the election a woe-begone look on his face. That is the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis. He had a visage that was simply frightful. Well, I should like to have a snapshot of the two visages on that morning, because up to that time and for several days afterwards the position of the hon. member was very insecure indeed; he held on by a single thread; there were only thirteen very doubtful votes between him and the cold shades of outside, and it was only by a compromise, not by the will of the people of Annapolis, that the hon. member has a . seat in this House.


Avard Longley Davidson: Not nearly as insecure as-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.
Mr. DAVIDSON-the hon. gentleman's was six years ago when a judge helped him in.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are some people in this House who can break in ,rom a certain side of the House absolutely regardless of the Tules, and they do it with full

impunity, for what reason I do not know.
I was sa>mg that if the visage of the hon. member was held up to us with the visage of this poor man who was dismissed from office, I think there would be some difficulty for hon. gentlemen in this House to discern which was the most woe-begone.
I hope and I believe that the expression of my learned and hon. friend to this man when he met him that morning was: " Alas, my poor brother!"
We are told that this man was to hold his peace for a number of years, that he was to express no opinion, forsooth, because,' according to the Minister of Customs, he held an office, the salary of which is so small that not even a limping, crippled returned soldier would take it. That, Sir, is the policy of the high-minded men oi the 'Government and those supporting them; no matter how small the salary was, even if it was soi small that nobody would bother taking it who could, expect to make a living in any otheir way- that he has got to go about mum, absolutely tied to the chariot wheels of this party and never express an opinion of his own. I would say to the Minister of Customs, if he were here, and to other members of the Government, that if ever there was a case where there should have been an inquiry before dismissing a man, it was in this case. There is not a word of direct evidence against him, according to the hon. member himself. Every word the hon. member stated against Schaffner is based on 'hearsay evidence. He travelled on the hearsay evidence of men who came over from the United States, who went to the customs house, and my hon, friend heard them saying that this officer was telling them there were some crooked dealings by this Government, -and that money paid for duties might go in that direction. That is absolutely hearsay, and everything else that was laid to the charge of this man is in the same position. I submit that there should have been an investigation. Schaffner is not in the happy position of my hon. friend who -can come here and, in the high court of Parliament, state his case and justify this dismissal. This man is a poor man, but he has a right under British justice and under our rules to be heard and have his case put before this House and the authorities of this country, and let them pass judgment upon it. But we have the one-sided partial, statement of the member for Annapolis, without the slightest- opportunity being given to this man to state his case. The Government of this country, during war 
time, when they ought to be dealing with mighty things, take the sword in their hands-it is the only sword any of them ever took-and cut the head off this poor man. I congratulate them upon the high position they have taken, and the kind of slaughter they are making in these wartimes among the enemies of the Tory party..


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Just a word more. The hon. member for Annapolis doubtless has the advantage over me and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in his statements about the conduct of the dismissed official. I suppose we are bound to accept his statements because we are not acquainted with the facts. But, nevertheless, it is a very suspicious circumstance that the official records disclose that Mr. Schaffner was dismissed upon the ground of political partisanship, whereas the hon. member for Annapolis justifies the dismissal upon the ground of gross official irregularity on the part of this dismissed official.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. If I said anything of that kind I did not intend to. What I did say was that he was entitled to dismissal on account of offensive partisanship; but he was also entitled to dismissal on the ground of irregularities. Out of deference to his feelings I advanced the lesser evil.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I accept the statement of the hon. member for Annapolis upon that point. But I do say that if the hon. member did not see fit to justify his recommendation for dismissal upon the ground of official irregularity, he should not resort to that defence here to-day. If that official was guilty of official irregularity, it was only fitting and proper that he should be dismissed. But if my hon. friend had knowledge of these facts, he should have communicated them to the Minister of Customs; an investigation should have been held, and upon such grounds the man should have been dismissed. Personally I am not interested in the welfare. of Mr. Schaffner. He .is absolutely unknown to me.
I made a few observations upon this motion for the purpose of calling to the attention of the House one or two principles that were involved. I say this, that the Government had no right to dismiss an official now or since last October upon the ground of political partisanship unless it was grossly offensive, because the official is in the same position as a member of Parliament, and there has been an under-

standing that when even a vacancy occurs in Parliament to-day the political party holding that seat shall have it filled by another gentleman supporting that party, if the seat is filled at all. I should like to point ont to the hon. gentleman again that the Government is m power to-day,. I assume, with limited powers.
I take it that the extension granted last year was upon the assumption that there should not be an exercise of many of the powers usually exercised during peace time and within the ordinary parliamentary term. I do not find any fault with the statement of the Minister of Customs with respect to what should be the conduct of officials. I think all civil servants should abstain from active political interference. I have always advised any of my own political friends whom I have recommended to office to abstain from political activity, first, because I do not believe in it, and, in the next place, because I have never found their influence of any great value to me. Nor, have I ever observed them to be influential when active for the body who appointed them.
The other principle I wished to impress upon hon. gentlemen was in reference to the fulfilment of their pledges as contained in the orders in council of November, 1915, as amended by the subsequent order in council of October, 1916. The Minister of Customs states that it was not called to his attention that the gentleman appointed had been rejected upon offering to enlist and I am bound to assume that the hon. member for Annapolis never called the attention of the Minister of Customs to this fact.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am quite certain I did advise the minister that this individual had been rejected when he offered for military service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understood the minister to say that he did not have that information.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not think the minister spoke with certainty as to that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps I am wrong. I want to close by asking the hon. member for Annapolis a question. He heard the Minister of Customs say that he regarded this appointment a3 temporary and that as soon as he could learn of a returned soldier who was an applicant for the office and who would be fitted for it, the present occupant would be removed and such applicant be
put in his place. Do I understand the hon-member for Annapolis to agree with that statement?


Avard Longley Davidson: I understand that the position is just filled temporarily and that if for any reason it should be found advisable not to make the appointment permanent, that the present incumbent should prove incompetent, and there should be any soldier found who would be eligible, I think it very likely he might get it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and othei documents relative to the exclusion at St. John, N.B., from Canada, of Mr, Corsbie, son of Jacob Corsbie, of Trinidad, a British subject, on the alleged ground of his being of Chinese extraction, and in regard to the deportation of said Corsbie.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am making this motion for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to what I think was very objectionable and ill-considered treatment of a young man belonging to the Island of Trinidad and who was endeavouring to come to Canada in the month' of August, 1916, for the purpose of being educated. The circumstances in connection with the matter have received a great deal of attention in that sister Dominion of ours and have caused a great deal of ill-feeling. For a number of years the Presbyterian body in Canada have maintained an organization in Trinidad. The matter was brought to my notice and I have been asked to call the attention of the House to it by representatives of the church resident in the Island of Trinidad. The circumstances will be explained perhaps mqre clearly in the correspondence which I will read than if I attempted to state them. First, I will read from a letter written by the Rev. Dr. Coffin, formerly of Prince Edward Island, but who is now located at San Famando, Trinidad. He writes on October 14 to a friend of his, a clergyman, in the province of Nova Scotia, as follows:
San Fernando, Trinidad, October 13, 1916.
Dear Mr. Thomson:
I am enclosing you a statement from Jacob Corsbie in regard to his son. His statement will explain the case. His return has caused a great amount of talk and bad feeling. Personally, X do not believe that he was treated fairly, but according to a rule of thumb method of interpreting the Immigration Act. Canadians can hardly be respected abroad if this is a sample of our laws and their working.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] source that is unquestioned, and I think the Government, now they are brought to their attention, should at once provide for the admission of this young gentleman.
I want to say a word or two generally with reference to the 'law excluding Chinese. In the United States, at their great universities, one finds quite a number of Chinese who have gone there from China to complete their education, and that ought to be our policy in this country. If the Act, and the regulations made under the Act, are not sufficiently wide to admit these people from China who wish to come heie to complete their educational training they should he amended so that there would be no question about the admission of Chinese coming here for that purpose.
I have brought the case of this young man to the attention of the House at the request of some very well-known clergymen in the province of Nova Scotia, who have been connected with the Island of Trinidad The facts are as I have stated, and unless the department has other information justifying their course in this case I submit that some action should be taken by the Government, in order to remove the bad impression which unquestionably exists and will continue to exist in Trinidad in regard to the treatment of this young man.
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: This case has been dealt with departmentally. Although I am not conversant with all the facts, I had a short memorandum placed in my hands this morning regarding the motion of my hon. friend. I think some of the statements in the correspondence which he has read are grossly exaggerated. When all the facts are brought down I do not think they will substantiate the statements that were read, that this young man has been treated like a criminal. I cannot quite take the hon. gentleman's view that, because certain respectable gentlemen had vouched for this young man and asked for his admission, the Government should therefore have acceded to their request. We frequently get very strong letters asking us to admit certain people who would be barred by the Immigration Act. In regard to this particular case, the reason why this young man was excluded by the officials of the department was that, according to their interpretation of the Act, he did not come within the exemptions. He was of Chinese origin and therefore was excluded under the Chinese Immigration Act. I will read the short memorandum



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
dealing with this question supplied to me by the Superintendent of Immigration:
Clement Russell Corsbie arrived at St. John, N.B., In September, 1916. While of British nationality, he is of Chinese descent and, not belonging to the exempt classes, could have been legally admitted only upon payment of the $500 head tax. Representations were made to the department by a large number of persons, but as there is no provision in the Chinese Immigration Act for any departure from the terms of same, the department tooli the stand that admission could be only upon payment of the $500 head tax, and as Corsbie was unable to pay, he was deported. Objection to the department's action was made by his father and a rather severe criticism was made in the Presbyterian Witness, published at Halifax. It was pointed out to this paper tnat in their views they should criticize the law, not the administration of the law.
(Sgd.) W. D. Scott, Superintendent of Immigration.
That is the only report that has been placed in my hands. I may say that there, has been some correspondence with the Governor of Trinidad and a courteous letter was sent to him pointing out that owing to the Chinese Immigration Act this young man was refused admission. I quite agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that the admission of young Chinese students into the United States under their immigration law for the purpose of attending any of their universities is more liberal than our law in Canada has been up to the present time. For the last two years I have been discussing the question w)it'h those who have brought the matter to my attention, and I have already prepared an amendment to the Chinese Immigration Act to be submitted this session, to place the admission of these young Chinese students who desire to attend our schools and colleges, on the same footing as in the United States. This was a case where the young man, according to the interpretation of the officials of the department, did not come under any of the exempt classes, and as he did not have the $500 head tax, he was not admitted. Had he paid the $500 head tax, he would have been admitted and he could have attended any of our universities for one year, and on leaving the country afterwards he would have had that head tax refunded. We do that right along. Any young man of Chinese origin who comes to Canada and attends our universities pays the head tax upon admission, and when he leaves the country, the head tax is refunded. That is the difference between the United States law and ours. The United States do not impose the head tax.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Is the wording in the
Chinese Immigration Act:	"Of Chinese
origin "?


William James Roche: I have not the Act here.


William Pugsley: Would not that mean
a man born in China, originating in China? The son of a man who has been a British subject for fifty years is surely not of Chinese origin.


William James Roche: The Superintendent of Immigration uses the expression " of Chinese descent The interpretation which the department has placed on the matter-and I think the matter has engaged the particular attention of the department-is that he did not come within any of the exempt classes. That may be wrong and I will have the matter looked into more critically, but I feel sure that no similar case will arise in the future. The Act has not been changed since this Government came into power; this is the manner in which the Act has been administered since it was placed upon the Statute-book, and the same officials are still administering the Act. I quite agree, however, that the Act should be amended and, as I stated before, I have prepared an amendment to be submitted this session.


William Pugsley: I think the word in the Act is "origin," and that must mean a man who has been born in China, who is a Chinaman. If tl)e minister is sound in his views, then a man whose great-grandfather happened to be a Chinaman and whose blood might be only about one-tenth Chinese, would be excluded. The Statute surely cannot mean that. In this case the boy was the son of a British subject, a man who had left China when a boy, who had lived in a British colony and w ho had become a British subject. This boy is a British subject; his mother is not a Chinese woman, and his mother's blood must count in considering the question. If the word is "origin," as the minister seems to think it is, it is clear that this boy ought to have been admitted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statements that I made in regard to this matter were not comments by myself with reference to anything that occurred at St. John, but were contained in letters which came from Trinidad, and the mention of the manner in which the young man was treated was contained in a letter from the boy's father.
On account of the situation of the library it is difficult to get books outside of those in general use, but my recollection of the

Statute is that a person excluded is a person of Chinese origin, and it seems to me a very fine distinction, when you are dealing with a British subject coming from Trinidad, whose status has been certified to by the Government of that colony, to put him within the terms of the Statute. I would like to know what interpretation would be put upon the right to enter Canada of a person for instance, who had been born of a British father but whose mother happened to be born in China, and who therefore had some Chinese blood in him. Could he be exc'uded under that Statute? He could not be, and if you reverse that condition I think that the same reasoning would apply.
I am glad to hear that the minister recognizes that the law requires to be amended. I would suggest, in order to avoid the feeling of resentment which this matter has caused in Trinidad, on account of the notoriety that has been given to this case, that steps be taken to satisfy the authorities there, in so far as it is possible to do so, as to the regret this country has over the exclusion that has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Sir George Foster for the adjournment of the House:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before the House adjourns I would like to ask the hon. gentleman leading the House to call the attention of the Premier to the fact that some information is to be brought down before the War Appropriation Bill comes on. First, I desire to obtain information as to the number of unfit men among the troops taken across the Atlantic, and the cost to the country by reason of these men being enlisted. Then I should like a report on No. 7 and No. 8 hospitals in France, carried on under Canadian auspices. Also, I desire a list of the unmarried men, with their rank and amount of their pay, who are in England and physically fit, and are occupying clerical or staff positions.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) will let me have a memorandum of what he desires, I will bring the matter to the attention of the proper authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 5.15 p.m.
Monday, February 5, 1917.
The Housev met at Three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting a Supplementary Estimate for the year ending March 31, 1917, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
On motion of Sir Thomae White, the message from His Excellency the Governor General, with accompanying Estimates, was referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

John Howard Sinclair: With reference to the Hansard of the British House of Commons, July 8, 1915, showing that Sir Arthur Markam asked Mr. Tennant, the Under Secretary for War, the following questions :-
Whether within the past few days the greater part of the Canadian Division at the front had been armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle, and whether the Canadian Government had been asked to discontinue the manufacture of the Ross rifle?
The Under-Secretary replied as follows:-
" The Ross rifle has been the subject of trial and report by the military authorities in France. The results are now before the Canadian Government. In the light of information received, the situation regarding the War Office contract with reference to this rifle is now being reviewed."
1.	Did the Canadian Government receive the report referred to in the reply of the Under Secretary for War.
2.	If so, on what date was the report received?
3.	What action if any, did the Government take after the receipt of said report, and when was such action taken?
4.	Has the manufacture of the Ross rifle on Government account been discontinued?
5.	If so, when?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	19th July, 1915.
3.	Action on this matter, i.e., enlargement of chambers, had been taken by the Department of Militia and Defence prior to the receipt of this report.
The Militia Council as a body approved of the enlargement of the chambers in the Ross rifle on the 9th July, 1915, and instructions were issued to the Ross Rifle-Co. on that date.
452
COMMON o
4.	No, nor on War Office contract. The Ross rifle contract of 1902 with the Government of Canada contains no proviso permitting of the cancellation of orders founded thereon.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


JRIVIERE DU LOUP-TADOUSSAC FERRY.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has the ferry service been discontinued between River du Loup and Tadoussac during the winter season?
2.	If so, why has this service been discontinued?
3.	Is the contract still in existence?
4.	If so, what company holds same?
5.	If not, when did the contract expire?
6.	What amount has been paid to the said company during the summer season of 1916, and what amount has been paid during the winter season up to the time of the wreck of the steamer Queen?
1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue such service this winter between River du Loup and Tadoussac?
8.	If not, why not?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders were called for, but only two proposals were received. The subsidy asked for in one was much too high, and the other tenderer was unable to put a boat on the route during the winter of 1916-17.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	April 30, 1916.
6.	No amount has been paid to any one either for the summer of 1916 or the winter of 1916-17.
7.	No arrangements have been made.
8.	No satisfactory arrangements could be made.


BALLOTS FOR OVERSEAS FORCES.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Did the Government send to England in 1915, ballots for the purpose of taking the votes of the soldiers overseas?
2.	If so, where are these ballots at the present time?
3.	Are they available for use if a general election were held during the present year?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1 and 2. These questions are covered by the answer given to similar questions on the 10th February, 1916. (See Hansard, 1916, vol. 1, p. 673.)
3.	The ballots in question are ready, in accordance with the Act, for a general election whenever held.


ATLANTIC MAIL SERVICE.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To whom were subsidies paid in the calendar year 1916, if any, for trans-Atlantic mail service, in what amounts and upon what basis?
IMr. Kemp.J


George Eulas Foster: Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd.: winter service at $11,363.63 per round trip, $159,090.82; summer service, at $5,291 per round trip, $100,529; a total for this company of $259,619.82; White Star-Dominion line, half trip, $2,645.50. The subsidy claim for December quarter has not been received.


MACHINE GUNS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr, J. J. HUGHES:
1.	What amount of money has been subscribed by the people of Canada since the outbreak of the war for the purchase of machine guns?
2.	What amount was used for the purchase of such guns and what amount, if any, was used for other purposes?
3.	If any was expended for other purposes, when, where and for what other purposes was such expenditure made?
Mr. KEMP:: 1.	$1,271,257.04.
2.	$3,527,894.86 has been expended by the Dominion Government on machine guns and spare parts since the outbreak of the war. It is the intention of the Government to credit the amount subscribed by the people of Canada since the outbreak of the war, to this account.
3.	None has been expended for any other purpose.
GOVERNMENT	RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES


MAGAZINE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When was the Canadian Government Railway Employees Magazine started?
2.	Who is its editor?
3.	What salary is paid him?
4.	What is the cost per month, to the railway, of publishing the magazine?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	November 1, 1914.
2.	Safety Engineer J. E. Long.
3.	Receives no salary.
4.	Nil.


GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	Who compose what is known as the Georgian Bay Canal Commission?
2.	How much has -it cost to date?
3.	When will it conclude its labours?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Messrs. W. Sanford Evans, Frank S. Meighen and Edouard Gohier.
2.	To December 31, 1916, $46,164.06.
3.	The Commission cannot conclude its labours until conditions are such that full public hearings can with propriety be held, and the public mind is free to give this important subject the necessary attention. The

special preliminary investigation now being carried on will be continued only as long as in the judgment of the Government the results justify the expenditure. It is expected that a second interim report will be laid upon the table before the close of the present session, containing further studies of the movement of agricultural products, while certain detailed investigations of traffic between Canada and Europe are already well advanced.


MR. JAMES LOVETT.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Was Mr. James Lovett, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax, dismissed in the month of November last?
2.	If so, upon what grounds was the dismissal made?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the ground of political partisanship.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	Is the Government of Canada purchasing horses for use of either the Canadian or British. Forces at the present time?
2.	Is the British Government, or its representatives, purchasing any horses in Canada at the present time?
3.	Has the British Government purchased any horses in Canada since December 1 last? If so, how many?
4.	Is this Government aware as to whether or not the British Government, through Sir Charles Gunning, its representative in Canada, is now purchasing about 3,000 horses per week from the firm of Guyton & Harrington, of Kansas City, Mo., with offices at Lathrop, Mo, DesMoines, Iowa, and Indianapolis, Indiana?
5.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the farmers of Ontario have thousands of horses fit for military purposes, of which they are unable to dispose?
*	6. If so, has this Government called the attention of the British Government or its representative in Canada, Sir Charles Gunning, to this condition of affairs?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	A certain number of horses have been purchased by the Department of Militia and Defence during the past year for use in Canada. As stated in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kings (P. E. I.) (Mr. J. J. Hughes) on February 14, 1916, (See Hansard, 1916, volume 1, page 759), the Canadian Government has not been purchasing horses for military purposes overseas since the summer of 1915, for the reason that in August of that year an arrangement was made whereby the British Government undertook the purchasing of whatever horses might be necessary, not only for the British forces but for the Canadian forces overseas as well.
2,	3 and 4. This information could not be given at an earlier date, because, when I applied for it, I was informed by Sir Charles Gunning, British Remount Commissioner, Montreal, that it was confidential until the assent of the War Office could be obtained. The assent has now been obtained, and I therefore give the text of a telegram from Sir Charles Gunning as follows :
Am not purchasing horses in Canada at present time. No horses purchased in Canada since December first. Average number per week of horses now being purchased in United States nineteen hundred. No horses being purchased at DesMoines or Indianapolis. Number of horses purchased in Canada between March and November, 1916, six thousand and seventy-nine. Number of horses shipped from Canadian ports during 1916, thirteen thousand three hundred and ninety-six. I do not purchase in Canada during winter months as climatic conditions are such that it is impossible to keep horses in the open, which it is necessary to do for about five weeks to ensure being fit for shipment. It is my intention to resume purchasing in Canada in the spring. The British Remount Officers are in Montreal.
5.	The Government have no official information on this subject.
6.	The Government has on repeated occasions brought to the attention of the British Government, and also of the British remount commission, the opportunity that exists in Canada to purchase horses suitable for military purposes. These representations are repeated from time to time whenever it seems desirable to do so.


NORTH BATTLEFORD GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What are the names and salaries of the following employees of the Dominion Government in the electoral district of North Battle-ford, fire rangers, timber inspectors, homestead inspectors, and fishery guardians?


William James Roche: As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned:-
1.	Fire rangers, Battleford district, season 1916, H. Lockhart, chief fire ranger, permanent, recently resigned, $108.33 per month. The following are temporary rangers employed during the dangerous season at $100 per month: H. F. Jordan, E. R. Barbour, F. Croft, F. Handle, E. Jepson, A. Morrison (to July 31), J. F. Johnston (from August 1), J. W. Murray, A. B. McKay, J. Sinclair, S. H. H. Ashford and I. Trainor.
The following assistant rangers are employed at $50 per month: P. Morin (to August 20), J. Fielder (from August 23), J. Brown, A. W. Cooper.

Timber inspector: J. F. MacKenzie, $1,200 per annum; homestead inspectors, D. Anderson, A. C. Elliott and A. C. Dewar; salary in each case, $1,300 per annum.


NEW, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MURPHY:
1.	Has a contract been entered into for the construction of the Parliament Buildings?
2.	If so, (a) what is its date, and (b) what are the names of the parties who have signed the contract?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 29th September, 1916; (b) P. Lyall & Sons Construction Company, Limited, by William Lyall for the contractors, and by R. Rogers, Minister of Public Works, and R. C. Desrochers, Secretary of the Department of Public Works, for the Government.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-SOLICITOR'S COSTS.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: What amount was paid hy the Board of Railway Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway Commission to the Hon. Thomas H. Johnson, in connection with examining certain titles on railway line between Winnipeg and Transcona?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	A flat' rate of $30 was agreed on between the commissioners and Mr. Johnson for putting through all titles for lands taken for right of way in rural districts. This included examination of title, abstract, preparing deed, attendance for execution, fee on title and sundry small items. For lands taken in St. Boniface and Winnipeg itemized bills were rendered and paid after taxation. As far as can be ascertained from the bills, the sum of $2,242.43 was paid for services as above enumerated between Winnipeg and Transcona. Statement of all payments made to Mr. Johnson or his legal firm, as per this agreement, is tabled.


DALHOUSIE MILITIA BUILDINGS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What amount was paid by Militia Department for the use of drill halls and other buildings at Dalhousie, N.B., during the year 1915-16?
2.	To whom was the rent for said buildings paid?


Mr. KEMP:: 1 and 2. None.


IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: How many persons were refused admission to Canada, as undesirable subjects, during the year 1916, through the ports of St. Leonard,

Green River, Edmundston, St. Hilaire and Clair, county of Madawaska, N.B. ?


William James Roche: During 1916 there were rejected as undesirable: At St. Leonard, 5 persons; Green River, no rejections; Edmundston, 10 persons; Clair, 3 persons.
There is no immigration officer at St. Hilaire, N.B.


EXPORT OF FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many tons of fresh or frozen fish were entered for export by the Canadian Customs during each month since May, 1916?


Mr. REID:: 1.	May, 1,684 tons; June, 4,225 tons; July, 2,480 tons; August, 3,193 tons; September, 4,207 tons; October, 5,188 tons; November, 5,785 tons; December, 5,222 tons.


POLLUTION OF STREAMS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Were any parties prosecuted during the year 1916, in Fishery District No. 2, Nova Scotia, for pollution of streams by sawdust?
2.	If so, what were the names of such parties and the fines imposed, respectively?
3.	How many fines were collected, and what were the names of parties they were collected from?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Names of parties with amount of fine in each case as follows:-
George King, $20; Edward Brown and Banford Brown, $20; George Hooper, $20; Gesner Kerr, $20; George L. Monk, $20; (case appealed); Wilson Smith, suspended sentence.
3.	Four; George King, Edward and Ban-ford Brown. George Hooper, Gesner Kerr.


TORONTO WATER-BORNE TRAFFIC.
John Howard Sinclair: How many tons of merchandise, water borne, entered Toronto during the year 1916, and what was the water-borne traffic outward during the same year?


John Dowsley Reid: Number and tonnage of
vessels arrived and departed during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916; Number arrived, 2,771, total 1,636,620 tons register; Number departed, 2,722, total 1,366,723 tons register. There is no Customs record of the tonnage of freight carried by the above vessels.


PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
John Howard Sinclair: Is it the intention of the Government at the present session of Parliament to introduce

legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors?


Robert Laird Borden: Representations made to the Government in regard to this matter are being considered. Any necessary announcement will be made in due course.


AGRICULTURAL, INSTRUCTION ACT.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What amounts were paid under the provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act to the province of Prince Edward Island for the years ending March 31. 1915, and March 31, 1916?
2.	When, and in what sums were the payments made?
3.	To what provincial official are, or were, such cheques made payable?
4.	Before the cheques are issued, what steps, if any, does the department take to ascertain the objects and purposes for which the money is to be applied?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	$27,832.81 and $29,138.28 respectively.
2.	For the year ending March 31, 1915, as follows:-
July 7, 1914, $13,916.40; January 12, 1915, $6,000; January 30, 1915, $7,916.41.
For the year ending March 31, 1916, as follows:-
January 'll, 1915, $14,569.14; February 17, 1916, $8,000; March 24, 1916, $6,569.14.
3.	The honourable the Commissioner of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island.
4.	After investigating through the Commissioner appointed for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act the agricultural conditions of the province concerned, the minister enters into a formal agreement with the minister or commissioner of agriculture for the province, in which the terms and purposes for which the money is to be applied, are determined.


MILITARY DISTRICTS No. 3 AND No. 10.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What part of Quebec is included in Military District No. 3?
2.	(a) What is the population of the part referred to, and 0b) how many men have enlisted from there to the end of 1916 for active military or naval service?
3.	What part of Ontario is included in Military District No. 10?
No. 4. (a) What is the population of the part so included, and (b) how many men have enlisted from there to the end of 1916 for active military or naval service?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	The counties of Wright, Labelle and Po.itiac, Quebec, are included in Military District No. 3.
2.	(a) The population of these counties, according to the 1911 census, was 84,427.
(b)	No official lecord is kept of recruits enlisted by counties. The only record kept is by districts. Information is, therefore, not available in this case.
3.	The districts of Rainy River and Thunder Bay. Ont., are included in Military District No. 10.
4.	(a) The population of these districts, according to the 1911 census, was 67,249. (b) The approximate number recruited was 3,500.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PURCHASE OF TIES.
Mr. WEICHEL:: 1.	Were any ties purchased by the Board of Railway Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway Commission from the Rat Portage Lumber Company of Kenora in 1907?
2.	If so, what quantity, and were they purchased without tender?
3.	If so, at what price?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	93,121. Yes.
3.	25 per cent first class, delivered at St. Boniface, 80c.; 25 per cent second class, delivered at St. Boniface, 70c.; 25 per cent first class, delivered at Rennie Station, 78c.; 25 per cent second class, delivered at Rennie Station, 68c.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-YARD AT FITZPATRICK.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Did the Government purchase the land on which the railway yard at Fitzpatrick is situated?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What price was paid for such land?
4.	Why was the said yard located at Fitzpatrick and not at La Tuque?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The land was expropriated for the National Transcontinental railway by the Government.
2.	Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company.
3.	Agreed at $100 per acre; nothing has yet been paid.
4.	On account of the grade.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-RESIDENCE AT FITZPATRICK.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What has been the cost of the residence built by the civil engineers of the Transcontinental railway at Fitzpatrick?
2.	Does the Government own this building now?
3.	If not, has it been sold; and to whom?
4.	Does the Government own the land on which said building is situated?
5.	If not, who owns same?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No such residence was built.
2,	3, 4 and 5 answered by No. 1.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-ENGINEERS' RESIDENCES.
Mr. BOULAY:: What was the cost of the civil engineers' residences during the construction of the Transcontinental between Da Tuque and Parent?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The average price of each set of buildings was $1,450.


RECRUITING OFFICERS IN RIMOUSKI.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Who recommended the appointment of the recruiting officers who have worked in Rimouski in 1915 and 1916?
2.	What is the name and salary of each of them?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	The officers who have been recruiting in the Rimouski District in 1915 and 1916 were recommended by Lieut.-Col. Chauveau, until lately officer in charge of recruiting, Military District No. 5.
2.	The following officers of the 89th Regiment were appointed to recruit in Rimouski [DOT]
Subsistence Field
Officer.	Pay. Allowance. Allowance.
Capt. J. W. Begin. .	$3.00	$1.50	.75Capt. J. H. Michaud	3.00	1.50	.75Lt. J. A. Brillant. .	2.00	1.50	.60Lt. L. G. Morrisette	2.00	1.50	.60Lt. A. St. Pierre ..	2.00	1.50	.60Lt. J. L. Freve ....	2.00	1.50	.60Lt. J. Pinault . . . .	2.00	1.50	.60TRANSCONTINENTAL	RAILWAY-


TELEGRAPH DINE.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1. Who owns the telegraph line on the Transcontinental Railway from Quebec to Winnipeg?
2. Who had the contract for erecting the posts on this line?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The Dominion Government.
2.	The respective grading contractors.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAY-IMPROVING GRADES. .
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What amount of money has been expended upon the Intercolonial Railway from Pt. Tupper to Sydney since January 1, 1915, for improving the grades, and alignment?
2.	What amount has been expended for the building of heavier bridges and culverts, and for strengthening of the old ones?


Francis Cochrane: ]. $96,360.26.
2. $677,791.08.


VANCOUVER DRILL HALL SITE.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Did this Government purchase a drill hall site in the city of Vancouver? If so, when?
2.	From whom was it purchased?
3.	What price was paid therefor?
4.	From whom did the Government get title or titles, and what was date of conveyance?
5.	What is the description of the property so purchased?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 5. Yes, Block 43, D. L. 264A, bounded o<n the north by William street, to the (south by Charles street, 396 feet along each; on the east by Commercial Drive, and on the west by Cotton street, 264 feet.
2, 3 and 4:
No. of lot.	Vendors. [DOT]	Price.	Interest.	Date of Conveyance.9. 10, 11 and 12	$ 16,500 00	655 00	9th Sept., 1913.Part 19	5,100 00	202 46	16th Sept., 1913.17	6,500 00	257 62	1st Jan., 1913.Part 13, 14, 15 and 16.	C. Grossman	6,787 00	139 66	9th June, 1913.4,200 00	166 65	12th Sept., 1913.Part 20	6,787 00	269 44	16th Sept., 1913.Part 13, 14,15 and 16	7,250 00	21st Jan , 191418	7'000 00	273 41	10th Sept., 1913.Part 13, 14, 15 and 16,	10,250 00	1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21,	Mrs. McSpadden	21st June, 1915.22, 23 and 24	122,700 00	4,991 85	4th Jan., 1913.$193,074 00	$6,956 09	

All deeds were signed by vendors, as above, except that for part of lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, John McLeod, which is signed by John A. Mclnnes.
Certificate of title for Mrs. Muir's lots does not show signatures to deed.


H.M.C.S. RAINBOW.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Did the Canadian cruiser Rainbow sink a German steamer off Bahia Salians, Costa Rica, in the month of October, 1916?
2.	Has the Government any reports of other German steamers sunk or captured by the cruiser Rainbow during the year 1916?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	It iis not considered advisable to give any information with reference to the movements and activities of H.M.C. ships.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DISCHARGE OF SOLDIERS ON CESSATION WORK PAT.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	How; many .soldiers have been honourably discharged from overseas service after being deprived of what is known as "work pay"?
2.	What reason does the Government assign for reducing the pay of these men?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	449 men have been returned for discharge on cessation of working pay.
2.	Order in council. As war proceeded, it was found that it was not advisable to pay these soldiers higher rates than paid to others; their work not being so strenuous nor so dangerous, and in view of the fact that requests were being received to extend the payment of working pay to those not covered by the original regulations, it was decided to cancel such extra pay. Those in receipt of it were, accordingly, given the privilege of continuing on ordinary rates or taking their discharge. Many were satisfied to remain on ordinary rates.


BOUNTY TO FISHERMEN.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. What has been the rate of bounty paid to boat fishermen each year for the past ten years ?


John Douglas Hazen: 1907, $4 each; 1908, $3.90;
1909, $4.25; 1910, $4.30; 1911, $4.10; 1912, $3.95; 1913, $3.95; 1914, $3.65; 1915, $3.45; 1916, $4.10.


MR. ALBERT DUSSAULT.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1. Is Albert Dussault employed by the Customs Department in Quebec?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	At what salary was he appointed?
4.	Has he received any increase in salary since appointment?
5.	If so, on what dates?


Mr. REID:: 
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR A RETURN.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How many horses have been bought in Canada for war purposes in each of the years 1914, 1915 and 1916, respectively, (a) for the Canadian army; (b) for Britain; and (c) for France and our other allies?
2.	What was the amount paid for the horses in each of the years for the different-countries mentioned?


NATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Pugsley: My right hon. friend
said the other day that he would look into the question as to whether Major Tilley, a member of the National Service Commis-

eion, was in receipt of a salary, and, if so, whether under the statute, he would be disqualified from sitting as a member of the provincial legislature.


Robert Laird Borden: I really must
admit that I have not looked into the matter. As my hon. friend knows, I have been very busy with matters concerning the war appropriation I shall endeavour to get the information as soon as possible.


William Pugsley: To-morrow?


Robert Laird Borden: I will do the
best I can.


THE IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the Minister of Militia prepared to make a statement as to whether the Irish-Canadian Rangers are going to the front as a unit; also as to why the Highland Brigade of Nova Scotia has been prevented from going to the front?


Albert Edward Kemp: It is intended that the 199th Battalion, known as the Irish Rangers, will be attached to the 5th Division as a unit. With regard to the Highland Brigade of Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy), who has just returned, may have some information. I have not had time to talk to him about the matter, but I will do so; perhaps he will have a statement to make.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. Minister of Militia mean to say that things are going on in England that he does not know anything about?


WESTERN COAL MINING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BUCHANAN:: Has the Government any information to-day from the West with regard to the progress of the negotiations for the settlement of the coal strike? .1 am advised that at Lethbridge there is already considerable suffering. None of the mines are producing domestic coal. They have not what you call firewood in that country, and the people are burning lumber because they cannot get coal. The situation is extremely serious.


Robert Laird Borden: I have under my hand a telegram received from the Minister of Labour this morning, the purport of which is that the Fernie strike has been settled. The minister will arrive here on Wednesday morning.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The Prime Minister
will observe that the mines at Lethbridge are entirely different from those at Fernie. The mines at Fernie are not producing domestic coal for the use of the people on the prairies, .but steam coal. The most critical condition is in regard to the mines at Lethbridge, which produce coal for domestic use on the prairies.


Robert Laird Borden: I really have
no more information than I have given to my hon. friend just now. When the Minister of Labour returns on Wednesday morning, we shall have full information on the matter.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The question of the
supply of coal for domestic purposes is too essential to.be permitted to stand in abeyance until the Minister of Labour returns. We shall be adjourning on Wednesday in all probability, and it is a matter of life and death.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister
of Labour went to the West to study the whole situation in regard to the supply of coal. I am not sure whether the telegram refers to a settlement of all the labour difficulties, or only a partial settlement. In view of the fact that the minister has started upon his return journey, I should suppose that probably a settlement of all the difficulties had been come to. However, I am not sure of that. I shall endeavour to ascertain 'between now and tomorrow.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the judgment by the Exchequer Court a few days ago, will the Minister of Railways say whether the Government intend to implement the legislation of last session concerning the Quebec and Saguenay railway?


Francis Cochrane: It is the intention of
the Government to implement the legislation.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Before recess?
Mr.'COCHRANE:	No.


PEACE RIVER SEED GRAIN.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Frank Oliver: Has the Minister of the
Interior taken into consideration the conditions in the Peace River country in re-

gard to seed grain, and have any steps been taken to meet the conditions?


William James Roche: Yes. Some officials of the Immigration Branch are now in the Peace River country studying conditions with a view 'to meeting any contingencies that may arise.


FIFTH CANADIAN DIVISION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: Can the Government give any further information in regard to the Canadian Associated Press cable which appeared in the morning paper. The despatch reads:
Brigadier General Garnet Hughes, son of Sir Sam Hughes, it is expected will be given command of the Fifth Canadian Division, the organization of which is being completed here. Whether the Fifth Division will he sent to the front must depend largely upon the response of Canada to the call for men.


Robert Laird Borden: We have no official information on the subject.


THE CARE OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. F. PARDEE (Lambton West) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public, importance, namely: the proper treatment, care and provision for employment of returned soldiers, and the desirability of appointing a committee of the House to sit during the adjournment, for the purpose of considering this subject and reporting to the House at as early a date as possible.
And leave having been granted,
Mr. PARDEE:: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt of the fact that while the war and the winning of the war is uppermost in our minds, we have the supreme duty of providing that the men who left comfortable homes, who gave up profitable employment and lucrative positions, who went overseas from a sense of loyalty and devotion, and who were willing when so going to make, if necessary, the great sacrifice, and many of whom have returned to Canada broken in body and health, shall be fitly and properly taken care of by the state. Let me for one moment refer to what these men have done. I quote now from a report submitted by the Canadian War Records Office to the right hon. Prime Minister:-
The duty ot the Records Office was to follow the fortunes of the First Division in
France, to share its experience, and to give to the people of Canada an account of the performances of its regiments; and finally to enshrine in a contemporary history those exploits which will make the First Division immortal. That division stood at Ypres in May, 1915, as the last bulwark of civilization against the triumphant inroads of barbarism. They held the pass and barred the road to Calais.
If the man who made that report had written volumes of the record of the Canadian troops he could not have said more than he has said in those few sentences. When we say that, just let us consider for one moment what the result would have been to Canada and to the Empire had the road to Calais not been blocked. Those men did it, or helped to do it, and to those men our gratitude ought to be due, not in a sentimental way, but in a manner to redound to the credit of the state. These men, when they enlisted and went overseas, did not go to fight for the love of fighting. They went from a sense of loyalty and a sense of duty. They went to preserve 'liberty, to maintain justice, to preserve the very Empire itself, and thus-I am speaking here as a Canadian to Canadians-they have secured for Canada and her people prosperity, contentment and wealth. So far as Canada is concerned, with the exception of those mothers and those fathers who have given their sons to this holy cause, none of us has felt the stress of warfare, all have lived in happiness and contentment. It has undoubtedly been noticed by every member of this House that calls are constantly being sent out for charity for these men. Concerts are given, entertainments are advertised as being for the help of the returned soldiers. Let me just read a statement which I cut from one of the Ottawa papers in answer to a circular that apparently had been distributed throughout this city, asking for help of a charitable kind, such as I have described. Here is a letter from a man with sons at the front.
He says:
I think the conditions revealed in a circular which is being distributed from door to door soliciting aid for our returned soldiers is a disgrace to our country. That the Government should make no provision to aid the returned soldiers who have been rendered unfit for further duty at the front until such time as he would be in a position to help himself, would seem incredible if the information had not come from such a source. If the Government decided that the matter could best be attended to by local boards in the localities whence the soldiers came-why is no provision made to finance such boards?
If the cost is to be a separate charge on the citizens, why not raise the money by

means of taxation, with a poll tax on those who do not otherwise pay taxes?
Many of us are paying from 2 to 2J per cent of our income to the Patriotic Fund. Those of us who have sons at the front would hesitate to assume additional responsibilities to provide for-I shall say-an additional Patriotic Fund. Our own sons may return disabled, and in need of all the assistance we can render in this line.
If the Government of Canada and of the provinces have done as little as one would infer from a perusal of this circular in question-simply authorizing Aid Commissions to solicit charity, or raise money in any old way, I, for one, cannot agree with that part of the circular which says they "have not been unmindful of their responsibilities."
My argument, and I shall state it very shortly, is that no charity should be asked for, or given, to men who have rendered such splendid service to their country. It is degrading to the men, and it is degrading to the people of Canada. I say that those who, during the stress and struggle of the past two and a half years have lived here in peace and happiness and contentment, should not be solicited to contribute towards a fund to provide for returned soldiers, but that they should be made to pay, and to pay proportionately to their worth. That is, I take it, Sir, the real thought of the people of Canada. I believe that this is a matter which is wholly under the control of the Government, and that the Government should take it up at once. A central organization should be established, and that central organization should see to it that every soldier who returns, and every soldier who ought to be helped, is helped in a way that is fit and proper, to the needs of that particular man. I understand that about 200,000 men have left our shores.


Robert Laird Borden: About 300,000, I think.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That makes my argument all the stronger. About 300,000 men have left our shores, and, according to the figures which I have, about 10,600 have returned. There are to-day in England about 12,000 invalided Canadian soldiers, and they will return to Canada at the rate of about 2,000 per month. When the war is over the men will come back at the rate of ten times the number that are coming back to-day, and I say that to subject these returned men to the vicissitudes of such an organization as now exists, will do justice neither to the men themselves nor to the citizenship of this country. We established in the province of Ontario a soldiers' commission under the Act of 1916. That soldiers' com-

mission may be all very well in its way, but in speaking to its chairman in Ottawa, he informed me that on making enquiry the answer he received was: We want you to go on and do as much as you can for these men, and when you have got to the end of your tether we will take the matter up. That is not right. That is absolutely throwing back upon charity the maintenance of these men. In so far as the Ottawa commission is concerned, they tell me that they have absolutely got to the end of their rope. They have found employment, not always permanent, for the men who have returned; but to-day they are up against the fact that they cannot take care of any more returned soldiers. Then you have the Soldiers' Association itself here in Ottawa, and I understand that these soldiers' associations have been established in various centres of Canada. In Winnipeg they have a Soldiers' Association with 1,100 members; in Victoria one with 300 members; in Woodstock one with 150 members; in Vancouver, one with 250 members; in Hamilton, one with 300 members; in Edmonton, one with 300 members; in Calgary, one with 200 members; in Ottawa one with 200 members; in Montreal one with 500 members, and in Toronto, f'ne with 700 members. These men are also endeavouring out of the goodness of their hearts-though so far as I know without financial assistance from the Government-to do what they can to help their comrades who have returned from overseas, but it is plainly evident to any one who will take the trouble to think the matter over for a few minutes that every one of these associations or commissions which I have mentioned must very rapidly come to an end of its resources; and then, forsooth, the soldiers will come back here in a broken and maimed condition, and there will be no proper organization to take care of them. I read from a newspaper published last Saturday:
From London, Ontario, it is reported that Private G. Walton of Windsor, a returned invalided soldier, was without overcoat or gloves, and had his hands frozen at Quebec. He is being cared for in the London hospital, and his case should receive such attention as will make similar cases impossible.
That is one concrete case, and, I have no doubt, there are hundreds of similar cases.
It is not altogether the fault of the commissions because, so far as I can learn, some of the soldiers themselves are not too anxious to be helped, land some of them do as they ought not to do on their return to this c.ountry. Nevertheless, the large proportion of them come back in such a state [DOT]

[DOT]that if properly taken care of they can be made useful to the state and useful to themselves.
A pension scheme has, of course, been established, but I will not weary the House by referring to it in detail because every member is familiar with its provisions. It makes a certain allowance for certain disabilities according to a percentage. In *Class 6, for instance, it provides " Disability under 20 per cent, a gratuity not exceeding $100." That is, if a man comes back 20 per cent less able bodied than when he went away, he is handed $100, and allowed to shift for himself. The men who went overseas were actual economic forces in this country for the good of the country, and if they ihave returned disabled to even a greater extent than 20 per cent, to the extent of 40 per cent or even up to 60 per cent, my contention is that they ought not to be 'allowed to depend merely upon a pension. The man who does nothing, who takes all and gives nothing, is of no use to the country. The Pensions Board ought to see that the men who are injured to the extent of 20, 40, 60, or even 80 per cent are taken in hand, taught some trade, and, as I said before, made of actual good to the country and to themselves; otherwise, it simply means that we will be paying millions of dollars in pensions and receiving absolutely no return therefor. Let me read an instance of what they are doing at St. Maurice in France:
St. Maurice is a hive of workshops of all kinds, shoemaking: shops, machine shops, auto repair shops, blacksmith shops with blazing: forges, and clothes-making shops, and the workmen are the wounded soldiers from the firing line, minus an arm, leg or eye, on which they hacf before depended, but now launched on a new line which did not need that arm, leg or eye.
There is also the other scheme of teaching returned soldiers farming, and with that is coupled the question of land grants. With land grants out and out, I am not in sympathy, as I have before said in this House. Then there is the question of central camps, where the men could be taken to learn a trade, and then afterwards be distributed. These are all things, I submit, Mr. Speaker, which the people of this Dominion want to see attended to, and which it is the bounden duty of the Government to do. I admit that it is a large question. Other countries have had wars, and have had to tackle this same sort of problem, but we must remember that today in Canada we have to get into the way of doing big things. We belong to a mighty empire, and we have to
grow bigger in the bigness of the whole, and if we want to succeed and be the nation that we ought to be, no duty and no obligation should be too great for us to shoulder on behalf of our citizen soldiers. These men are coming back from the front in daily increasing numbers, and so far as I know their care has so far been neglected by the Government. There is no further time to lose. This House will shortly adjourn for, I suppose, two or three months. In that time valuable information might be collected and valuable statistics gathered by a committee that should be appointed for that purpose. The committee could make a report which would be available for the benefit of the House when it re-assembles. It appears to me that now is the time to take action. No further time should be wasted, for every day that is lost means just that much the worse for the men who return from fighting our battles.
My own opinion is, if I may venture to give it to the House, that a Federal Commission composed of men of the highest standing with broad and full authority should be appointed by the Crown to continue for a period of say five years after the conclusion of peace, for the purpose of dealing with these questions. The commission should, of course, have an efficient staff and equipment. At each provincial capital and at one or more important points in the provinces from which enlistments have been greatest, sub-commissioners or agents should be appointed. They should be required to make frequent reports to the chief commissioners, not only on subjects of which the commission might seek information, but also upon all matters coming to their notice or in any way relative to returned soldiers. This would prevent overlapping of work between Dominion and provincial commissioners in case the provinces undertook in their own way to deal with the situation. Wherever also city or other municipal commissions have been or will be established the federal office should be in close touch with these also.
In conclusion, I again urge that this should be made a Government matter for which the Government should be responsible; that the funds required whatever they may be, should not in any way be allowed to be solicited or distributed in a way which savours of charity, and that whatever moneys are necessary for carrying on the work successfully should be made part of

the national debt of Canada for which the people of this country would be responsible.
There can be no question, there is none in my own mind at least, that were this done it would be an aid to recruiting. There are instances within my own personal knowledge, and undoubtedly there are hundreds of others, where recruiting to the extent of at least two or three men has been hindered by the fact that no sufficient provision is made for returned soldiers. When the war ends the need will be greater than it is to-day, or than it has been, and I say that we should guard ourselves against that day, so that when it does come we should be at least in a partial condition and in a partial state of readiness to take care of the men when they come.
I cannot close my remarks better, Sir, than by reading the following paragraph in the Ottawa Soldiers' Aid Commission literature.
Our duty to them is clear. They have been our substitute on the battlefields of Prance and Flanders. They have suffered in our behalf. Their bodies have been maimed in our defence. On us rests the high and sacred obligation of making their future lives reasonably comfortable and as useful as possible.


Right Hon.   S@: 
Frank Oliver: I wanted to know about what was the actual amount.


Robert Laird Borden: It varies in different cases. I really have not that detail, but when this matter goes before a com-

mittee, as it certainly shall in view of the suggestion of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee), all these matters will be submitted in the greatest possible detail by the officers of the Military Hospitals Commission.
Another and an important question, which has been raised by the hon. member who has made the motion, is the introduction of the men who are returning to employment. Employment is in one sense a provincial or local matter, although I do not for one moment desire to minimize the responsibility of the Federal Government for assisting in the matter. There was a conference between the Federal Government and the provincial governments in October, 1915, and the view then taken, without dissent, as I understand, was that, for the time being at least, the question of finding employment should be undertaken and dealt with by the provincial governments. I shall quote textually the memorandum which was agreed upon between the Governments as represented by the head of the Military Hospitals Commission and the representatives of the various provincial governments. That memorandum is textu-aliy as follows:
The Government of each province should appoint a central provincial committee consisting of such number of members as each province may deem advisable.
All expenditures necessary in connection with the organization and administration of provincial and. other purely local committees should be borne by the provincial or local [DOT] authorities, or by voluntary contributions.
Each of the provinces of Canada, working through its central committee, should assume the responsibility of endeavouring- to find employment for discharged soldiers, who, upon their return to Canada, are physically and otherwise fit to assume such employment. All expenditures necessary in undertaking the duty should he borne by the province.
That was the memorandum agreed upon; that was the scheme prepared at that time and the scheme which has since been carried out. Therefore, the situation resolved itself upon t-hiat basis in this way: As to men returning to Canada who are of the convalescent class, they were taken charge of by the Military Hospitals Commission, and in so far as might be advisable or possible, they received training or education which would be of use to them upon their ultimate discharge. So far as concerns the men who were disabled and thereby incapable of resuming their former occupations, the Military Hospitals Commission undertook to make provision for the necessary training, and also to provide for their families in the

period in which such training was being received. Then as to those who do not come back ,as convalescents-


Frank Oliver: Is any part of that expense borne by the provincial governments?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Frank Oliver: The educational expenses are entirely borne by the Dominion?


Robert Laird Borden: All borne by the Federal Government, as I understand it.
Thus, we have the convalescents who are receiving treatment in hospitals; we have those who are discharged from hospitals but are not disabled and who receive training under the direction of the Military Hospitals Commission, and thirdly, we have those who desire to engage in some employment, and as to those one might look at the situation in a double aspect.
Some of those men who have returned from the front came back to positions which were held open for them after their enlistment, and they are not included in the figures which I am about to give. In fact, I have not before me any statistics with regard to the number of men of that class. But I am about to give some statistics which have been furnished by the secretaries of the Provincial Employment Commissions, and I venture to think that the amount of work which they have accomplished in this connection will be a surprise to most of the members of this House, and perhaps to the people of this country. I have from all nine provinces returns which have been furnished to me by the secretary of the Military Hospitals Commission. They are divided into three classes:-the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found; the number of returned soldiers who are still unemployed; and the number of men discharged from the camps without going overseas, for whom employment has been found.
In the province of Prince Edward Island, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is six; the number for wnom employment has not been found is five. In Nova Scotia the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 307. and the soldier for whom employment has not been been found is 15. In New Brunswick, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 190, and the number for whom employment has net been found is 60. In Quebec, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment

has been found is 1,438, and the number for whom employment has not been found is six. In Ontario, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 1,750, and they have no record of any soldier for whom employment has not been found. That is, there is no returned soldier unemployed. In Manitoba, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 633, and they make no report of any who is not employed. In Saskatchewan, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 424, and there is no return of any for whom employment has not been found. In Alberta, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 621, and there are 23 for whom employment has not been found. In British Columbia, the number of returned soldiers for whom employment has been found is 517, and the number for whom employment has not been found is 39. Taking these totals, we find that employment has been found for 5,886 returned soldiers, and that there are 148 in the various provinces for whom employment has not yet been found.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Do these figures apply to discharged soldiers?


Robert Laird Borden: YTes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that there are only 148 returned soldiers in all the provinces for whom employment has not been found?


Robert Laird Borden: That is the statement made to me on the reports to the secretary of the Military -Hospitals Commission by the various provincial committees.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is that up to the end of 1915?	.


Robert Laird Borden: It is up to the 3rd of February of this year. This information is based upon reports made to the secretary of the Military Hospitals Commission by the various provincial committees which were constituted under the arrangement made in October, 1915, at the conference between the Federal authorities and the provincial authorities. I should add that the secretary of the New Brunswick Provincial Commission states that work can be found for all returned soldiers. That province has 60 unemployed men, but it is not anticipated that they will be out of employment for very long. The secretary of the Soldiers' Aid Commission of Ontario reports that no discharged soldiers able to
work are out of employment, and that there are 150 vacancies now on file. That is, there are opportunities for employing 150 men if they are available. The secretary of the Saskatchewan Provincial Committee states that there are practically no returned soldiers out of employment, although the problem of procuring light employment is becoming very difficult.
In addition, in New Brunswick, employment has been found for fifty camp men; that is, men discharged from one or other of the military camps without going overseas. In Ontario, 550 such men have found employment, in Saskatchewan, 34, and in British Columbia 44 such men have procured employment through the provincial committees. If we add these figures, as received from the various provincial committees, we find that there is a total of 678 camp men, for whom employment has been found, and if that number be -added to the 5,886 returned soldiers for whom employment -has been found through the various provincial committees, we have a total of 6,564 men who enlisted, who have been discharged and for whom employment has been found, while, so far as returns from the various provinces show, there are only 148 men for whom, up to the present, employment has not been found.
I -should observe that while the Military Hospitals Commission, itself does not undertake any responsibility with regard to employment, that commission does furnish the secretary of every provincial commission with a record of every man returning to the province in question. Shortly before each man is discharged from an hos

pi-tal or convalescent home, a notification is sent to the -secretary of the provincial committee so that, if possible, a situation may be in readiness for him on his return to civil life. It is also stated in the memorandum, from which I am quoting, that the pay and allowances given to the man in advance, on his discharge, are to enable him to look around for satisfactory employment. It also observes that many men go -back to their former situations, but th-at these men are not included in the statement which I have just read giving the total number of men for whom employment has -been found by the provincial -committees. The memorandum which I have before me -speaks with very great appreciation of the splendid manner in which the provincial- ' governments have responded to the present need, and expresses the opinion that as the need becomes more

acute the provinces wi'l be ready to redouble their efforts.
I may also add that the Government have not lost sight of the fact that there are many openings in the Federal service which may be filled by returning soldiers. It was my expectation to have this afternoon a -statement showing the number of returned soldiers who have 'been appointed to positions in the Federal service. I am informed that in one department alone at least 120 have been appointed. I have given directions to have the information furnished, and by the time the committee has undertaken its work, that information will also be available.
Orders in council, making provision for giving preference to returned soldiers in the Federal service have been passed, and, if I am not mistaken, have all been brought down. My hon. friend also alluded to the question of pensions.


Charles Marcil: Has the question of establishing permanent soldiers' homes been considered?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that that has yet been taken up, but it may be a proper matter for the consideration of the committee who will look into the whole subject. With regard to pensions, the subject was under consideration by a committee last session of Parliament, and I need hardly say that the members of that committee devoted themselves to the very important duty which they were called upon to discharge, with greait earnestness, great energy, and great zeal. The report which they made was embodied in an order in council. That order in council was passed, of course, merely as a temporary measure, and it was quite understood that a Bill would be introduced this session. This Bill is in course of preparation, and will be brought down, I hope, at an early date, and I have it in mind that after the Bill is brought down it should be referred to the same committee which had the matter under consideration laeit year. They devoted a great deal of time to the subject land became thoroughly acquainted with it, and any suggestions for modifications of the report they then made should be considered by that committee in the first instance.


Charles Marcil: I understand that a Pensions Board has been appointed since last session.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, upon the recommendation of the committee. The

members are Mr. J. K. L. Ross, Colonel Labatt and Major Todd.


Charles Marcil: Would the right hon. gentleman consider whether the French-Cana-dian element might not be represented on that board?


Robert Laird Borden: That will be a matter for consideration. The board was not appointed to represent any particular district, any particular class, or any particular race, and, in appointing it we endeavoured to select the best men available. The suggestion of my hon. friend will of course be considered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Can the Prime Minister give us any information as to the number of pensions distributed to the different ranks.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not that information with me, but I think it can be easily obtained. In conclusion, I merely wish to add a word with reference to some criticism which has been made over delays occurring in the payment of the first pension cheque. The amount of labour involved in dealing with pensions, particularly in the earlier activities of the pensions board, has, of course, been very great, because the Board had not only to undertake and carry out new duties, but was also confronted with the task of establishing a very considerable organization while its ordinary, every-day work was being carried on. I understand, however, that the system which is being adopted will lead to very much less delay than has sometimes occurred in the past. I do not know if there is any further information I can give to the House at the moment, but it would be proper and appropriate for me to say that I entirely agree in and appreciate the remarks which were made by my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) in proposing his motion, as to the splendid patriotism of the men who have enlisted in the Canadian overseas forces, and who, by their valour and heroism at the front, have brought such splendid distinction to the country they represent. I quite agree with him also that the country must do all that is reasonable and just to take every care of these men upon their return to Canada, and that, I am assured, will be the spirit in which every member of the House will approach the consideration of this question.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted

to make a few observations on this subject I would say that I think the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is to be congratulated on having brought this matter to the attention of the House, and the House is to be congratulated on the very full information which the Prime Minister has seen fit to give in regard to this question, which is of such great importance to the people of Canada to-day. I know that this information will be gratefully received throughout the country, because there has been considerable curiosity and a good deal of unrest among many of our people as to just what treatment was being accorded our returned soldiers who had seen active service at the front and had been discharged by reason of wounds or -some other disability.
I think the remarks of my hon. friend from West Lambton were intended to relate particularly to those who had been discharged from overseas service as medically unfit, rather than to those who are receiving medical, hospital, or surgical treatment at the present time. There have been a great many eases of men who have -served overseas, and who, though not actually wounded, have been rendered medically unfit and been discharged from further service. The treatment of these men, or some of them at -all events, -has not been as generous as it might have been. I think my hon. friend from West Lambton referred particularly to those men who had been discharged and who took a ten dollar bill or a fifty dollar bill, or the maximum of one hundred dollars, on being discharged from further service through no fault of their own, but merely because from some cause or another they had become medically unfit. Cases have come to my own knowledge of such men, and these cases involve considerable hardship. In one case a man who had a wife and nine children resident in Canada was discharged on the 20th of May last. Upon his dischargee in England he received $100. He was not returned to Canada until September. Upon his return home he found his wife and family at their last resource; they had even sold the household furniture. The man himself, when he landed at Guelph, where he had formerly lived, was absolutely without a dollar, and isaw nothing in sight. He had to be assisted subsequently, and two or three months afterwards he obtained employment as a guard at the provincial institution. I have in mind three cases similar to that I have just mentioned, and I have given this case to illustrate the difficulty to which I
think my hon. friend from West Lambton intended to direct the attention of the House, namely, the treatment of men who are returned to Canada before employment is found for them. Their lot is a hard one. Some of them come back none too well clad, and the majority of them without any money at all. One man who had been discharged in England as medically unfit, on landing at Halifax, received $100. Another, -some months after his return, received from the department $50, and that man has no employment yet, and he lives in Ontario. This period between the discharge of a man and the day when he obtains employment is certainly a hard time for him, and if married for his family as well.
The news which the Prime Minister has given the House in regard to conditions in Ontario is most gratfying to me, and I am sure the whole province will 'be gratified to hear that every returned soldier who is fit for work has had employment offered to him, and that there are in Ontario to-day no less than 150 vacant positions which can be filled by returned soldiers, according to the return which I understand, is brought down to the first day of the present month of February. 1 will certainly take the opportunity of notifying two men whom I have in mind that they had better file their applications with the provincial authorities at once. Every one realizes that the task before the Government and before the country in dealing with the returned soldier is going to be serious, more serious next year than this, most serious when demobilization really sets in. I listened with the greatest interest to the scheme outlined by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and if I had any criticism whatever to offer in regard to it, it would be that it is rather involved: there are too many commissions and sub-commissions, too many divisions and subdivisions. I think it will take some time to work out the scheme, and during the interim there is going to be a great deal of hardship suffered by soldiers on their return to Canada. My suggestion-and I give it only as a suggestion-is that the Government would do well to take some definite step now in regard to vocational training. We are going to have a very large number of men -suffering from total permanent disability, who will never be able to earn their living again and who will no doubt in many cases be absolutely dependent upon their pensions; but for men who are only partially disabled, dismembered or blind of an


COMMQNS
[Stage Direction]
eye, steps should be taken immediately by the Government, and I do not believe in deputing that work to the provincial governments or to any other body. I believe a commission should be formed by this Government, and the formation of a commission, if a commission be thought desirable, should not be delayed, but the work should be undertaken in the very near future. My right hon. friend says that some vocational specialists, some technical specialists, would doubtless have to be employed for such a purpose. Let them be employed, They can be procured.
Robert Laird Borden: They have been procured.


Hugh Guthrie: Let them get to work now.


Robert Laird Borden: They are at
work.


Hugh Guthrie: Let the Government
adopt the necessary means to put into application whatever is determined upon by those vocational specialists. This Parliament surely can grant the money for such a purpose, to establish in the immediate future, say during the coming summer, a very broad comprehensive scheme of vocational training, where the services of men who .have lost an eye or of men who have been partially dismembered, may in the future be usefully employed. The time to start is immediately. It takes time to work the matter out. but if 'started during the present 'spring, by next autumn, when there will be large numbers of men available to take courses at such an institution, that institution can render a tremendous benefit to this country and to the individual who has the benefit of a course in it.
I am not quite as enthusiastic as some people are in regard to the number of returned soldiers who will settle on the land and become agriculturists. Agriculture is a business that must be learned 5 p.m. just as any other business, and while a number of returned soldiers will certainly take advantage of an opportunity to go upon the land, I do not think there will be any great rush of returned soldiers upon the land unless the inducements are very great, and unless men have had some previous training in agriculture or unless their minds naturally turn that way I do not think that the land question is going to offer more than a partial solution of the difficulties which will confront Canada when, demobilization takes place. At the present time, I am satisfied

that the Government has made a splendid showing in regard to its treatment of the injured, of those suffering either from wounds or disease, and I am satisfied that our hospital system, our medical and surgical treatment, and the provision made in this country for tubercular patients on their return from the front are up-to-date and a credit in every respect to the Government. But I do feel that a little more might be done, even as a mere welcome to the man who comes back to this country medically unfit, to keep that man going until his own particular province shall have provided him with an opportunity of obtaining a position. Having regard to the figures submitted to the House to-day, we have nothing to complain of in Ontario. I hope that will continue; I doubt if it will continue because the number of returned 'soldiers will increase in the future; but for that short period from the time when they arrive in Canada until they obtain positions, those men and their families should not suffer for one moment of time.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House and the country are indebted to the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) for the discussion which has been started this afternoon. No one would have walked the hospitals of Europe during the past year and seen the torn and broken men who a few months ago left thi's country in the fullness of health and strength without realizing that a terrible problem confronts Canada and the British Empire in the absorption of the men who have fought on our behalf. The more pne thinks of the problem, the *more difficult the solution becomes ; and if my opinion is worth anything, I think it will take the best judgment and the best brains of this country as well as of other parts of the British Empire, to make adequate provision for those who, the world admits, have done their duty in fighting for the cause of the Empire. But I think the hon. member for West Lambton forgets somewhat or is not aware of what has already been done. I am inclined to think that not many ,of the men who have returned from the front are going to be prepared to go on the faTm. When I was in England and France and Belgium, I spoke to many men as to what their ambitions for the future were, and the general trend of opinion was that the men wanted to return to the place from which they had come and to go back to the work they knew best. It is simple enough to say: Send a man out on the farm; but if a man knows noth-

ing about farming-and farming to-day is a science, just as many other occupations are-he is not going to be able to earn an adequate living, and if a man cannot earn an adequate living on a farm, he is not going to stay out there simply for the joy of living in the country, and I think that statistics will go to show that of all the men who have returned to Canada, not more than three per cent have expressed their willingness to go on the farm. Therefore, I think a problem that confronts us is this: What steps are we going to take to secure employment for the men who have gone from ,our shores? As a member of the Soldiers Aid Commission in the province of Ontario

and I use the word "aid" rather than the word "employment" as used by the Premier-I may say that at its early meetings it realized the problem which it had to face, and upon inquiry it soon came to the conclusion that if we were adequately to meet the situation, it was necessary that we should have the co-operation of local boards throughout the province and that we should have the sympathy and the co-operation of the employers. With that end in view the commission set to work to have subsidiary boards established in the larger centres from which more than five soldiers had left for overseas, and at the present time I think there are some fifty-three bodies in Ontario adequately doing the work for which they were constituted. My information is the same as that given by the Prime Minister-that to-day there are vacancies that cannot be filled because the men are not to be had, and that any soldier who wants work and is willing to work can find a position if he applies to the Soldiers' Aid Commission. The commission does not stop altogether at securing employment for these men. The Commission has authority " to care for and find employment for the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force," and by the Statutes of 1916 that power was further extended, so that they have power to care for and find employment for the members of His Majesty's Imperial Forces who went overseas. We are going further than finding employment for these men. If a man comes back so broken that it is impossible for him to get work at his former occupation, the Government of Ontario have placed at the disposal of the commission the technical institutions throughout the province, and a great number of these men are being re-educated under the auspices of the Commission. The commission is making provision also for the maintenance and subsistence of a man's
family while he is being re-educated. If it should happen that a man is in a place where work is not available, and work is available at another place, the commission will send the man to the place where work is to be had. The commission makes loans to men to carry them over temporary embarrassments. So, the situation in Ontario is governed most satisfactorily.
I desire to touch for a moment on a misapprehension which exists in the public mind. Let me quote to the House a statement which appeared, I am sure by inadvertence, in the Evening Journal of 21st January last:
The Government so far recognizes no responsibility towards the man who enlisted in the Expeditionary Force and who developed some disease before he left Canada, although this may have arisen from the hardships and exposure attendant upon the performance of his military duties.
That is a misapprehension of the facts. The Military Hospitals Commission takes care of a man who breaks down from exposure, even though he should go no further than the place in which he was enlisted. Such a man is treated with exactly the same consideration as is the man who has been wounded in battle. The original pension scheme made a distinction between the man who had been wounded in battle and the man who was injured in some other way, but the present order in council makes no distinction. Once a man dons His Majesty's uniform he becomes, so to speak, a ward of the state, and if through exposure, exertion, disease or accident, he becomes a less fit man that he was before he enlisted, he thereby becomes entitled to a pension as if he had been wounded on the field.
Complaints have been made in the past of delays in the granting of pensions. In certain cases, such complaint may have been justified. The pension problem is a new problem for Canada, and, in the nature of things, a certain time must elapse before the complex machinery of the new system can be made( to work smoothly. But the organization to-day is so perfected that there is no cause for delay. If a man is entitled to a pension, that pension should be promptly granted to him. There have been cases in which a break occurred between the time when a man's pay and allowances expired and the time when his pension began. But negotiations are now under way to evolve a scheme by which pay and allowances will continue until the pension is granted, so that there will be no time

when the disabled man will not receive either his pay and allowances or his pension.
Among the problems that the Pensions Board or the Hospitals Commission will have to face is that of the men who have suffered impairment not amounting to full disability. I think that in Canada we are going to be met very often with this class of case. A man has lost a limb by explosive bullet, shrapnel or otherwise, and has been treated in a convalescent hospital. After treatment he is discharged as fit for work. But when he is thrown into the hurly-burly of industrial life, nerves that had been frayed by exposure in the trenches are going to break, and the man will be unfitted for his occupation. We shall have to face the problem of the man who has been discharged as not entitled to a pension, but who, as subsequent experience shows, is so broken in his health that he must have hospital treatment. I think the Government of Canada will have to meet the situation and that it will be prepared to meet it by taking that man into the hospital and giving him the treatment necessary to restore him, as far as possible, to health and strength. Another problem we shall have to meet is the question of what may be called functional education as distinguished from vocational education. Hundreds of men will come back to this country not much impaired, if you take the mere capacity to work as a standard, but very considerably impaired in relation to the occupation which they followed before enlisting. I have a case in mind, that of a man who, before he went to the front, followed the trade of a boilermaker. He was hit in the right shoulder and an important muscle and nerve was injured. He is as well as ever, apparently, but when he raises his hand above his shoulder, the power to bring it down with the old-time force is gone. He says: I am only entitled to a small pension, because constitutionally I have made a substantial recovery; but because of the injury that I have suffered, I can only earn a labourer's pay, although, before I went to the front, I earned the pay of a skilled mechanic. By a course of functional education, the injured nerve and muscle might be restored to strength. We must consider the question of functional training.
When one visits the Old Country, he realizes the effort that is being made to place the injured soldiers in useful oecupa-

tions. Our problems are not greater than theirs, but the steps they are taking are an example to us of what can be done. You see there men who have been trained to engage in some lighter occupation than that to which thy were accustomed. You see men who have lost one arm, or perhaps part of a hand, who have been fitted and trained to do as much work as one so injured can possibly do.
In closing, I wish to say, as I said in the beginning, that I believe this country is willing that money should be spent and effort made so to provide that the men who have given to Canada a place among the nations of the world, and who have come back either broken or injured, shall suffer as little as possible for the sacrifices they have made. Because, when the last word is said, they have taken our places in the trenches, and those of us who have remained at home should be only too willing to pay, and pay well.


Frank Oliver: I am going to take a somewhat critical position, as I think becomes a member of this side of the House; and, while I have nothing but praise for the very full statement given by the Prime Minister, and for the terms of that statement, yet I would venture this criticism: that in dealing with this subject we have been dealing with it as though it were a matter that was not urgent, a matter that was not present; we have been dealing with it as something that might arise, yet might not arise. And the consequence is tha t tremendous hardship has been caused to individuals and tremendous discredit to the Dominion of Canada, simply because we have not done what we ought to have done and what we must do in time. When the war broke out and we sent 33,000 *men to take part in that war, we knew that we would have broken men; we knew that we would have need for provision as to pensions, vocational training, hospital treatment and employment for returned soldiers. But we did not take at that time the steps that we should have taken; we did not take them a year after, or the year after that. We are taking them only now, when the problem has become tremendous, when the discredit has been established, when untold injury has been done to the military and patriotic enthusiasm of the people by the neglect of men who have served our country and to whom our country desires to give every consideration. Because of the policy

of " wait and see a policy which so nearly destroyed the British Empire-we have had [DOT]in Canada these unfortunate cases.
The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has drawn attention to the fact that in many cases .a long interval has occurred between the shutting off of the ex-soldier's [DOT]pay and the receiving of his pension. I [DOT]shall not enlarge upon that; I simply say that within my own knowledge there have been such cases, deplorable and discreditable, which have been seriously detrimental to the credit of our country and to the military enthusiasm of our people. I shall not go into details'; they would be harrowing, and would not add to the facts of the case. In my judgment there is no excuse for that condition. The hon. member for Kingston will distinctly remember that that question came up for consideration before the Pensions Committee last year, and that we were at the point of making a recommendation that the pay should continue until the pension began. Upon representation being made to us, however, that that condition would be provided for, we did not put in the recommendation. That is my recollection of the matter.
Another point to which due regard has not been given is this : When a man is discharged without pension, he is discharged because of his unfitness to do the work that we wanted him to do and that he offered to do for us. On the face of it, that is evidence that the man's condition is not . such as will enable him to have an equal standing with his competitors in the labour field. I consider that the authorities have been unduly regardless of the facts in shutting off such a man's pay, giving him $10 and a ticket home, and saying: "We do not know you any longer." A man has a family dependent upon him is discharged from military service because he is not fit, physically, mentally or otherwise, to continue in that employ. That is to say, his power or ability to maintain his family is not as it was when he entered our employ, because at that time we took the responsibility of accepting his services in the belief that his physical and mental ability was at a maximum.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman refer to a man who went overseas and returned?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Having discharged
this man, we say:	"We do not owe you
anything; we give you no consideration." Even if a man has no dependents at all, he
is apt to be placed in the position of a vagrant-as a matter of fact, cases of this kind have occurred-but if he has a family, as in the case, which has been mentioned, of a man with a large number of children, the condition is very much worse. I think that the authorities would do themselves and the country credit if, when they are giving these men their discharges, they do something to help them through the period of difficulty and straitened circumstances which often follows the cutting off of their soldiere' pay and the discontinuance of the separation and Patriotic Fund allowances to their families. We have been proceeding altogether too much upon the assumption that we are dealing with soldiers as the word "soldier" was understood in former days. We are not dealing with soldiers as that word was understood; we are dealing with citizens, and we should deal with them from the standpoint of their citizenship and of their value to the community as citizens.
It seems to me that the Government should long ago have made provision for those totally disabled soldiers who, being unable to take care of themselves, have no relatives, or whose relatives are not in a position to take care of them. This could be accomplished by establishing a number of soldiers' homes, such as the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) spoke of during the course of the debate on the Address. Most harrowing cases have come to my attention; I shall not trouble the House with the details of them. I think that the Government has not been well advised in making no provisions for taking proper care of these men.
In regard to vocational training, I had the honour to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister last year the fact that at Edmonton we have a technical school that is available for this work. I do not think that it has yet been availed of, and I would respectfully suggest, if it be in order, that this school, as well as others throughout the country, be availed of to this end.


Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a matter, which, perhaps, is not connected with the subject introduced by the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). In a number of the provinces of Canada, if not in all of them, the distinction between real property and personal property has been done away with in dealing with the estates of deceased persons. But the law with regard to holograph and nuncu-

paitive wills has been preserved, and that law provides in my province of Saskatchewan and I think also in Ontario, that the holograph or nuncupative will of a 'Soldier shall deal only with personal property. There is apt to be confusion in the minds of the soldiers and the public in the belief that the holograph and nuncupative wills of soldiers deal with all their property as any other wills would do. I wish to make the suggestion to the Government that it make inquiry as to the facts I have stated, and that the request be made to the legislatures of the various provinces in which this distinction is still preserved that the law be so amended that the holograph and nuncupative will of a deceased soldier shall include realty as well as personal property.
Motion for the adjournment of the House negatived.


$100,000,000 PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, to authorize the raising by way of loan;, of certain sums of money for the public service, Sir Thomas White, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee to consider the following proposed resolutions.-Mr. Rainville in the chair.
1.	That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1918, for:-
(a)	The defence and security of Canada;
(b)	The conduct of naval or military operations in and beyond Canada;
(c)	Promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise ;
(d)	The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state of war; and
(e)	Payments made for the said purposes during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen, in excess of the amounts authorized by The War Appropriation Act, 1916.
2.	That the Governor in Council be empowered to raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sums of money as are required for the purpose of making any payment authorized by any Act founded on these Resolutions.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not it is expected that the Order which was made by the House last year for a return giving the details of the expenditures that have been made out of the war vote has been complied with? The Minister of Militia, in

reply to the Iron, member for Carleton (Mr. Carviell) complained that there was quite a number of details, hut that is no sufficient reason why the Order of the House should not be complied with. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say that we will get that information this session?


Robert Laird Borden: I really am not able to say. I thought that the two large volumes containing the proceedings of the War Purchasing Commission already placed, on the table of the House would contain that information. I have not looked at the volumes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is nothing in them as to expenditures.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it will be all in the auditor general's report when we get it.
SiT WILFRID LAURIER: And when will we have the auditor general's report?


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon.
friend heard what the Minister of Finance said aibout it.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all we hear. All it amounts to is that we cannot have it.


Robert Laird Borden: We are commencing a little earlier this year than the
auditor general expected.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are we to understand that the motion which was passed last year is not to be fulfilled in the terms in which it was ordered by the House? The House ordered certain information to be laid on the table. Twelve months have elapsed, and surely, in all conscience, there has been time enough to furnish that information.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember that last year the Acting Minister ot Militia at that time said that what was being asked for was practically the auditor general's report in advance, and therefore I would assume that the information then asked for would be contained in the report of the auditor general, as soon as we can get that report. We are making every effort to get it. It is not desirable to bring the information down both in the form of a return and nlso as the auditor general's report. That would be a useless expenditure.


Wilfrid Laurier: This would
perhaps have been a good reason for not granting the motion; but the Order of the House was allowed to be passed and it is due to the House that it should be fulfilled.


ROSS RIFLE-DISCUSSION IN
[Stage Direction]
COMMITTEE.	.
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Carleton asked as to the changes in the Ross rifle since the outbreak of war. I am informed that all the changes which have taken place are of a very minor character and are as follows:
Butt trap spring strengthened. Change recommended October 16, 1914, by the Small Arms Committee.
Extractor cut shortened to prevent bolt head turning over. Change reoommended by the Small Arms Committee, April 10, 1915.
Strap of piling swivel strengthened. Change recommended by the Small Arms Committee, April 10, 1915.
Rear end of receiver to be rounded. Change recommended by the Small Arms Committee, June 2, 1915.
New pattern nose cap. Change recommended by the Small Arms Committee, June 11, 1915.
Chamber enlarged to .464 to facilitate extraction. Change authorized in July, 1915, and again in August, 1915.
Removal of sling swivel from trigger guard. Change recommended by Small Arms Committee, November 29, 1915.
The screws were rim punched to prevent them working loose. Change made upon advice from *overseas.
Bolt stop with larger striking surface. Change recommended by the Small Arms Committee, June 11, 1916.
The cavity in the butt for the oil well was deepened 1 inch, making it 8 inches in depth in the wood. Change recommended by the Small Arms Committee, June 30, 1916.
As I have said, I am informed by the Master General of the Ordnance that the changes are all of a very trivial and minor character.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the Prime
Minister tell us exactly where the Government and the country stand with reference to the question of the Ross rifle? Are we to understand that notice of a formal nature has been given to the Ross Rifle Company under the contract of the intention of the Government to ask them to manufacture a rifle similar to the Lee-Enfield rifle, but that no order has been given to the company for .any definite number of rifles?


Robert Laird Borden: YTes, that is the situation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Having regard to the manifest desirability of having the manufacture of arms in this country, and, more particularly, in view of the situation in the country to the south of us, whence the supply of arms will no doubt be cut off on account of their own necessities-does the right hon. gentleman regard that as a desirable situation? Can he not conceive of the possibility of conferring with the Ross
Rifle Company, and obtaining some definite statement as to the number, in order to hasten the manufacture of those rifles upon a larger scale than 10,000, which was intended to be the minimum in peace time? Is there not a way in which. the matter could be hastened so that the country might know that this matter is being taken care of? As it is, both parties seem to be at arm's length. My hon. friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) suggested that if there was any difficulty the Government could solve it by expropriating the factory. The matter seems to have come to a standstill without the exercise of that authority which the Government manifestly have in war time. The matter seems to have got to a stage where nobody is moving, and no preparation is being made for the future.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is any detriment to the public interest in the delay which has taken place. As a matter of fact, I have already pointed out that it is impossible to give an order until we get the drawings and specifications which were asked for in September last, but which have not yet been received. The question is as to what the Government should undertake in the production of rifles, having regard to' the fact that a very large number of rifles already manufactured will probably be on hand at the end of the war, and that these will be suitable for training purposes. After the conclusion of the war we may expect that training purposes. alone will have to be considered for some years. Gn the other hand as I have already pointed out, there is the fact that undoubtedly the Ross Rifle Company has made a very large expenditure for the purpose of producing rifles on a large scale during the war, and while it is manifestly impossible for the Government to continue to give orders on a war scale in time of peace, nevertheless it is proper for the Government to have such consideration for that expenditure ias would .not result in marked injustice or unfairness to the interests which have made that expenditure. That is the .situation which confronts the Government to-day. It is one that is not free from difficulty, and one to which the best possible consideration will be given.


Wilfrid Laurier: On Friday, in the explanation which he gave upon the subject, my right hon. friend stated to the House that an order in council had been passed fixing the time when the new type of rifle was to be manufactured by the Ross

Rifle Company. The order in council went on to say this:
And that the contractor and the said company he required, on and after the first day of December, 1917, to make all rifles supplied under the said contract to correspond to such last mentioned substituted standard sample rifle the Government undertaking to protect the contractor and his assignee against any actions for infringement of patents as stipulated by the contract, and, moreover, that the Minister of Militia and Defence be authorized to give a notice In the form hereto annexed to the said Sir Charles Ross and his assignee, The Ross Rifle Company.
Are we to understand that no action has been taken by the Company to have rifles manufactured under the terms of this order in council?


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot say what the company have done. We have given notice that after the date mentioned the rifles to be produced must be of the new type, but we have not yet given an order for the reason I have mentioned: that we have not yet received the drawings and specifications which are necessary for the purpose of giving such an order. The reason why we have not yet. received the drawings and specifications is explained in the tee-gram which I read to the committee on Friday last.	-


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: About this question of the Ross rifle I wish to say that I altogether object to the Government doing business with a private company for the production of munitions of war such as rifles. I believe that rifles for the purposes of war should be made in a public arsenal on plans devised by our own engineers and experts in the manufacture of rifles, and that we should not be bound, as we are said to be bound, by a contract with the Ross Rifle Company. I want to say further that in view of the statements that were made in this House when the Ross rifle contract was first entered into, some of them by hon. gentlemen associated with the present Government, and in view also of the experience on the battlefields of Europe where the Ross rifle was thrown away by ojir soldiers as being a bad weapon, their lives being in jeopardy, I do not think we ought to pay another dollar to the Ross Rifle Company. To test the feeling of this committee, I propose to move an amend-mend adding Clause 4 to the resolution to this effect:
(4) That none of the money so raised or voted shall be used for the purchase of Ross rifles.

The people of Canada are more than dissatisfied with the experience of Canada in connection with the Ross rifle. The people of Canada are in favour of the starting of a national arsenal for the manufacture of rifles by ourselves, and they are in favour of the elimination of the whole question of profit in connection with munitions. On my own behalf, on behalf of my constituency which has had rather a wide experience with the Ross rifle, and on behalf of our soldiers who have been to the front and who discarded the Ross rifle, I think this contract ought to come to an end here and now, and that not another dollar ought to be paid to this company for those rifles. I therefore move the amendment which 1 have just read.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman,
I am not sure that the amendment is in ordeT. but assuming for the moment that it is, it seems to me impossible for the committee to adopt it, iand for this reason.: The provision which is included with respect to the Ross rifle is not in respect of any further order, but is in respect of an order already given, and upon which the company is already engaged. It is estimated that about 80,000 rifles under the order given in February, 1916, will remain to be delivered after the end of the present fiscal year. The Government having given that order, and thus having entered into a contract for those rifles, is under obligation to pay for them; the rifles must be paid for unless the good faith of the country is to be called in question, or unless in the meantime some other type of rifle may be substituted for them, and I do not think that that is possible within the period mentioned.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be a
party to voting for the breaking of any contract that this Government has entered into in good faith, but I am bound to say that in my judgment the contract entered into was an unjustifiable and improvident contract, judged from every point of view, and I could not conscientiously vote for the payment of any money on that contract. The suggestion that has been made that the contract should be changed is the proper one, I submit, so that the rifles supplied should be Lee-Enfields instead of Ross rifles. Under these circumstances we should be getting value for our money, and the country would get rifles that could be used. The suggestion that it takes a year or any such long period of time to make the change for which provision was

*made in the original contract entered into *so many years ago is, I think, not borne out by the experience we have had in the making of munitions of all kinds throughout the Empire and the United States. There is no manner of doubt in my mind that if the diligence had been used we could have been making Lee-En-fields now at the Ross rifle factory, and if the Government should he put up against ft by a vote of this House I believe they could yet get Lee-Enfie'lds made at the Ross rifle factory in time to meet the needs of the war. Therefore, for my part, I am going to support the amendment of the hon. gentleman, if it is in order to move it. While on the subject I wish to make one more observation. The Prime Minister was good enough to say on Friday last that I must suffer in my conscience because of having been a party to the contract that was made by the Government of Canada with the Ross Rifle Company.


Robert Laird Borden: If it were so poor a rifle as my hon. friend argued.


Frank Oliver: I did not argue; I merely stated the facts. I just want to point out, first, that the Ross rifle contract, made in 1902, provided that in case of war or emergency the Government of Canada was at liberty to make or buy rifles where it p'leased and as it pleased, over and above the amount that the Ross Rifle Company could furnish. The second provision that I wish to draw attention to was that the Ross Rifle Company was bound, on du^ notice, to make any alterations demanded by the Government of Canada, and the third provision was that they were bound by the contract to make any other kind of a rifle that the Government of Canada should see fit to *ask or order them to make. So that the original contract provided in these three particulars for the safeguarding by the Government of the interests of the people of Canada under three different sets of circumstances, one of these sets of circumstances being the great condition of war that has arisen. I want to point out further to the Prime Minister and the House that the rifle that was made by the Ross Company under contracts with the Liberal Government was not the rifle that was in the hands of our soldiers in France and Flanders under the administration of this Government.


William Cameron Edwards: Was it a good rifle?


Frank Oliver: I am not sure; it may have been a better rifle. But it was not
the rifle. It could not have been a worse rifle, because the rifle that was put in our ' soldiers' hands in France and Flanders has been taken put of their hands with the consent of this Government forced upon them by the authorities at the British War Office.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What was the rifle that the late Government provided for?


Frank Oliver: Mark I, Mark II, and
Mark II with three stars. There were three makes provided, and these were all discarded by the present Government. In November, 1911, an order was given for the manufacture of Mark III, and deliveries of that rifle was begun to be made in November, 1912, and it was the Mark III rifle that our soldiers carried in France and Flanders, and which caused the loss of hundreds of lives in those battles.


Arthur Meighen: Before the committee rises at six o'clock, I should like to say just a word with reference to a mutter in which my name was mentioned on Friday last, relative tp the necessity of drawings and specifications for the purpose of the 'manufacture of the new rifle. I have read the debate and observe that the Prime Minister expressed the view that the contract called for drawings and specifications to be served upon the company before the notice would take effect. On the contrary, the situation, although in effect exactly the same, is in direct words this: The drawings and specifications are not referred to in the contract itself as having to be served on the company, but as a practical engineering necessity the specifications and drawings have to be served before there can be a proper contractual relationship between the Government and the company. The Militia Department officials take the ground most positively that there can be in effect and in practice no manufacture of rifleB and no preparation to manufacture rifles until the drawings and specifications are delivered. That is all I desire to say now.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would submit to
the Government the necessity of clearing the air in regard to the rifle situation. My hon. friend the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has moved an amendment, the purport of which is that the contract which this Government made in Feb-

ruary, 1916, with the Ross Rifle Company should not be fulfilled. What this House and the country is concerned with at the present time is whether or not this country can supply within her own borders a rifle which will be satisfactory to our men when they go out to fight. Without going into anything that has happened in the past, I think it is conceded and declared by hon. gentlemen on both sideis and the proposition is accepted, that the Lee-Enfield pattern, which is now in use in England and which is now being manufactured in England, is such a rifle as would he satisfactory.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I did not catch what the hon. gentleman said. Did he say that the rifle now being manufactured in England is satisfactory?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what I understand to be the policy of' the Government, because they have intimated to the Ross Rifle Company that they require that company hereafter to manufacture rifles of that pattern.


Robert Laird Borden: This particular rifle, as I have already explained three or four times, is not being manufactured in England at the present time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If it is not being
manufactured in England, it is being manufactured for the British Government in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: For the British1 Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question where
it is being made for the British Government is a matter of no concern to us. The fact is that a certain rifle of a certain pattern is being manufactured and that this Government have adopted that as being the pattern which is satisfactory to them, and have given notice to the Ross Rifle Company to manufacture rifles of that pattern a year from now. The Government, however, have not intimated to the Ross Rifle Company how many rifles will be required, and the whole rifle situation is for the moment obscure on account of the inability of this Government and the company to come to some understanding in regard to it. The Government ought to know how many rifles they require, but they say: We cannot take any further steps until we have a specification; until we have a certain pattern. My right hon. friend will agree with me that any one who has any experience at all in regard to the manufacture in 'Canada and
[Mr. Macdonald.!
elsewhere of goods that are based on steel, especially at this particular juncture, knows that the most important problem is to get the raw material, and if my right hon. friend allows week after week to go by before the blocks of the particular sealed pattern is produced, he is simply postponing to a lengthy, if not to an indefinite period, the manufacture of the rifle by reason of that delay. In. order that material may be obtained, it is necessary that information should be given as to how many rifles the Government will require under their contract. The same thing applies to the stock of the rifle.. All these matters are based on the raw material. Why is it that the Government stand on the brink of this question and do nothing one way or the other? My complaint is this:	They know how many
rifles they will require at the end of the year; they know they will need more than ten thousand, which is the minimum fixed in the contract that they would be bound to take; but yet they decline to indicate how many rifles they require, and it is therefore impossible to obtain material. If three months after this they say they want a hundred thousand rifles of the new pattern, where is the material to come from? My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia takes the position, I understand, that the Ross rifle of the type that was sent to the front, is the best type.


Samuel Hughes: The best in the
world. It has been proved to be so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the position
of the ex-minister in the matter. He is to be commended for the fact that he takes his ground and stands upon it. My hon. friend has had this merit in regard to his administration, that if he * thought a thing was right, he stood by it, no matter what any one in England said about it.


Samuel Hughes: There have been
tests of every kind in connection with the two rifles and the records are available. I challenge the world to produce a record showing that the Ross rifle has come out second to the Lee-Enfield. I do not know whether or not the report of a bogus test has been sent by General Alderson to General Gwatkin. If it has, I propose asking some questions about it. But there has never been an official test, or even a general test, as between the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfietd rifle wherein the Ross rifle has not in every sense beaten the Lee-Enfield.
While I am on any feet, I desire to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He said that the

Ross rifle, Mark III, was adopted by the Liberal-Consercative party. I speak frorh memory, but I think it was in 1910 that the [DOT]decision was reached to aldopt the Ross rifle, Mark III.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is this to be said in favour of the hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) that while he was in charge of the militia at least he had his own opinions and was ready to stand by them. In his correspondence with the Prime Minister he spoke broadly of things that were done, or not done, in England, with regard to the whole administration of affairs in relation to our forces, their supply and equipment:	but when he has the opportunity he does not back up in this House the statements he made.


Samuel Hughes: I have never deviated from any of my statements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman wrote these things in a letter to the Prime Minister but has not gbne any further. This whole question of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) or his former Minister of Militia taking acute issue with those who were responsible for certain things done in a military way on the other side of the water, is a very, important problem, and the Ross rifle .question is merely one phase of it. The ex-Minister of Militia was right, or else he was wrong, in certain statements that he made, and makes now, not only in regard to the Ross rifle, but in regard to other supplies paid for by the hard-earned money of the people of Canada and scrapped when they were taken overseas, at a loss of millions and millions. We are asked to accept, without a word, the statement of some gentleman over there because he happens to be connected with the War Office, as though he were an infallible being whose opinion is not to be doubted. The right hon. Prime Minister seems to think that because a man wears the uniform of a British officer he is so far above .anybody who is Canadian bom that by no possibility could anybody in this country venture to question him. The ex-Minister of Militia does not believe in that.


Samuel Hughes: Let me correct my hon. friend. He said "Canadian born." My view of this matter has nothing to do with a man being Canadian born, or British born, or German born. The principle that
I lay down is that a man is in the service of Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has interpreted my ideas. We send battalions overseas on the pledge of the ministry that these battalions shall go to the front under their Canadian officers. But when they go across the water, some man who has not worn a. uniform as long as the men under which the Canadian boys are serving tells them that the pledged faith of the Canadian Government matters nothing, but that because he happens to be a British officer those who come from the dominions, no matter what may be their ability and knowledge of their business, shall have nothing to say. And when in this Canadian Parliament we ask the Canadian Minister of Militia to tell us about it, he cannot tell us anything but must cable to London. And for two and a half weeks he has been sending cables to London, and he cannot tell us to-day where we stand in regard to our forces. We are voting $500,000,000, and it is time that we should learn, in the interests of the country, not only in regard to the Ross rifle, but in regard to the status of our men and their equipment, and all other questions overseas, whether this Government is to accept without question the opinions of gentlemen on the other side of the water. We have been in this war almost three years. The casualties of officers and men belonging to the old regiments of Great Britain have been very great indeed. There are men to-day who are commanding regiments going out from Great Britain that have had no longer military experience than the men coming from Canada. Why, then, should we be told that because a man is attached to a Canadian regiment, his opinion about rifles, equipment, or anything else, is worth nothing, as though he belonged to an inferior people whose right to express an opinion is not to be considered?


William Cameron Edwards: And who has said that, except it be the hon. gentleman himself?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend should know that actions and results speak louder than words. He ought to know that the ex-Minister of Militia has time and time again arraigned the Government, of which he was then a member, for pursuing that policy in Tegard to almost everything in connection with our troops overseas.


William Cameron Edwards: Do not a considerable number of Canadian officers hold responsible



positions at the head of the troops in France?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does the hon. gentleman mean? Is he calling upon us to express exultation and delight because a number of our officers who [DOT] have gone to England are permitted to go to France? If so, he must not expect me to join him. On the other hand, I want to know why it is that two thousand Canadian officers taken from their regiments are not permitted to go to France because somebody who was born in Great Britain, who has had no longer training than many Canadian officers, decides that they shall not go. I want to know why it is that, without regard to the pledged faith of this Government, some man in Great Britain who happened to have a little brief authority decides to butcher our battalions and scatter them to the four winds of heaven. That is what is being done. The reason I mention this matter is because my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) says the Ross rifle is no good-


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say the Ross rifle is no good.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The right hon. gentleman says that the Ross rifle is not the weapon that our men ought to be armed with during the war.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that it had been exchanged, for reasons which I gave to the House; I did not say what the hon. gentleman said I said; he knows perfectly well that I did not say it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend is a casuist of the first class. He puts into other words just what I have said. He says the Ross rifle was displaced for good and sufficient reason, that reason being that it w.as not satisfactory to our forces. But the ex-Minister of Militia tells us that it is a better rifle than the Lee-Enfield. The Prime Minister says that because of the opinion they have in England the Ross rifle must be thrown overboard. Well, we have a fully equipped rifle factory in this country. If we cannot make the Ross rifle, why not make some other rifle? We on this side of the House take the position that there is no more reason to believe we cannot make rifles than there was to believe that we could not make shells. When we ask why rifles are not made in this country the right hon. gentleman says: I have given notice of a year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: When was it given?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In	December.
But the Prime Minister does not state how many rifles he wants. He does not pursue the ordinary business policy that a person purchasing manufactured steel would pursue, of indicating his requirements so that those who have to obtain raw material may know what they are to arrange for. And he says that somebody in England does not tell him about the pattern. There is the situation. I think his position proves everything that the ex-Minister of Militia said. That hon. gentleman has told us that for ten months at the beginning of the war he was not permitted to have anything to say. And he predicted that the appointment of an Overseas Minister of Militia would lead to a state of chaos, I think he was a true prophet.


Robert Laird Borden: I have stated the position of the Government over and over again, and I have nothing to add. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) does not understand or appreciate it, that is a matter for himself. I have stated what the difficulties are that the Government will have to consider, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said in that regard.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: What I cannot understand about the situation as explained by the Government is this: Suppose the Government takes the position that they were bound by the contract under ordinary conditions. I do not admit that they were so bound as a matter of fact, but let us assume for the moment that they were bound. But the Government has cancelled other contracts because the condi tions are not ordinary conditions. I believe that under the War Measures Act the Government could take possession of the Ross rifle factory. I believe they could go so far as to make a charge against any one and have him shut up. If the Ross rifle is not right, why is not the manufacture of it stopped? If the Government were to break the contract, what is the worst that could result? The worst would be a merely monetary loss through a successful action for damages for violation of the contract. But, technically, an action could not even be begun against the Government without the Government's own consent. I do not depend upon that however. What I say is that, even admitting the Government's contention, the very worst that could happen would be a suit against them for damages. Well, the Government assumes that our sons ought to be armed with some other

rifle than the Ross rifle. What, then, is the situation? The situation is, that they are putting in the balance on one side a possible monetary loss through a suit for damages and on the other side the proper or improper equipment of our boys, and they are allowing the prospect of monetary loss to outweigh the proper arming of our boys. I cannot see it in any other way. And the manufacture of a rifle is to continue which the Government say cannot be used. We are spending millions of money, and we are going to spend all that is needed for the successful prosecution of this war. I think, to, that Canada will get all the men that have been asked for if the people are properly approached and properly guided. But we must not acquiesce in the idea that anything in the way of a monetary loss by the country or by the manufacturer of these rifles should stand in the way of the boys at the front having the -best rifle that they can get, or that the expenditure of money on a rifle that is not going to be used should be continued. The Finance Minister quite properly delivers lectures on thrift, but how can he reasonably advise ordinary people to stop spending money on things they do not need when he is handing out money for a rifle which he says will not be.used? The answer is: "We have a contract signed." Under the present circumstances that answer is no answer, even if the contract has been signed. Considerations of this kind must be put aside in the face of the great crisis which presents itself. The results of *a proper course of action in this respect might not be welcome to some, but to many families in Canada the results of the present policy will be much more unwelcome than the cancellation of this contract would be. I shall not enter into an argument as to the merits of the rifle. The Government have given their judgment that the rifle is not serviceable; therefore they should at once stop having these rifles manufactured and asking the people to pay for what they are not going to use.
What can the Government do if they want to manufacture the Lee-Enfield rifle, as they say they do? I believe that we ought to have in Canada a concern for the manufacture of an arm for ourselves. No one denies that there is in this country a large equipment and a staff of expert men. I am informed that the British Government are prepared now, and have been for some months, to send over machinery and equipment to the Ross rifle factory for the manufacture of the Lee-Enfield rifle.
31i
The duty of the Government is plain. No matter what the monetary consequences -may be, stop manufacturing a rifle that you do not purpose using, take advantage of the offer of the British Government, bring over machinery and equipment and begin at once to manufacture a rifle which the experts of this Government say is the one that our men at the front should use. The necessity of winning the war is paramount to everything else, and, if it cannot be done through an arrangement with Sir Charles Ross, I would go so far as to say that we should nationalize the Ross rifle concern, take advantage of the offer of the British Government and proceed at once to manufacture g, rifle whieh we can use.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has worked himself up into a state of excitement-


George Perry Graham: I am in earnest, not excited.


Robert Laird Borden: -upon a suggestion which, if he had stopped for a moment to think, he would not have made. He is speaking of the manufacture of these rifles in connection with the arm which is used by the Canadian forces at the front. I have explained at least half a dozen times since this debate began that the Canadian Expeditionary Forces at the front are supplied with the Lee-Enfield rifle and that the British Government have entered into a definite engagement to that end. When my hon. friend, therefore, introduces the bogie of the Canadian forces at the front being supplied with Ross rifles which are to be paid for out of this vote, he introduces a suggestion which, if he had paid any attention to the debate, he would have known to be of no relevancy whatever.


George Perry Graham: The rifles, then, are not going to be used?


Robert Laird Borden: The rifles will be used for certain purposes, just as the Ross rifles, which are being supplied to the British Government under their order will be used for certain purposes.


Frank Oliver: Will they be used for
war or for peace purposes?


Robert Laird Borden: They will be used in the training of our men, and they may, as I have said already, be used in warfare under different conditions. There is a difference of opinion about the merits of the Ross rifle. I have never ventured an opinion on the merits of the rifle, because I do not

possess sufficient knowledge and experience in such matters to make my opinion of any value. I have to go, therefore, by the opinions of others who have the requisite knowledge and experience in this respect. The member for South Renfrew seems to be under the impression that it would be merely a question of paying an amount equal to the profits on the manufacture of the rifle, or something of that kind, if we cancelled this contract at once. In the contract as made by the Government of which the hon. member of South Renfrew was 'a Jmeimber, no authority was reserved for cancelling it. If we should say to the Ross Rifle Company: "We will not accept your rifles," what would be the result? The material for those rifles has been obtained, and the parts have very largely been constructed. The parts have not yet been assembled, but if I mistake not very little will remain to be done after March 31 except the assembling. The result of such a proposal as that made by my hon. friend, therefore, would be that we would have to pay for these 80,000 rifles and would not get them for any purposes for which they might be found useful. I should not suppose that 'any person possessing ordinary common sense would suggest that 'this be done.


George Perry Graham: Neither would I.


Robert Laird Borden: That is precisely, what my hon. friend suggests, if he i aware of the facts.


George Perry Graham: Not at 9*11.


Robert Laird Borden: What does he
suggest, then?


George Perry Graham: I have suggested it.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon.
gentleman's suggestion means anything at all, it means precisely what I have stated.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman either was not very sincere in his remarks

which of course, I do not suggest, or, he did not understand what he was talking about.


George Perry Graham: Thank you.


Robert Laird Borden: I venture to say that the hon. gentleman did not know the extent to which the manufacture of these rifles has proceeded, in the production of the various parts which will eventually be assembled into the completed rifle. If we took the course which he suggests, the net result would be that we would pay for the riflles, but would not get them.


Samuel Hughes: I am not going to take any part in the discussion of this contract. I have -not interfered in any orders in connection with the Ross rifle practically since the war began, because both political parties in days gone by have yielded to improper influences in seeking to make a political football of the manufacture of the Ross rifle under the inspiration of interested parties across the water. In our experience in South Africa we found that the Lee-Ehfield rifle jammed repeatedly. I did not want to take up this line of argument, but I purpoise doing it owing to the trend that the discussion has taken. I say that the Lee-Enfield rifle jammed repeatedly in South Africa. I can point you to the records of the British House of Commons which show that British officers said that to put that rifle in the hands of their soldiers in South Africa was murdering them. More of their own men, they said, were injured by the Lee-Enfield rifle, owing to the defects of it, than were injured by the Boer Mauser rifle.
The British experience in South Africa was that, again and again, not only did the Lee-Enfield jam, but it burst. We all had that experience in South Africa. Then it was found in South Africa that the bolts dropped out very readily. We have had none of that with the Ross rifle. The Lee-Enfield rifle in South Africa was very badly sighted; some of the rifles fired to the left, some fired to the right. Towards the close of the war we got some of them to fire accurately, but the sighting of the rifle was very bad. So we had seven or eight very serious objections to the Lee-Enfield rifle in South Africa. As a result of that the British Government purposed changing their rifle. The British Lee-Enfield private arsenals unfortunately were owned, and are owned to-day, by German interests. I make that statement without fear of contradiction-


Rodolphe Lemieux: A serious statement.


Samuel Hughes: The stock may have been transferred, but they were owned by German authorities, who fought and opposed any change in the British rifle, planning for this war. When this matter was realized, it was decided by the Canadian Government to take up a new rifle. The Mannlicher, a long, quick-firing rifle, was used extensively by the Boers in South Africa. It was not of as long range as the Mauser or the Lee-Enfield, but it was an excellent rapid-fire gun. It was a straight pull rifle the same as the Ross, only with a

different mechanism. It was an excellent rifle for any range short of 800 yards, up to close quarters, and we learned to our cost what that rapid-fire rifle meant in South Africa, Accordingly I have yet to see the man who knew anything about a rifle-and there are a great many people making motions about rifles here who do not know the butt end of a rifle from the muzzle-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the British War Office aware that the Lee-Enfield is controlled and owned by German firms?


Samuel Hughes: I said the private factories. The British factories make the Lee-Enfield, but there are also private factories that make the Lee-Enfield.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have they received any orders during the war?


Samuel Hughes: I presume they are turning them out right along. The stock, previous to the war, was held by German interests, and that was known in England; I presume that the British authorities knew of it.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. member suggest that General French or General Haig is in league with Germans?


Samuel Hughes: Neither has said a word against the Ross rifle.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman cannot read.	.


Samuel Hughes: Oh yes, I can.


Frank Oliver: Then you cannot understand.	x


Samuel Hughes: Oh, yes, I can understand, but my hon. friend is so thick in the head that he cannot understand. There is not a word in any report from General Haig or General French saying that the Ross is inferior to the Lee-Enfield or that there has ever been a comparative test.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What about General Alderson, does he understand rifles?


Samuel Hughes: I do not think he would know the butt from the muzzle.


Frank Oliver: What rifles are the Canadians using in France?


Samuel Hughes: The Lee-Enfield at present.


Frank Oliver: The Lee-Enfield?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, the Lee-Enfield, I am very sorry to say. The whole mistake in this matter was this; when the
Canadians were sent over we armed them with Ross rifles, and when any attempt was made to change anything, the British authorities should have been told:	These
are Canadian troops; that is made in Canada, we have equipped these men in this way, and it is none of your business; we are responsible for wihat these men carry and what these men do and we are willing to assume the responsibility. If we had done that and told these gentlemen to keep their hands off, the thing would have been all right. I understand there has been a report read, containing the answer to the ten questions. Suggestions were sent around for weeks by somebody's inspiration, little printed slips were sent around to our troops asking questions about the Ross rifle. These men, having experience of the retreat, the horrible retreat, the murderous retreat of the British soldiers, from Mons to the Marne, where thousands and tens of thousands went down, as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) might say, murdered, not by the Lee-Enfield rifle, but by the British ammunition-three factories turned out bad ammunition that jammed the rifles. That was the Lee-Enfield rifle; there was not a Ross rifle on the continent at that time. The Lee-Enfield rifle jammed over and over and over again. The Munsters were shot to pieces, the Gordons and the Guards were shot to pieces by the jamming of rifles with bad ammunition. And yet this gentleman from Edmonton, with the opportunity of getting at these facte, stands up and blames the jamming on the Ross rifle.


Frank Oliver: What rifle had the Canadians when they were shot to pieces?


Samuel Hughes: They had bad ammunition, that is what they had,


Frank Oliver: That is not what Sir
Douglas Haig said.


Samuel Hughes: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, that is what he says.


Frank Oliver: No it is not.


Samuel Hughes: I happen to know. These ten questions were sent around week after week. The boys, most of them, had been accustomed to the Lee-Enfield, and any new rifle coming in, to which they were not accustomed, would naturally be a little edd to them. I quite well remember that when the Snider-Enfield rifle gave place to the Martini, there was any amount of objection. The boys wanted to stick to the Snider-
COMMOiNS
Enfield. So when the Lee-Enfield came in and took the place of the Martini, the boys wanted to stick to the Martini. So when the Lee-Enfield in turn gave place to the Ross, a number of the soldiers were afraid that the bolt would blow back; they did not understand the mechanism and naturally objected to the straight pull. One of these questions was:	Do you not find the
Rose rifle a little heavy? The Ross' rifle with bayonet is of the .same weight as the Lee-Enfield with bayonet. Another question was: Don't you find the Ro.se rifle too short in. the bayonet? The .idea there was that the other fellow would get at him in using the bayonet, forgetting that a long rifle with a long bayonet is far easier to thrust aside than a short rifle with a short bayonet. Why I saw Henry Godwin, with a little dagger, beat the champion of the British Army with rifle and bayonet. It is not the length of the rifle and bayonet but the way it is handled; and then, too, the leverage that can be exerted on the end of a long rifle and bayonet by an opponent is much greater than in the case of a short rifle and bayonet, so that the long rifle and bayonet can be more easily thrust aside and is so less useful in the attack. These questions were sent around and there is not one of them that could not be answered in favour of the Ross rifle. General French never had a comparative test. I asked .him to have an official, test of the two riflesi, I offered to let him pick his best experts in England and I would pick the best experts in the Canadian Army, and if I did mot trim him to a finish on every point I would agree to swallow the two rifles-a rather difficult job to perform. We have had a lot o,f talk and nonsense about this thing and therefore I want it clearly understood, in reading these ten question, that not one of them is borne out by any comparative test ever produced in France.
I challenge the Prime Minister to produce a solitary comparative test-he cannot do it, because I have gone into this and fought it out. It is like many another thing. For instance, why did we pay $5,240 for trucks when our own better ones are now running while these aTe in the ditch, and ours could have been had for $2,800? Because I bowed, foolishly bowed-I should have resigned from the Cabinet or forced the issue of our being allowed to run our own show. Then why was our: Oliver equipment discarded? I passed through with the Prime Minister and we only saw two or three regiments, apart from the Canadians, equipped wdth 
the Webb equipment. I saw more Canadians with Webb equipment than British soldiers. This is the way this humbug goes on. up and down. The inspection and throwing out of our material has ibeen simply, to my mind, a scandal. We had another report-T wonder if that was read? Was that report from General Alderson to General Gwatkin read? Has the Prime Minister ever made any inquiry as to where that report came from?


Robert Laird Borden: How it got out?


Samuel Hughes: Yes. To whom did General Gwatkin hand that report?


Robert Laird Borden: I asked about
that and I understood it got out without his authority or knowledge. I do not know how.


Samuel Hughes: Then why was
General Gwatkin not dismissed?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend was responsible for it.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no, pardon me, I was not responsible for it. If I had been he would have gone long ago, and the Prime Minister knows it. With regard to this report of Alderson's, Sir Max Aitken and General Carson told me that defective ammunition was being issued. This was after the affair, to which I referred the other evening, concerning the 28th Battalion under Colonel Embury.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where did the defective ammunition come from?


Samuel Hughes: There were three
brands of it. I think two were British and one was from the United States '>ui r one was Canadian. I want to say tout none of our ammunition turned out bad. I forget the names of the brands.


Robert Laird Borden: They -ire ail on record.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, they are on record. The three brands were defective and no rifle could have fired them. One of them was so deadly that to have sent men to the firing line with it would have been simply murder. We found an ordnance officer attached to Canadian headquarters issuing that ammunition to the extent of
5,000	rounds which were placed in the pouches of one battalion which was in the blow-up. I have no hesitation in saying that that ordnance officer should have been led out and shot, and if I had been Tunning the show I would have carried that out. I

protested, and demanded Ms dismissal, but he is there yet, I understand.


An hon. MEMBER:: What happened at St. Julien?


Samuel Hughes: At St. Jnlien, the Ross rifle was.nsed. The only real rifle victory in this "war was fought and won by the Ross rifle, and half of the boys were using bad ammunition at that.
About this Alderson or -Gwatkin report- I want the Prime Minister to take note of this, and perhaps Gwatkin will get a ticket for home next week-that report was based on a test between two boys to show that it was bad ammunition. Following upon the Embury affair, General Aider-son sent Sir Max Aitken and General Carson each a copy of the report. Each off his own hat wrote him that the report was false, that no such test had ever 'been held, that it was only a test of ammunition and not of the rifle. One of them pointed out to me moreover that one of the boys who took part in the test, a boy from Millbrook, had never fired a rifle 50 times, in his lifetime. He was driving a motor engine and was picked out to test the defective cartridges. When an officer who understood the use of a rifle took it, the test showed that the Lee-En-field rifle jammed far more frequently than the Ross rifle. They wired to General Alderson, and one of them wrote and sent a corrected report, .and yet General Gwatkin did not hand that report out with the other, although, as a matter of fact, it oame on the same mail. No explanation was given to the House, and the .correcting report was [DOT]not given out to the press at the same time as the other. There is no doubt that the world put two and two together. Nobody could know of the conspiracy in one of my departments, and this was part 'and parcel of the conspiracy from start to finish. And yet these gentlemen .are there to-day.
There is another matter to which I would refer. The Princess Patricia's battalion went to the front carrying the Lee-Enfield rifle. They were cut to pieces through their rifles jamming. I have letters from the late Colonel Farquhar telling me about it. At that time they had not discovered that the jamming was due to bad ammunition, and he thought it was due to the dirt. He wrote saying " Fix all the boys up with oilcloths, and tell them to take the bolt out, and wipe it clean with the oilcloth," -because he said the rifles jammed over and over again with the dirt. A young fellow, a captain from Calgary, told me & week or two ago that
when he was in the firing line-he was then a private

they carried sticks and the staves of barrels so as to smash open the bolts in their rifles, which were Lee-Enfields, when they jammed. We did not hear anything of this because there w.as no one interested in decrying the Lee-Enfield rifle. I would not decry it now but for the course taken by certain gentlemen in this House. The Lee-Enfield was found defective in South Africa; it was rejected by the Japanese Government eighteen years ago as being absolutely unfit for service. It was unfit for service then and it is unfit to-day compared with the Ross rifle. The chamber of the Ross rifle was found to be slightly smaller, and we enlarged it, -and every possible objection to the rifle was removed thereby.
There is another matter that I desire to bring up while I am on my feet-I did not intend speaking on this question at all. I have received several cablegrams from officers of certain battalions at the front in the firing line stating that their battalions are going to be broken up to make way for certain other battalions. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the Highland Brigade of Nova Scotia being broken up. The Prime Minister will recollect that when Nova Scotia sent its first battalion-it was really only half a battalion-the boys were splendid; there were none finer in the world, but that the men did not reflect the credit on the province that they should have done because they did not go into the firing line as a battalion, but were kept as reserves. Individually, they were magnificent, but they did not have the opportunity of doing credit to the province that they would have liked to have had. When the Highland Brigade of Nova Scotia was organized I felt a little keen in regard to the matter because of what had happened, and I took the matter up with the Prime Minister. With his authority I gave my solemn pledge to the officers of the brigade and to the committee that had helped to organize it, that it would be kept intact. The Prime Minister may recall that on one occasion he spoke to me -about the 85th Battalion. I said, "For heaven's sake, let us carry out one pledge we have made to the people of Nova Scotia." I merely recall that to the Prime Minister. I gave the same pledge to the Irish Battalion of Montreal. We had Scotch Battalions, English Battalions, Canadian Battalions and darkie battalions, and when the Irishmen of Montreal got their battalion together I thought it was only just to give them the

promise and to carry it out, that they would go as a regiment to the front. I did the same with the I04th Battalion of New Brunswick. Every one who knows our history will remember that in 1812 the old 104th marched *all through to Canada, as it was >at that time, through the wilds in a Canadian winter. When the 104th Battalion was organized for this war we gave the people of New Brunswick to understand that that regiment would be held intact. The same held good of the 105th Battalion from Prince Edward Island. These were the regiments that were to. 'be held intact. That was the plan, and I have seen and heard nothing to cause me to deviate from it to-day.
I -may point out that Camp Borden trained more men during the past summer than there are training in England to-day, that Camp Hughes, in Manitoba, trained more men during the past summer than are m England training to-day, and that Valear-tier and other camps have trained almost as many, and yet we do not find a resident Minister of Militia at Camp Borden, at Camp Hughes, or at Camp Valcartier. Why all this paraphernalia should be introduced in London, I have never (been able to find out. General Carson, with Colonel George Murphy, and thirty-one assistants, ran the business, and when' any hon. gentleman asked for any news of his friends at the front he got an answer within a few days. When any hon, gentleman asked if any one was wounded or wanted a report about any one, he got his answer in a very few days from General Carson. To-day you get nothing. General Carson with only thirty-one officers could keep the work going, train men, and send them to the front and win battles, whereas to-day I am told there are 700 assistants, costing $6,000,000 a year, as the result of the action of the Minister of Finance when he ordered the Prime Minister to appoint an Overseas Minister; I forget what he was going to do. We find all that saddled on the country, and I presume to-night the Minister of Finance is preaching thrift and economy to the people of Ottawa.
My plan, and I want it emphasized, and I want the Prime Minister to consider it, was this: We have four divisions at the front. Now I cannot see why we should not have six or even eight, if we have plenty of men in England, and if they are well looked after. I would not run all the new divisions in fresh, but I would do so gradually, after the boys have got in

harness and been trained. We need not hold any more of the front than now, but this plan would always allow us to have two divisions in rest. It would absorb the Nova Scotia Highland Brigade, the Quebec Brigade, including tfie Irish Begiment, the regiments from the eastern townships, the French Canadian regiments, the New Brunswick Brigade, and regiments from the West. Every corps would then have its local representation from all over the Dominion, not necessarily battalion units, because battalions from most localities are now broken up, but taking five or eight battalions from Ontario we could have one part of them as the active brigade, and the other part could be kept in training for details. I worked out the plan with the War Office, with Sir Douglas Haig, and Sir William Bobertson, and it met with the approval of every one of them, and for the life of me I cannot see why the plan has not been carried out. This plan would obviate the necessity of breaking up the Nova Scotia Highland Brigade, the New Brunswick Brigade, the Prince Edward Island Battalion, the Irish Begiment of Montreal, the Quebec Battalion and others, and there would be no trouble whatever. Then in the spring, if a drive comes, instead of having four divisions we should have six divisions trained during the winter months, and they would be ready for any drive that might come along. Our losses with the six divisions would be no more than with the four, because we should be holding no more of the front. Our losses would be less per brigade, although the total might be the same.
I might point out that if it had been distinctly understood there was to be no monkeying with the Boss rifle, no changes at all, there would not have been one word more about it. Let me point out further, in regard to Sir John French's report-and I do not blame Sir John French for that report, for it was concocted by the same people who sent over these other reports. I do not blame Sir John French for the statements he made, for he only accepted the statements of Alderson, and the report was made up for Alderson by some of these whippersnappers who have been mentioned, and who knew nothing of a rifle, and whose only ambition was to get rid of everything of Canadian make. Sir John French says in his report that he found 3,000 Lee-En-fields already in the division. I told Sir John French that the British regulars would come along at night, when they did not

have an opportunity in the day time, and steal the Ross ride for their snipers and sharpshooters. The British regulars soon realized the deadly value of the Ross rifle for that kind of work. In the morning our fellows would find their Ross rifles gone and Lee-Enfields left in their stead.
I did not intend to say anything about this matter, but was prompted to do so by the trend given to the debate by some hon. gentleman recalling the old days when some hon.-gentlemen who did not belong to the Liberal persuatiom attacked the Rose rifle. It strikes me that it is not well for the Ross rifle or for the welfare of the troops that this criticism has been launched. The only trouble with the Ross rifle has been bad ammunition. The Lee-Enfields have jammed over and over again. The Ross rifle has jammed over and over again with bad ammunition, but it has not jammed nearly so badly as the Lee-Enfield has jammed.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF:: I should like to say a word before the motion is put. We have just listened to a very serious charge by the ex-Minister of Militia against not only this Government but the British Government as well. He says that the Lee-En-field is no good now, and that it was no good at the time of the South African war. What must we think of this Government and the British Government if the statements made by the ex-Minister of Militia are true? He takes the position that he knows all about the merits of the Ross rifle, and that the chief military authorities in Great Britain and all the members of the British Government know absolutely nothing whatever about it, and he says that the Leo-Enfield rifle is not a fit weapon to put into the hands of our soldiers, let alone the British soldiers. That is a very serious charge to make, and I think some one on the Government benches should have something to say about it. I will not go any further into that; it is a matter for the Government to deal with, and surely the British Government might take notice of it too. If, then, the Ross rifle is declared to be no good by one who claims to know everything about it-


Samuel Hughes: I said the ammunition was no good. I did not say the rifle was no good.


John Gillanders Turriff: He said that the Lee-Enfield was no good in South Africa and no good in the present war, and that on every occasion -when a test was made the
Ross rifle proved superior to the Lee-En-field. The ex-minister will not deny that.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


John Gillanders Turriff: He has the courage of his convictions, and is not afraid to stand by them on the floor of Parliament. While I cannot agree with the ex-minister, I certainly admire his courage in standing by what he believes to be true. My hon. friend does not say that it was bad ammunition. He says the Lee-Enfield was not a good rifle.


Samuel Hughes: I said that in this war neither the Ross rifle nor the Lee-Enfield had jammed with good ammunition.


John Gillanders Turriff: I accept my hon. friend's explanation.


Samuel Hughes: It is not an explanation; it is my statement.


John Gillanders Turriff: There are one or two things that seem to stand out in the strong light of day in connection with the Ross rifle. Efforts have been made by the Government to show that they were bound to accept the Ross rifle under the contract made by the late Government. But the contract did not provide that the rifle had to be the Ross rifle. The company had to furnish any rifle the Government approved of, and the Government had the right at any time to change the specifications of the Ross rifle that was being manufactured for them. No matter what is said to the contrary, this Government is absolutely responsible for the Ross rifle that is being put in the hands of our Canadian soldiers. I am not going to hold the Government responsible for what happened before the war. There is no question that the Ross rifle is a good target rifle, and probably one of the best sporting rifles in the world, but soon after the war started, as soon as our Canadian troops were engaged in the spring of 1915, it was demonstrated that the Ross rifle was an absolutely unsuitable weapon for our soldiers in the trenches. That is the report of everybody.


William Cameron Edwards: When was that demonstrated?


John Gillanders Turriff: In the spring of 1915.


William Cameron Edwards: Before that it had not been demonstrated.


John Gillanders Turriff: I say that it was demonstrated in the first battles in which the Canadian soldiers used the Ross rifle. I know that in the spring of 1915 the British authorities in the field re-armed the First

Division with the Lee-Enfield rifle. Previous to- that time word was coming hack every -day of the week from the Canadian soldiers at the front that the Boss rifle was absolutely unsatisfactory, and that on every occasion where it was possible for a Canadian soldier to throw away his Ross rifle and pick up a Lee-Enfield, he did so. Now, dp you think that the Canadian soldiers in the First Division, our own people were all crazy; that they were led astray by the manufacturers of the Lee-Enfield rifle in Great Britain; that these men who were fighting and giving their lives for their country did not know one rifle from the another, -did not know whether the Ross rifle was a good one or a poor one?


Samuel Hughes: Might I point out to my hon. friend that it was not until October, 1915, that the Canadians seemed to realize that bad ammunition was the cause of the trouble?


John Gillanders Turriff: Then all I have to say is that the British war authorities took action a long time before the Canadian soldiers found out that the Ross rifle was not a satisfactory rifle, because Sn the spring of 1915 the First Division was rearmed with Lee-Enfield rifles. I hold the Government responsible vfrom that time forward. I do not hold the Government responsible up to that time; but when, in the spring of 1915, now almost two years ago, they got word that the Ross rifle was an unsatisfactory war weapon-and they got that information from the men carrying the rifles and also from the British authorities-


Samuel Hughes: Is the Government to be condemned for not observing the British regulations? The British authorities threw out the trucks for the First Division, and then, for the Second Division, I refused to have the trucks changed.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is a matter in regard to which the ex-Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister of Canada are at daggers drawn, the Prime Minister of Canada can deal with that question. I have seen a good deal of correspondence between my hon. friend and the Prime Minister and I am free to admit that the ex-Minister of Militia got the best of that correspondence.


Samuel Hughes: And I will gat the best too when it comes to a comparison between the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield rifle.

'Mr. TURRIFF: If my hon. friend can do that, he is a better man than I think he is, because it does not seem reasonable to me that the British Government, the war ministers, and the generals of Great Britain who are fighting in the fields of France and Flanders to-day can all be fooled or bribed by the Germans. I do not believe that for one moment, and I do not believe the people of Canada or the people of Great Britain will take the view of the ex-Minister of Militia as against that of the British Government, the war generals and the Government of Canada.
'Sir SAM HUGHES:	May I point this
out to my hon. friend? I do not suppose one out of a hundred thousand ever heard anything about the matter. It has been, shown that reports are allowed to pass through without eveT being read.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
Arthur Meighen: What changes did the hon. gentleman say we should have made that were suggested by the Ross Rifle Company?


John Gillanders Turriff: Does my hon. friend
say that no changes were ever suggested by the Ross Rifle Company?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what
the hon. gentleman refers to? He siays that the Ross Rifle Company suggested changes which we should have made. When he says that, he O'Ught to know what the changes are; and if he knows what they are, he ought to tell us.


John Gillanders Turriff: I ask my hon. friend,
who is a member of the Government: Were changes ever suggested by the Ross Rifle Company?


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry I cannot
answer. I do not know what the hon. gentleman is driving at. When I make a statement I will give the evidence in support of it. I am asking the hon. gentleman to give the evidence in support of his statement.


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friend, who is a member of the Government, cannot answer, how does he expect me, a private
meniber, to answer? My hon. friend will not make the statement, and I challenge him to make the statement. He has made the statement that the Government was bound by the contract made by the late Government, and he has not vet substantiated that statement. If he can do so, we would like to hear him; but my hon. friend has taken good care not to make the statement that no changes were ever suggested by the company manufacturing the Ross rifle. My hon. friend has not made that statement, and I do not think he purposes making it, because he knows he will be getting into deep water if ihe does. In May or June of last year the British Government said: Don't .send over any more Ross rifles.


William Cameron Edwards: Did the Ross Rifle Company suggest to the Government that any changes should be made in the rifle, and if so, what changes?


John Gillanders Turriff: Now, my hon. friend is trying to take upon himself the duties of the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). We all give the Solicitor General credit for being very clever, and able, and sharp, and I think that if he did not make much progress it would be unwise for the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to try. Last spring the British Government said: Don't Send over any more Ross rifles. The Ross rifle is the one that had been in the" hands of our Canadian boys at the front. I have heard men who have been in the trenches, and have been fortunate enough to come back, say that in hundreds of cases our Canadian boys have stood with their Ross rifles, jammed and useless in their hands and the Germans have come up and shot them in their tracks. I say again, the Government is responsible to a very large extent for much of the loss of life that occurred through the Canadian soldiers being armed with the Ross rifle long after the Government knew that that rifle was unsatisfactory as a war weapon. We have information, I do not know how true, that a number of Ross rifles-we are told, tens of thousands of them-were tampered with in an effort to improve them, by men either at the front or in Great Britain; that the bolt was taken out and tempered, and was so hardened that it became as brittle as glass, so that in many cases the little knob that keeps the bolt from flying out broke off like a piece of glass and the rifle became useless after firing a few shots. That was done under the regime of the Prime

Minister, and we have never heard of any punishment being meted out to the men who tampered with that rifle. Yet these rifles were put into the hands of our soldiers without being tested, after this tempering of the bolt had been done. Who is responsible? Is it the Prime Minister, or is it the ex-Minister of Militia? That mistake cost the lives of hundreds of Canadian boys.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out that the hon. gentleman is wrong. These rifles were put into the hands of soldiers, training in camp in England, and the tempering or tampering, was detected. Those rifles never got to the front.


John Gillanders Turriff: I understand that this
tempering was done in England.


Samuel Hughes: Let us explain.
After the tempering had been done the rifles were put into the hands of soldiers to be used, and the aiscovery of the defects was made in England before the troops crossed.


John Gillanders Turriff: On whose authority was that tempering done?


Samuel Hughes: I never got to the
bottom of it. It was only last year that it occurred, and it is one of the things I was working at when I came home.


John Gillanders Turriff: At all events, it appears that authority was given by somebody to do this tempering, and these rifles were put into the hands of our boys, and hundreds of them lost their lives on account of the rifle proving useless. Not having proper inspection they-
Sir SAM HUGHES. Let me correct the hon. gentleman. Not one of the rifles with a bad bolt got to the front. It is not true what the hon. gentleman says about our boys losing their lives through this-perfect nonsense. If the rifle jammed, it was due to bad ammunition and not to the rifle itself. I examined the matter critically and am confident that that is the case. What harm would happen if the knob of the bolt broke off? If the weapon was defective, the man had only to pick up another one. But this tempering was done in England. As soon as I heard of it, I ordered an inquiry, and this was under way when I came home.


William Cameron Edwards: When was this?


Samuel Hughes: Last ye-r.


John Gillanders Turriff: Here we have the statement that this was done apparently without the knowledge or authority of the Minister of Militia of that day. Was it

done behind his back by his collegues- or was it done by somebody in the Old Country? My opinion is that many of those rifles, thousands of them, got across to France and Belgium, and in the time of battle they proved useless after the first few shots. I have talked with returned soldiers, and officers too. The ex-Minister of Militia said that what I have said is absurd-that any man lost his life through the rifle jamming. I have heard these men say that they have seen scores of men shot down with rifles in their hands they could not use.


Samuel Hughes: Due to bad aoiuni-tion.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, there is the position of affairs. And in the face of all this the Prime Minister asks this Committee to vote $2,666,000 to buy more Ross rifles.


Samuel Hughes: I challenge the hon. gentleman to give the name of an officer who has seen a score of men shot down.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have their word for it, and I would take the word of an officer who has been in battle as quickly as I would take the word of the ex-Minister of Militia. I have been told not only by officers but by men that these things have occurred. Why has the rifle been changed? We are asked to vote the money for the manufacture of 80,000 additional Ross rifles, a 'large number already delivered, and a large number not yet delivered nor even manufactured. Surely the time for the Government to cancel the contract for the Ross rifle was when the British Government sent word that they did not want any more Ross rifles sent to Great Britain, and that they would arm the Canadian soldiers with Lee-Enfields. Surely that was the time to let the matter stand in abeyance until the necessary machinery could be put in to manufacture the Lee-Enfield or any other rifle that the Government decided upon. But my hon. friends did not take that means of getting a good rifle to put into the hands of the soldiers; in spite of the advice of the British Government, they continued to manufacture the Ross rifle. My right hon. friend now asks for $2,666,000 to manufacture a rifle which, generally speaking, will not be used for war purposes, but will be utilized for training the men in Great Britain. But it is not necessary to pay $28 for a dummy rifle with which the soldiers may drill and learn how to handle a rifle. You could get something to take the place of a rifle for drilling purposes at a

cost of $1, or, at the most $2. My right hon. friend, however, purposes spending $2,666,000 for a rifle which will not be used in war except under certain circumstances; which is not going to be sent to France or Belgium, where the fighting is going on- and he is going to continue purchasing this rifle for months to come. This is an absurd position for the Government to take, and the people will hold the Government responsible, not only for the kind of rifle that they have put into the hands of the soldiers, but also for the waste of money in purchasing rifles that are not going to be used. It is such a waste of money that the only thing that I can compare it with is the extravagance of this Government in everything connected with the war.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, the Government is in the position to-night of being attacked from the opposite side of the House because we authorized the substitution of Lee-En-field rifles for the Ross rifles too late, and as a result are blamable before the people of Canada-and, at the same time we are attacked by the ex-Minister of Militia because we authorized this substitution too soon. It is rather amusing to observe the efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite making their attack from one viewpoint with all the vigour in their power, watching the exMinister of Militia making his attack from the opposite viewpoint with the vigour that he is capable of, and at the same time struggling desperately to keep on sympathetic terms with the ex-Minister of Militia. I desire to assure the committee that between the two the members of the Government feel quite comfortable in the belief that the entire course pursued by the Administration with regard to rifles has been the right course; that the substitution was made at the right time, not too soon not too late, made at the only time when in the eyes of intelligent and impartial men we could justify it to the people of Canada.
I would not undertake on any occasion to discuss the comparative merits of the two rifles; no one is less capable of that discussion than I. We cannot be governed as members of the Administration by our own views of the comparative merits of the rifles; we must be governed by the views of those whose opinions are entitled to be the controlling factor in the decision of such a vital question. We have been governed by the views of those men; we have followed their views and the results have justified our decision.
If I may be allowed to make one remark as to what principle I think .should be followed an the matter of the selection of a .standard rifle for Canada it would be that we .should use the same rifle as is adopted as thte result of experience by Great Britain herself; that our rifle should be the same rifle as hers, and that the combined wisdom of the two countries should be at the back of whatever rifle is used. That has not been the case in Canada for many years, and those responsible for that not being the case are the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. They are the persons who, in 1902, undertook to establish a standard service arm for this country; who pinned the fate of this country in peace and war to that arm, and who did so in defiance of the judgment of the authorities in Great Britain. The Liberal Government of Canada entered into a contract on March 27, 1902, for the production of a rifle, in Canada of which they were to supply a standard sample to the Ross Rifle Company. They later established .a factory on the hill at Quebec and they made that selection in defiance of the advice of the officer commanding the troops in Canada, who informed them that in his judgment it was by no means a suitable place for the establishment of a rifle factory. Political considerations seemed to have governed them from the first, while military considerations were left altogether in the background. Before they went ahead they received a protest from the War Office of Great Britain against the adoption in this or in any part of the British Empire of a standard rifle differing from the standard rifle adopted by Great Britain herself. In defiance of that protest they went ahead, adopted a standard	rifle,	the	Ross rifle, Mark I, ,placed it	with	the Ross	rifle Company, and manufactured that rifle for some years. They .are the parties responsible for the adoption of that standard and for all the consequences that necessarily ensued, And, what consequences necessarily ensued? What consequences are attributable to the action of those who adopted this as the standard rifle of Canada?They later altered the type in some respects, maintaining the main principle, and they	called that	the Ross	rifle MarkII.	Later	they	altered it	again and
they called that the Ross rifle Mark II ***, and that was the rifle adopted by the late Government until shortly before they went out of office.

The hon. member for Edmonton (Hon. Frank Oliver) speaking, I know, not intentionally in the wrong, but utilizing an article which appeared about a month ago in the Toronto Globe, made himself responsible for the assertion that it was this Government which changed from the Mark II to the Mark III rifle.


Mr OLIVER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: He adheres to that still; he still Slings to the Globe article of January 6 last, scarcely a line of which could be properly described as anything less than loathesome mendacity. I purpose establishing what I say. I do not think that the hon. member for Edmonton even yet intends to make a statement that is wrong.


Frank Oliver: He does not.


Arthur Meighen: He does not? I happen to have the order in council here, right in front of me, which was passed by the late Administration, adopting the Mark III rifle. No more suitable time than now is likely to present itself for reading that. It is dated October 2, 1911. For the purpose of fitting the story to the necessity of the argument, the Globe has dated it in November, 1911; but, unfortunately for the Globe, the order in council is dated October 2, 1911. Now, perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton will a admit that he is wrong. Here is the order in council:
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and Defence, advise that an order for 10,000 rifles, for delivery during the calendar year, 1912, be given to the Ross Rifle Company, subject to. the provisions of the contract entered into with the company for the manufacture of rifles; and subject to the following further conditions:-
1.	That no payment on progress estimates be paid on account of said 10,000 rifles until the Parliamentary appropriation (for 1912-13 becomes available.
2.	That the pattern of the rifles to be supplied shall be that known as Mark III.
Was that adopting the Mark III rifle? There is no answer. I read from the order in council:
inasmuch, however, as this pattern has been adopted subject to final agreement on two minor points, viz.: the alteration of the gas vent and the extension of the wooden hand) guards for the backsight, any order to be given to the company shall be made subject to the final acceptance of these two features.


Frank Oliver: Oh.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that the alteration of the gas vent
I Mr. Meighen.]
and the extension of the wooden hand guards for the back sight make it a Mark IP*?


Frank Oliver: No.


Arthur Meighen: As the contract provides that notice of any order for the delivery of rifles during any calendar year should be given to the contractors not later than the 30th September next preceding the beginning of that year, the present recommendation is being made in advance of a final settlement of the two minor points above mentioned, in order to insure delivery of the rifles required during the calendar year 1912.
And this order in council is signed by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the original bears the autograph signature of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it not so that the order for Mark III rifles was placed by the Conservative Administration?


Arthur Meighen: Later orders were, but the first order is right there.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Is this not an order?
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and Defence, advised that an order for 10,000 rifles for delivery during the current year 1912 be given to the Ross Rifle Company-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is simply the ordinary notice. Was not that order placed by the Conservative Administration?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, the order was filled during our Administration. How could it have been otherwise? The hon. gentlemen were thrown out of power.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so.


Arthur Meighen: But they adopted the Ross rifle Mark III before they resigned office, and authorized the giving of an order for 10,000 of these rifles.


Frank Oliver: Authorized;


Arthur Meighen: Yes, authorized and *
more-


Frank Oliver: Yes, and who gave the order?


Arthur Meighen: The officers of the Militia Department. Who else?


Frank Oliver: Oh, no. There is a Minister of Militia, you know, in all Governments.


Samuel Hughes: Might I point out to the Solicitor General that I think this is piffle. There is no use beating around the bush. The Ross rifle Mark III was authorized by Sir Frederick Borden, if I remember aright, in December, 1910.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is quite right.


Samuel Hughes: I remember the
whole thing.


Arthur Meighen: I was seeing first how far these gentlemen would go. As a matter of fact, the notification to the Ross Rifle Company to readjust its factory to make Mark III rifles was served on the company by the Liberal Administration on December 28, 1910. It will be clear, of course, to every one that the hon. gentleman is still'quite right in the assertion that the late Government was. in no way committed to the Ross rifle Mark III.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman did not make that assertion.	,


Arthur Meighen: That you were not committed to the rifle?


Frank Oliver: No, not at all. That is the assertion my hon. friend made:


Arthur Meighen: I understood the hon. gentleman to say it, and when I asked him if he meant it he repeated that he did.


Frank Oliver: Oh well, my hon. friend is mistaken, that is all.


Arthur Meighen: So much for that. In this connection just to show the character of the criticism, just to show the length that newspapers and a certain militant section of hon. gentlemen opposite will go in order to make party capital out of a subject of this kind, let me say that after I made a short speech in Montreal sometime early in November last year in which I in no way attacked hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to this contract, in which I refrained from attack of any character and merely defended the present Administration against attacks1 which had been made, articles were sent broadcast throughout Canada under the pay of the Liberal party of this country to the effect that I had deceived the people of Montreal


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: -because I had told
them that the late Government had adopted the standard of rifle with which the soldiers of Canada went to the front in this war,
and they said this:	' This is a verv flimsy
excuse; the only rifle the late Government adopted was the Mark II**; it was not the Mark III which is a flimsy weapon-it was not the Mark III at all; that is the adoption of the Borden Government, asserted this article Mr. Meighen succeeded, one writer said, in mixing the babies. Where does the writer of that article, where do the newspapers that sent it throughout Canada stand in the face of the order in 'council with the signature of the late Prime Minister authorizing an order for Mark III rifles, and in face of the notification to adjust the factory to .make Mark III rifle served on the 28th day of December, 1910, or almost a year before they went out of office? I do not criticise even yet the late Administration for the change from the Mark II** to the Mark
III.	It was a perfectly proper change. Perfectly proper for why? For one thing, as I am informed by militia authorities-I do not know myself-the Mark VII ammunition, which became the ammunition of the British Empire, will not fit into the Mark II**, but it will fit into the Mark III. There may have been other reasons, I make so criticism against the adoption of the rifle But why deceive the people of this country and make false and mendacious attacks?


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.
Mr. MEIGHEN. It is said by hon, gentlemen opposite that this rifle of theirs was a fine target rifle and was a fine sporting rifle. Those are the words of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He says: That is all it was used for in our time and it worked very well for those purposes, and there our responsibilities end. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they did not surely adopt the Mark III as a sporting and target rifle. Was it to shoot buUseyes and partridges that we started the manufacture of these rifles at Quebec? They adopted it as a war rifle for the soldiers of Canada to use-for how long? To use in war until the time came when the proper authorities who should know best decided that there was a better rifle available. Is that common-sense or is it not? Is not that the proper time when the use of the rifle should cease? Is there any time earlier than that moment, when any Government would be justified in' discarding the national arm of Canada and reverting to another arm? The moment, I repeat was when those in authority who best knew advised this Government that there was a better rifle available for our troops.

For whatever loss, if there was any, I do not know because I was not there; the ex-Minister of Militia was there and he knows something about it-for such loss, if any, as resulted from the use of the Ross rifle more than would have resulted from the use of the Lee-Enfield up to the time when we were advised by responsible officers that a better rifle was available, hon. gentlemen opposite, and they alone, are responsible to the people of this country. When did that time come?
Perhaps before I enter upon this phase of my argument, I might revert to a few more of those attacks that have been made even to-night against the statement which I made,
I think about as innocent a statement as human breath could make, that we were bound by the contract which the Government of Canada solemnly entered into. Yes,
I did say in Montreal that we were bound by the contract of the late Administration, but I uttered a few more sentences right afterwards which are not quoted, whi-ch appeared in both the newspapers that reported the speech, but which are omitted designedly in order to give to the people of this country a false impression of what I said.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is on the point to-night when he says that even although there is a contract, you have power under the W ar Measures Act to break it, and you ought never to put a measure of damages against the lives of the soldiers of Canada. No one subscribes to that doctrine more heartily than I do. No one subscribed to it in more spedfie terms than I did in the very speech which I made in Montreal. In that speech I said this: although that contract existed, and although in honour we were bound to it, there was in relation to that contract, as there is in relation to every other civil contract, the alternative [DOT] f damages, an honourable alternative, and that if it had been possible for this Government to have got a better rifle to place in the hands of the troops of this country it would have been our duty to tear that contract in shreds and .pay our damages 'like men. I said that there, and I repeat it now.
But was there a rifle that we could get that was better? Was there a rifle that we could get at that time upon which those who ought to know best, and do know best, had planted the imprint of their approval? Nay, was there a rifle of any kind that we could get at all? If there was I would be glad to hear what it was and where it was. If there was not, was it our duty to keep the

Ross rifles, or was it not? I am not holding up a white flag. I am out here in the open.
I am ready to discuss this thing to the ground, so far as I am able, and if any hon. gentleman opposite believes that I am making an assertion that varies from the fact, or that he has information which goes to refute anything I say, he is welcome to give it to me now.
I repeat: when did the time come when we were in a position to assure the people of Canada that a more efficient rifle was available for the sons of this country at war? Did it come in 1915? I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, qo they think it did? Did it come in 1914? The hon. member for Edmonton says, "Oh, we heard stories from the front that the Ross rifle jammed, and you should have changed the rifle when you heard those stories." Does he repeat that now?


Frank Oliver: Sure.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we hear some strange recommendations from the hon. member for Edmonton. I will read a couple of them now, but before I Teafl the first I will say that I think there is a great deal of common sense in it. He was discussing the question of what authority we should take in the matter of a choice of rifle and equipment for this country for our soldiers, and here is where he said we might have got our authority. On page 451 of Hansard, February 2nd, 3 days ago, I find that the hon. member for Edmonton said:
X should be glad to back the Minister of Militia or any other member of the Government -perhaps I might except the ex-Minister of Militia-but I would be willing to back the members of the Government generally-against an equal number of men of equal rank in any other country. But it is not a question of the respective abilities of the men in control of our affairs and those in control of affairs in Great Britain. The men in control of affairs in Great Britain are the people who are running the thing ; it is their say; and if we are going to help to win the war, we must do it by helping them and not by going counter to their ideas. When it pleases them to require a rifle of a certain style, or equipment of a certain style, it is for us to provide that which will conform with their idea, so that we may work with them harmoniously.
Do not take the idea of some of the soldiers of Canada, but take the idea of the Government of Great Britain and their responsible officers-that was the advice given tb us by the hon. member for Edmonton on 2nd February. He goes on:
We may think that we have as good as they have or better; but so long as they are carrying the big end of the burden, if we are going to be successful in helping them we must co-operate

with them and not antagonize them by the equipment, munitions, or armament we bring forward.
That is a very good doctrine. It seems to me that that assertion very closely approaches the height of common sense. When we are fighting side by side with the soldiers of the Motherland, we are necessarily under the supreme direction of the military officers of the Mother Country. But the hon. member for Edmonton must admit that we get very different advice from some of his friends opposite, advice which he must admit that it is pretty hard to follow. Take the advice we got to-night from the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald). He scoffs at the idea of our bowing at all to the knowledge, of British officers, or of the British Government, or of anybody else outside of this country. That is very different advice indeed from that tendered by the hon. member (Mr. Oliver). We also got very different advice the other night, which I will read now. Here is some more advice that we got on the 2nd February last:
The exigencies of the case were such that it was the business of the Government of Canada to follow events on the battlefield so that on their responsibility, and not on that of British officers, they -would be sure that our men had, or had not, in their hands a rifle that was absolutely efficient. X absolutely protest against the responsibility being placed on any other shoulders than those of our own military department, who are charged on our behalf with seeing that our troops are efficient, and that their armament is efficient. It is not the responsibility of the British Government; it is the responsibility of our Government; and when, after experience had shown that the rifle was inefficient, not on the authority of Sir John French, but on the experience of our own men who threw it away, there was no escape from the responsibility of the Government to see that that rifle was re-[DOT] placed as soon as it could be.
Very different advice indeed is that we get from hon. gentlemen opposite, diametrically opposed advice, and it is very difficult for the Government to follow it when hon. gentlemen opposite cannot agree among themselves.
An hon. GENTLEMEN: Who said that?


Arthur Meighen: Who is the author of this? It is the very same gentleman who was the author of the first statement I read, and just ten minutes after he had given us the first, he gives us this advice, which is diametrically opposite. The hon. gentleman is not so skillful as his leader. His leader very often gets on opposite poles, and enunciates doctrines that are violently opposed to each other, -but he
takes care that at least some distance of geography intervenes between the one point of delivery and the other, or if he can get no distance in geography, he manages to get some distance in time. Such, Sir, is the advice of hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the authority that we should adopt.
I ask again, when did we get such authority as would enable this Government to have discarded the Ross rifle the national arm of this country, and to have accepted the Lee-Enfield? When did we get such authority as would justify our position before reasonable men? Did we get it in 1914, and if so where did we get it from? Did we get it in 1915, and if so what was that authority? Where is the responsible official whose authority we should accept who made a single statement in the year 1915 condemnatory of the Ross rifle? Where is the responsible official whose authority we should listen to for a moment, who advised or recommended the Government to make the change from the Ross rifle to the Lee-Enfield in 1915? The hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) laughs. He knows there is no such authority. He knows there is nothing on the record and nothing in existence that would have justified this Government in abandoning the Ross rifle in 1915. I ask him, does he not know that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not following my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That may be a very safe position to take.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If I have to say anything about my hon. friend's remarks, I will s-ay it when he is through. He is very fond of carrying on a .conversational discussion all around the House. That is not proper debating.


Arthur Meighen: We are in committee, it is proper debating. Hon. gentlemen opposite think it is not .proper becanse they do not permit interruptions themselves. I ask him again, if in 1915 there was any recommendation made on the authority of any official or any one else whose .authority we ought to accept, that would have justified us in abandoning the Ross rifle for the Lee-Enfield. He heard that, but he won't answer. He knows there was not one. He won't answer because he, himself on the 5th of May 1910, stood up in this House and stated that the Ross rifle we had then was a good rifle, and we ought to keep it. The hon. member for Pietou heard those reports from tha



front about the jamming of the Boss rifle in the spring of 1915, and he doubtless heard reports about the jamming of the Lee-Enfield too. He heard reports from soldiers who much preferred the Lee-En-field to the Ross, and I think he must have heard reports from many others who preferred the Boss to the Lee-Enfield. I heard both, myself, and for the life of me, I could not tell from those reports where the balance o| merit lay. That was the position in 1915. On the 19th of June 1915, Sir John French wrote to the War Office that there were soldiers in the First Division who had lost confidence in the Ross rifle. And why? Because the Ross rifle had jammed with a bad brand of British ammunition. Sir John French made no other criticism whatever of the national arm of Canada. Now who is the hon. gentleman who will say, that when that report came to this Government we would have been justified in lightly throwing away the national arm of this country for another rifle, even had such another rifle been available anywhere in the world?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman mentioned Sir John French's report. Does Sir John French in that report say that the jamming was caused by a bad brand of British ammunition?


Arthur Meighen: It was caused by bad British ammunition, and the committee which he refers to in his letter states that it was Brand B 1915 ammunition, and that brand only, which caused special jamming in the Ross rifle.


Frank Oliver: Why has not that information been laid on the table of the House?


Arthur Meighen: It has been. It was put on Hansard by the Prime Minister himself. That is what I object to in hon. gentlemen opposite. Instead of studying the facts first, they make their speeches first and study the facts afterwards.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not hear my hon. friend's answer to my question whether Sir John French says in his report that the jamming was caused by a bad 'brand of British ammunition.


Arthur Meighen: He says the jamming was caused with British ammunition. At all events, it was bad for the Ross rifle.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. minister puts that part in himself.


Arthur Meighen: I may infeT that it is
bad if it jams in rifles that were properly

made, and the Ross rifles were properly made. I do not know whether Sir John French uses the word " bad " himself or not. At all events, the ammunition was defective, and it has been reported on as defective. Sir John French reports that the jamming was on account of the ammunition.


William Pugsley: He does not say it was defective.


Arthur Meighen: Yes he does. His report is on Hansard, page 417, and says:- Looking:
(1)	To the unanimous opinion of my Committee that the Ross rifle could not be relied upon to work smoothly and efficiently in rapid fire with any ammunition other than that of Canadian manufacture;
(2)	to the fact that no ammunition of this nature was available in this country and that sufficient supplies could not be obtained from England, and,
(3)	to the want of confidence in the rifle which a large number of the infantry evidently felt, as evidenced by the fact that over 3,000 had, without authority, exchanged their rifles for those used by their British comrades, and taken from casualties on the battlefield.


William Pugsley: I should like to know why these rifles were sent to England without suitable ammunition.


Arthur Meighen: Suitable ammunition
was sent.


William Pugsley: Sir John French says not.


Arthur Meighen: This other ammunition got in. I understand that, at that time, the ammunition was pooled.


William Pugsley: I am quoting from Sir John French's report:-
(1)	To the unanimous opinion of my Committee that the Ross rifle could not be relied upon to work smoothly and efficiently in rapid tire with any ammunition other than than of Canadian manufacture;
(2)	to the fact that no ammunition of this nature was available in this country, and that sufficient supplies could not be obtained from England1.
I want to know why these rifles were sent to England without sufficient ammunition suitable for the purpose being sent.


Arthur Meighen: We first of all want to know whether that is >a fact.


William Pugsley: Sir John French says it is.


Arthur Meighen: No, he does not. On June 12 when Sir John French re-armed the Third Division with Lee-Enfields, there was not at that time available sufficient Canadian ammunition. The ex-minister can answer that better than I, but I think it

was because a plan had been adopted at that time of pooling the ammunition, and as a consequence it was inevitable that some British ammunition should get to our men. Everybody had assumed that the British ammunition and ours were identical. That was the principle of manufacture, and there was no reason for not pooling ammunition, but as soon as it was found there was a make of British ammunition which did not work smoothly in the Ross rifle, from that day other ammunition was provided, vand I have a letter here from the War Office to the effect that it would not be necessary to change the Ross rifle in the hands of other troops, because there was sufficient Canadian ammunition on hand.


Samuel Hughes: One would infer
from my hon. friend's remarks there was only one brand of British ammunition that was bad, whereas there were three distinct brands of British ammunition that jammed in both the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield, and one brand of American ammunition. The brass cartridge case was too much annealed and clung to the chamber of the Ross rifle. That ammunition was supposed to be taken out, and was taken out so far as the Lee-Enfields and our First Division are concerned. But when the Second Division went over with the Ross rifle, as many as 5,000 rounds of this defective ammunition got mixed up with the good ammunition in the Canadian service. That is one point that I think should be positively enquired into.


William Pugsley: Who was responsible for that?


Samuel Hughes: It was issued by an Ordnance Officer, a gentleman whose removal I asked for long ago.


William Pugsley: A Canadian officer?
/


Samuel Hughes: No.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Sir John French's report contains this statement, which of itself stood as a barrier, and in view of which no Canadian Government would have been justified in abandoning the national arm of this country:
7. In conclusion, I would observe that in my reports I have never condemned the Ross rifle, nor have I any sufficient data to justify me in doing so.
Now, if Sir John French had. not sufficient data on the 19th day of June, 1915, how did the hon. member for Assiniboia have that data, because he said that we had
32J
sufficient information in Canada in May 1915, to abandon the Ross rifle?


William Pugsley: Will the Solicitor
General read the next six lines of the Report?


Arthur Meighen: Wait until we get
through with this. We are now through, as there is no answer from the hon. member for Assiniboia.


John Gillanders Turriff: Let my hon. friend sit down first.


Frank Oliver: The Solicitor General
need not get impatient.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend
want me to sit down?


John Gillanders Turriff: Prior to that date the
First Division had given up the Ross rifle and had been re-armed with the Lee-Enfield.


Arthur Meighen: We all know that. The hon. gentleman has missed the point altogether.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is sufficient.


Arthur Meighen: In May, 1915, my
'hon. friend says we had evidence enough on, which to abandon the Ross rifle. Sir 'John French eays that on 'the 19th day of June, 1915, he did not have sufficient evidence to condemn the Ross rifle. He knew all about the Canadian soldiers picking up the Lee-Enfield rifles, but that was not sufficient for him to condemn the Ross rifle. How is it sufficient for the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Edmonton to condemn the Ross rifle?


John Gillanders Turriff: My answer is that if the fact that 3,000 Canadian soldiers, men of the class that we sent overseas, threw down their rifles as being unfit and unsatisfactory for them to wage an even fight, is not sufficient justification for changing the rifle, *why is the Government getting a new rifle to-day?


Arthur Meighen: Because we have justification since. I repeat to my hon. friend that Sir John French knew all about the
8,000	Canadian soldiers picking up the Lee-Er field rifles. That is stated in his report, and he knew all about that at first nand; he saw it. How is it that that was not sufficient to justify him in condemning the rifle, and yet it is sufficient for the hon. member for Assiniboia? Does he know better than Sir John French? Does he know better than the "man called French" referred to in history by the hon. member for Carleton?


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend is hiding behind General French.


Arthur Meighen: On a matter of rifles,
I would prefer to hide behind French rather than'behind the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. CARVELL:: As my hon. friend refers to me, I may say that I was sitting here trying to behave, but if he wants me to get into this thing, I am always ready. Will the Solicitor General read the report of the Committee upon which Sir John French based his report? It will be found on page 430 of Hansard. If he will do that, he will find that in the second column this committee is reported as stating:
The committee were practically unanimous in advising that the Ross rifle should be employed on the lines ot communication, and that if possible, the Canadian troops should be armed with the British rifle.


Arthur Meighen: What is in the paragraph before that? Just let me read that; It is not inconsistent with this paragraph.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Those are the facts.


Arthur Meighen: The paragraph reads:
A unanimous opinion was expressed that the Canadian manufactured D.A.C. 1914, Mk. VII ammunition only, of those tried, was suitable fdr rapid fire with the Ross rifle, that provided a sufficient supply of Canadian manufactured ammunition of this type could be supplied, the other defects apparent were not sufficient to condemn the Ross rifle in view of the present shortage of rifles generally, and that those types of British-made ammunition which were tried should not be issued to troops armed with the Ross rifle.
They say:	For the present the proper
thing is to produce Ross rifles, and that they are all right with Canadian ammunition.


Frank Oliver: Where do they say that'


Arthur Meighen: In one paragraph.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ross rifles?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Read the paragraph
again.


Arthur Meighen: A unanimous opinion was expressed that the Canadian manufactured D.A.C. 1914, Mark VII ammunition only, of those tried, was suitable for rapid fire with the Ross rifle, that provided a sufficient supply of Canadian manufactured ammunition of this type could be supplied, the other defects apparent were not sufficient to condemn the Ross rifle in view of the present shortage of rifles generally.
' Why are you to discontinue manufacturing rifles when there is a shortage and when the rifle has not been condemned?


Frank Oliver: Go ahead.


Arthur Meighen: And that those types of British made ammunition which were tried should not he issued to troops armed with the Ross rifle.
The committee were practically unanimous in advising that the Ross rifle should he employed on the lines of [DOT]communication, and that if possible, the Canadian troops should be armed with the British rifle.
But they say it is impossible. Now let me ask the ibom. member for Edmonton- Sir John French bad that report before him when he wrote his letter of the 19th day of June, and having that report, he said: "I have not sufficient data to condemn the Ross rifle." How is the data sufficient for the hon. member for Edmonton to condemn the rifle?


Frank Oliver: It was sufficient to make Sir John French disarm the Canadian soldiers.


Samuel Hughes: Is that report
signed?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Will the bon. gentleman kindly read the signature? Does it give any comparative test between the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield-any test, not hearsay? I can tell you there was no test made between the two rifles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The report says: "The following tests were carried out."


Frank Oliver: The ex-minister had better settle that with the Solicitor General.


Samuel Hughes: 
Arthur Meighen: The signatures are:
C. M. Mathew, Colonel, D.D.O.S., G.H.Q.
C. R. Woodroffe, Lieut.-General, A.Q.M.G.
H. Guest, Major G.S.
C. D. Baker Carr, Major,
Commandant Machine Gun School.
T. Burchall Wood, Colonel,
A.A. and Q.M.G. 1st Canadian Division.
J.	A. Murray, Lieut.-Colonel,
D.O.O. 1st Canadian Division.
W. H. McNeil Campbell, Captain R.A.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to make one suggestion which I am sure would settle the whole matter. There are in Canada plenty of men who are experts with the Ross rifle and plenty who are experts with the Lee-JSnfield rifle. There is plenty of the defective ammunition of the three brands and plenty of good ammunition. I would suggest that the following test be made: Let one dozen experts with the Ross rifle and one dozen experts with the Lee-Enfield

rifle test out the two. rifles with good ammunition, and with bad ammunition; and if the Ross rifle does not win out in every test, then, as I said before, I am willing to swallow the two rifles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a sporting offer.


William Pugsley: This is a question which I have been trying to have answered toy the Solicitor General, but I have been unsuccessful. How does the ex-Minister of Militia account.for this statement made toy Sir John French, which will toe found on page 418 of the Unrevised Hansard:
I have expressed and acted on my opinion, that, so far as X can judge, the ammunition of British manufacture is not suitable for use with the Ross rifles and that there is a large and growing feeling of want of confidence in their rifle on the' part of the men in the Canadian Division, which is amply justified by the report of the committee.	[DOT]
How does my hon. friend explain that?


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. member for St. John had been paying the slightest vestige of .attention to my remarks he would understand what I tried to impress upon him when I was speaking-long before that report was made, early in April, I knew it here; I had copies of the circulars that were being sent out and that wore designed to cause want of confidence on the part of the men in the Ross- rifles. The ten suggestions embodied in that report were skillfully passed around amongst the soldiers in an endeavour to create amongst them a want of confidence in the rifles they were using. They were written on bits of paper to imitate typewriting.


William Pugsley: Will the ex-minister say who did that?


Samuel Hughes: How could I know? I was not on the ground. They picked them np on the road-anywhere.	There
was evidence of intention in this matter. Otherwise, how were these ten points embodied in the report of the distinguished officers when they came to make a deliverance on the subject? How did these officers happen on these very tan points? And the man among them who was best posted on the subject of rifles was Col. Kerr.


William Pugsley: I desire to ask one other question.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: Just one other question, and then I will stop. Were the hon. gentleman and his colleagues aware that in the
report of Sir Johp French, in June, 1916, that officer said:
There is a large and! growing feeling of want of confidence in their rifle on the part of the men in the Canadian Division, which is amply justified by the report of the committee.


Samuel Hughes: I assume that the hon. gentleman is quoting enough to show the tenor and is not taking a part away from its context in a way that would change its meaning. I got the report, but paid no attention to it so far as believing it was concerned, because I knew it was nonsense, that it reflected' prejudice as created by the circulars which had been sent out with the intention of creating it. But, as I told the Prime Minister .at the time, rather than have men in service go into action with rifles in which they had no confidence, even though I knew that rifle to be better than the other ones, and knew that tlhe want of confidence was due to what had been drummed into them. I would accede to the making of a change.


William Pugsley: When was that done?


Samuel Hughes: The data before the Committee will show that.


Arthur Meighen: It is sufficient to know that the Commander of the British forces in1 France, upon whom the responsibility rested had before him this whole report, ordered and authorized by himself, and in the presence of that report he not only refused to condemn the rifle but stated that he had not sufficient data upon which to condemn it. There was the further fact that in Canada we were not in a position to produce any other rifle.
As to the ammunition, I wish to read from a letter of the 15th July from the War Office to the ex-Mlnister of Militia. It is specially important in view of the argument of the hon. member for Edmonton. The letter is marked " secret," but this portion it can d>o no. harm to read:
I am to say that no action is proposed regarding the Second Canadian Division, as it is understood that a sufficient supply of ammunition of Canadian manufacture is available in this country, in the Canadian ordnance depot, to complete the equipment of the division and maintain it in the field for a considerable time.
Who is the man who would say that in the face of this document and of the position taken by the commander of the British forces in France we should lightly abandon the chosen arm of this country and start out to make a different one? I do not think that any man who wishes to he fair, or who
I


William Pugsley: Who ever suggested that the Government was not bound?'


Arthur Meighen: Was not I asked to explain what I meant when I said that the Government was bound by this contract?
I have been challenged to-night by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to say what I meant by the statement that we were bound by a contract solemnly entered into.
I was similarly challenged in the debate on the Address. I was challenged by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), a member of the late Administration, to explain to Parliament and the country what I meant by uttering the plain, simple, obvious truth, that we were bound by a solemn contract. It is true we could break it on penalty of damages. But does that say we were not bound? And the hon. gentleman saye now that *theTe should be no one eo simple as to question the assertion that we were bound-


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman refers to me, what I said was that, if in the interests of the country and in order to supply our soldiers with a suitable rifle, it was necessary to make a change, this Government had complete power, particularly under the War Measures Act, to make the change, and even to take charge of the factory.,


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly, I made the same statement, and I made it in Montreal also. Certainly, if we had power, we would have done it and paid the damages rather than put an inferior weapon into the hands of our troops, if we had available a better weapon. But would the hon. gentleman even hint that on that account we were not bound by the contract? Of course we -were bound by the contract.


William Pugsley: Bound by a contract which you could easily put an end to?


Arthur Meighen: The same as any other contract. If we were not bound by that contract, no government and no individual ever was bound by any.


Frank Oliver: Will the minister allow me to ask him a question?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Did the contract with the Ross Rifle Company bind the Government to the making of an inefficient rifle?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman consider that a question?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to answer it?


Arthur Meighen: It bound the Government to every term of the contract-and that is what I asserted in Montreal. Nobody would for a moment suggest that we would make'an inefficient rifle if we could make a better one and put it in the hands of our troops in time.


Frank Oliver: What I am asking the minister is this: did the contract bind the Government to compel the Ross Rifle Company to make an inefficient rifle?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for ' Edmonton knows-I am sorry to say it to him, because I have respect for him that his question is simply nonsense.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Arthur Meighen: The contract speaks for itself, and to its terms we were bound.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I asked him a fair question. I ask him now either for a fair answer or a civil refusal.


Arthur Meighen: It binds us to make the rifle that for the time being is the standard rifle. No government in the world would make that standard rifle a day longer than it could help, no matter what the damages were, if they could make a better rifle and get it to the troops in time.


Frank Oliver: Does not the contract permit the Government to change the form of the rifle at its pleasure?


Arthur Meighen: With a year's notice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have changes not been made by the Ross Rifle Company since the beginning of the war on one month s or two months' notice?
Mr. MEIGHEN- Trifling changes, like the weight of a nose band or something like that-never a change in the type. The hon. member for Carleton stated that he would take the word of the man who runs the factory, irrespective altogether of other authorities. He made that statement in the House, and I have it before me. Let me on this occasion, without at all reflecting on the ability of Sir Charles Ross or the good faith of his company, say this: there was an order once before to change the type of the rifle. A year is all that is allowed by the contract within which to make such a change. What time was taken the last time the type of the rifle was changed? Notice was served op the company on December 28, 1910, and the first rifles of the new pattern were delivered in November, 1912, nearly, 23 months afterwards. Something intervened-I am not saying it was the fault of the company. They in the meantime produced some other rifles; they kept their hands busy. But you cannot always depend upon prognostications, particularly on the part of men whose enthusiasm for the rifle, and, perhaps, for their factory, honestly influences their judgment. The hon. member for Carleton observed that the Prime Minister had quoted the authority of a letter signed by Sir George Perley that in the opinion of, as he decribed it, " some official " over in England, that factory could not produce rifles of a new pattern in quantities within two years. Not only was a year necessary, but in the judgment of " some official," to use the graphic language of the hon. member for Carleton, two years were necessary. He said we were taking the judgment of " some _ official " instead of the judgment of the man who owned the factory. Well, as the Prime Minister pointed out, we are doing nothing of the kind, we are taking all, and making the best decision that we can. But who is this "some official"? He was the Minister of Munitions of the British Government qf that day. The Minister of Munitions of the British Government was referred to as " some official," and the hon. member for Carleton said that in his judgment this " some official " was incompetent and that the Primp Minister should be severely castigated for listening to him at all. That is the way the hon. member for Carleton would have us obey the behest of the hon. member for Edmonton-to comply in every case with the judgment of the British Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the interpretation which you put upon my words.


Arthur Meighen: We had better read the words. What was the date of my hon. friend's speech?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: February 2, I think.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give me the page?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not remember making any such statement. You will find it on page 445.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, here it is:
About the possibility of converting the Boss factory inside of two years in order to make rifles of a new type. He-
That is, the Prime Minister.

*-lias given us a statement by some official in England who has some doubts about our ability to convert this factory in two years.
Then further on, he says:
I think that that man, whoever he may be, is incompetent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not a fair reading. Go back four or five lines.


Arthur Meighen: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is there any high treason about that?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that it was high treason. The hon. gentleman said that he did not use the words; I have given not only the words, but his reasons for using them, and all I have to say is that his reasons were just as weak as his assertions.
Either we are bound by the contract or we are not. If hon. gentleman opposite can procure our release from it, we will release the other party to the contract any time at all. If hon. gentlemen opposite can procure the abandonment of the rights of the contractor by one jot or tittle, we will welcome anything whatever, but in the meantime-


William Pugsley: Parliament has given
the Government authority to do that, under the War Measures Act.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
St. John City would like to come to the rescue of those people who attacked me for making the simple assertion that we were bound by the contract. He has said that he would not suggest that we were not bound by it; let me, therefore, deal with those who castigate me for saying that we are.


William Pugsley: What seems to me to be extraordinary is that my hon. friend tonight has set up a plea by way of confession of the negligence of himself and his friends, but he avoids the point by saying 
that there is a contract here which bound them, lhat is the whole object my hon. friend had in view.


Arthur Meighen: What I say is that the contract binds both parties.


William Pugsley: But when the war broke out Parliament gave to this Government the authority to take any step of any kind or description which it might think necessary for the more efficient carrying on of the war.


Arthur Meighen: Haven't I repeated that over and over again.


William Pugsley: Then what is the use of repeating that argument tfiat the Government was bound?


Arthur Meighen: The fact that we have power to break a contract does not say that we were not bound by it. The Government might break any contract; we did not need any War Measures Act for that.


William Pugsley: That is what Parliament gave the power for.


Arthur Meighen: We might break it under penalty of damages as any individual can do. But I repeat that if we were not bound by this contract, no person, no Government, no individual, no company was ever bound by any contract in the history of the world.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister allow me to ask him a question? I am following the hon. gentleman very closely.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman wait until I am through?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I caught you too badly before.


Arthur Meighen: Then catch me again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister say that the existence of a contract such as this would justify the Government in continuing to accept inefficient arms?


Arthur Meighen: I told the hon. gentleman twenty times that it never would, and we never would have felt we should continue an inefficient arm or any arm if we could get a better one.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then why talk about
the existence of the contract at all?


Arthur Meighen: Because the hon. gentleman sitting beside my hon. friend challenged me to do so, and dared me to substantiate the statements I made - in Mon-

treal. That is none too strong and none too sound a reason, but it is the only reason I have; it is because I am challenged to do so by hon. gentlemen opposite who do not know any better. We would not have been justified in continuing the manufacture of this or any other rifle had we been able in sufficient time to get a rifle that we knew on sufficient authority was a better rifle to use. That is surely sufficient for the hon. member for St. John. Were we in a position to produce another rifle? Was a year's notice necessary? "Oh," he says, "they never would have taken all that time." I have shown that they took twenty-three months in 1910 and 1911. Was a year's notice necessary? If it was not, what is the plight of hon. gentlemen opposite? If a year's notice was not necessary why did hon. gentlemen opposite provide for a year's notice and put it in the power of the contractor to exact it? If it was not neces'-sary, why did the hon. gentlemen give the contractor power to exact this notice if less time was sufficient? There is no answer- and there cannot be an answer.
The British Government tell us that in theiT judgment two year's time is necessary. " Oh," say some hon. gentlemen opposite, " the British Government have told you that they will supply you with jigs, tools and gauges," .and on that they argue that very little time would be required. Do they not observe that in the very letters, in which the British Government advises that two years would be necessary, they offer to supply these jigs, tools >and gauges? In the same letter in which the British Government offer to give jigs, tools and gauges they offer plans and drawings, etc., and they warn us that we cannot expect substantial deliveries under two years. They may be right or they may be wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After receiving that letter, did the Government or any official go to Sir Charles Ross or any other member of his company and ask them in what time they wpuld 'be willing or able to produce the Lee-Enfield rifle?


Arthur Meighen: Sir Charles Ross often said he could do it in less than a year. We did not ask him, he kept telling us.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did you go to him?


Arthur Meighen: He came to us. But will any hon. gentleman, on his responsibility as a member, say that we should have taken the unsupported word of a contractor who himself is to make the goods, and who is anxious for an order, and honestly so, that we should take that and have no regard whatever to other authorities even the authority of the British Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But did you ever go to Sir Charles Ross and ask him hpw long, in his judgment, it would take to convert his plant to manufacture Lee-Enfield rifles, 10,000 or 20,000, or any quantity?


Arthur Meighen: I have said that Sir Charles Ross told us without our going to him:


William Pugsley: In what time, and what did he say?


Arthur Meighen: My recollection is that he stated seven or eight months.


Samuel Hughes: That is when he
was supplied with the jigs and gauges.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is my recollection of his conversation. -


George Perry Graham: That is when he was
supplied with the equipment?


Arthur Meighen: Suppose he said two months, and suppose he was honest in his statement-and I have no reason to question his bona fi'des. Who is the hon. gentleman who will say that we should have no regard for the opinion of the British Government in this matter, especially when th-ur opinion is hacked by their practice 'in Great Britain in this very hour? They know in Great Britain, iat least they have expressed the opinion, that the Enfield .276 is an improvement on the Lee-Enfield which they themselves are producing and using. But they do not change their factories, they do not re-equip their factories to produce the better rifle. Why? Because they know that time, and a long time, would be taken, and that time is the lives of soldiers and that there is no time to spare. That is why they do not re-equip, and that is why they advise us: " Re-equip if you will, but be sure and consider that time will be lost." And we, in our determination of what to do, have regard not only to the judgment of Sir Charles Ross, hut to the judgment of the British Government, hacked up by the practice of the British Government itself. That is our position in relation to that question.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman say just whi.t the decision of this Government has been in regard to this Ross rifle?


Arthur Meighen: The Government, in this question, has reached precisely the point clearly defined by the Prime Minister.

The Government has not decided what order to give or whether any order should! be given.
Mr. MARCH.: They have decided to let the Ross factory continue to operate in Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: They have decided that it shall be re-equipped and adjusted to produce the Enfield .276, and notice has been given accordingly. That notice was given on the first day it was possible to do so, that is on the first day when it was possible to secure a standard sample certified by the inspector of small arais in Great Britain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has it also given an
order for any rifles?


Arthur Meighen: I said it has not. We have not yet received the drawings and specifications essential before any further progress on our part can be made. Ever since we received the report and decision of Sir Douglas Haig, we have made every endeavour to put ourselves in a position to make progress, and we have made the fastest progress in our power.
Now then, after the French report, what next occurred? The next thing that occurred was that on the 12th day of May, 1916, a communication was sent, I think it was directed to the ex-Minister of Militia, by Sir Max Aitken, to the effect that a serious situation existed with regard to the Ross lifle, and Sir Max Aitken asked him to show that cablegram to the Prime Min ister. The ex-Minister did as requested, liiat was on the 12th of May.


Frank Oliver: 
Arthur Meighen: 
Samuel Hughes: Did the Prime Minister not also ask the British officers, I think Sir Douglas Haig, for a comparative test?


Arthur Meighen: That is true. Practically the same cablegram that was sent placing it in the hands of Sir Douglas Haig was sent, I think, to Sir Wm. Robertson, and that cablegram asked that after tests under war conditions had been made, the question as to what rifle should be used should be decided by Sir Douglas Haig, and stated that by his decision, whatever it was, we would abide. If the test had (been made, well and good. Sir Douglas Haig took the position on 28th May, 1916, that in his judgment the tests already made were sufficient, and by a letter of that date he advised not us, but the War Office in London, that in his judgment it would be better to arm the troops of Canada with the Lee-Enfleld rifle. That was done in a letter of the 28th May, and it was confirmed in another letter of the 21st June. As a result, the War Office in London by ia communication of the 3rd July following sent to Si.r George Perley who transmitted it to us, expressed the opinion that Sir Douglas Haig's action had been correct, that having been given authority, he had taken it and had .asked our troops be armed with the Lee-Enfleld rifle, and that the Small Arms Committe confirmed that decision.. From that time on, we were in accord; the two Governments and the commander in chief of the forces were in accord that the troops of Canada should toe armed with the Lee-Emfield rifle.


Samuel Hughes: There is just one point that I desire to impress upon the House, and that is that the Prime Minister asked that a competitive test between the two rifles should be made under war conditions; he asked that the best possible test should be made. There was no competitive
test, and there never has been a competitive test made officially by the British Government of these two rifles. I am merely emphasizing my own position. There has been no competitive test. The test referred to by Sir Douglas Haig was a test in which there was no competition at all. The point I am trying to bring out is that a competitive test was not carried out. If it had been, the Ross rifle would have come out ahead.


Arthur Meighen: That correspondence
reached this Government some time in July. I do not remember the exact date. The decision of Sir Douglas Haig was put into effect, he being of the opinion that the tests, *whatever (they had been, were sufficient. He being of that opinion, armed the troops of Canada with the Lee-Enfleld rifle, and thereafter the Ross rifle was not used except, I believe, for special purposes at the front. It must be noted that even at that time Sir Douglas Haig stated that the situation in regard to the Third Division did not apply to the Second Division; in other words, that the complaints which had come from the Third Division had not come from the Second; but his judgment having been made supreme by the action of this Government he decided it was better *all things considered., to adopt the Lee-Ein-fleld. It was adopted then and there, and adopted with our authority. There was no earlier time when we could possibly justify the abandonment of our rifle than the date of the letter of the War Office to Sir George Perley, transmitted to us, and now, I am quite certain, on the table of the House, stating that the situation had changed, and that they, the War Office of Great Britain, assumed the responsibility from that date on of providing the troops of Canada with Lee-Enfields. Until that time they had not undertaken to do so. They had advised us before that that they would not be able to do so, hut the situation had improved in the meantime, and they stated that they were able to do so in July. That being the judgment of Sir Douglas Haig, this Government acquiesced. Indeed, we were the first of the two Governments to say that if Sir Douglas Haig was of opinion that the Lee-Enfleld was better for our troops under all the circumstances, the Lee-Enfleld they should have.
From that time on, the situation, as it confronted the Government of Canada, was altered. Up to that time it was not a *question of the commercial advantage to 'this country at all. It was a question of get-

ting the -best weapon we could put our hands on for the use of our troops at the front. From that time on, namely, from July, when we were advised that the British Government were able to take care of the arming of the Canadian troops with Lee-Enfield rifles, the situation ceased to have the serious aspect it had previously assumed, and it never has assumed the same aspect since. From that time on, it was practically a commercial question, and nothing else. We wanted to produce our rifles, all the rifles we could produce, not because our troops, would otherwise be unarmed but because it was part of the policy of this country to make in this country as much as possible of what this, country used.
In this connection I desire to refer to a speech of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy). In the remarks which he addressed to the House on 29th January last, he used the following words:
No til with.standing' General Haig's statement of the urgency of the case and its approval by the Army Council, which offered to supply Eee-Enflelds, and which requested that no more Ross rifles be brought to England, it was not until August 30, 1916, more than thirteen months after General French's report and sixteen months after the failure of the rifle had been demonstrated at the battle of St. Julien, that the Government of Canada finally gave its consent to the British War Office supplying Lee-Enfields to the second and third Canadian divisions, and expressed the hope that no rearming had been done without their knowledge.
Now I have quoted correctly from the speech of the hon. member; that not until August 30, 1916, did the 'Government of Canada give its consent to the British War Office arming our troops with the Lee-Enfield, and that even then we expressed the hope that it had not been done without our approval. Does the hon. gentleman think that that was quite fair? Does he think it was a correct-I will not use a stronger term-way of stating the contents of the telegram of August 30, 1916? This Government authorized the change on the 15th of May 1916, in a cablegram to Sir Douglas Haig, providing be thought the charge wias in the best interest of our troops. We -authorized it then and no further approval was necessary. We authorized it to he done -and it -was done. A month before the 30th of August our troops were armed with the Lee-Enfields.


William Pugsley: Where does that appear?


Arthur Meighen: In the cablegram of the Prime Minister stating we would abide by the judgment of Sir Douglas Haig.


William Pugsley: It is not in Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is right in the file. The cablegram was to Mr. Bonar Law. Secretary of State for the Colonies and it was forwarded at once to the General Officer Commanding at the front.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says the cable was sent on the 15th of May. That was a cablegram to Sir Max Aitken. I should like to know the position Sir Max Aitken occupied in relation to this Government and the British Government.


Samuel Hughes: He was appointed by Order in Council, general representative for Canada at the front, and he fulfilled his duties perfectly.


William Pugsley: I thought he was an Intelligence Officer, an eye-witness.


Arthur Meighen: The Cablegram was sent to Sir Douglas Haig through the instrumentality of Sir Max Aitken. Sir Max Aitken had conveyed the other information to us, and 'as a 'consequence this cable went back through the same channel. It is in effect a cable to Sir Douglas Haig, and is supplemented by another cablegram on June 5, in which, practically word for word, the same Information was placed before Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial Staff in Great Britain. So that our authority, if Sir Douglas Haig thought it best, -was given on the 15th of May, 1916, and could have been given no sooner.
What was the cablegram of August 30, to which the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) referred as being the first approval on the part of the Government of Canada of the change to the Lee-Enfieid? It is a cablegram from the Governor General to the Colonial Secretary, as follows:-
In pursuance of your cable message of July 11, my advisers announced that Canadian troops at front would in future be armed with Lee-Enfleld rifles.
That is, we announced, in pursuance of the cable of July 11, that our troops would be so armed. The cable continues:-
They are confident that no departure from this decision has been made without their knowledge, but they desire to he informed as to report which has reached them that Fourth Canadian Division was armed with Ross rifles when recently despatched to France.
Now, hon. gentlemen have the cablegram in which we stated that on the authority of the cablegram from the British Government we had long ago announced that our troops hereafter would be armed with Lee-Enfield,.

and we say that notwithstanding that, we have heard a report- that the Fonrth Division have been sent to the front anned with Ross rifles, and we want to know if that has been done without our approval. And the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) tells this House that this was the first time we had approved of our troops being armed with the Lee-Enfield-the very opposite of the cable.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is there a cablegram on the file dated May 15? I do not find it in Hansard.	.


Arthur Meighen: I was talking of the cablegram of August 30. The cablegram of the 15th of May was from the Prime Minister to Sir Max Aitken, for transmission to Sir Douglas Haig. Thlat is the situation. From that day we have made every endeavour to procure the rifle -and the drawings and -specifications. First of all, we had to procure from the British Government a statement as to what rifle in their judgment would be the rifle 'to be used after the war, what rifle it was best that we should make, having regard to the future. We got that information, and as soon as we got it we immediately proceeded to put ourselves in a position to serve notice on the Ross Rifle Company to -adjust their factory to make the rifle -so recommended, -and we have not lost a day or an hour -since. We have pressed the British Government insistently. No doubt they have done their best under the circumstances, but notwithstanding our pressure it was not until the 20th of January this year that we were in a position to serve notice on the company, because we had not the standard arm which was to accompany the notice according to the contract, and without which the notice would have been practically of no effect at all, and almost worthless to the contractor.


Samuel Hughes: Was that standard arm made in Great Britain or in the United States?


Arthur Meighen: In the United States,
I understand; the British Government is not making it for the reason that they would not take the risk of the delay involved in readjusting their factories to turn out the new rifle.
Mr. PUGStEY:	If the Lee-Enfield in
regard to which notice was given to the Ross Company on- the 20th of January was made in the United States and supplied to the British army, why was there such a long delay in getting one of the standard riflee to the company?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason set out in Mr. Bon-ar Law's cablegram of September 11, 1916. We set out to get that standard rifle in the United States in order to save -time. A report that we were doing so reached the War Office, and on September 11 they cabled this Government asking us not to use a rifle procured in the United States as a standard until it had been inspected by the chief inspector of aims and ammunition of the British Government, and received his imprimatur and approval. Were we right in that or not? Should we have defied them and taken the rifle from the United States as a standard?


Samuel Hughes: When were the contracts let in the United States?


Arthur Meighen: I have a pretty good
idea but do not know that I am justified in giving the dates ot deliveries, but I think I am justified in going this far, that if hon. gentlemen will make inquiry as to the date the contract was given in the United States and note the quantities delivered up to the present hour, I do not think they will find very much support for their optimism in thinking you can re-equip a factory and make a new kind of rifle in a very few months. I do not need to go back and repeat that we do not hide behind the contract. We are not attempting to conceal anything. We are quite free to say that if we could have done better by breaking the contract, we -should have broken it. But we saw nothing better that could be done.
The very last people who should criticise us for not breaking the contract are the men who made the contract themselves. The -criticism comes very ill from those very men who now stand up and make themselves the -complainants. They themselves fathered the contract; they fathered this rifle. They forged the chain? and fastened them on this country, and now they stand up and declaim against us because we did not burst the fetters with which they in itheir folly had bound themselves and all Governments to come.
That is the position in which we stand with respect to this rifle. We have nothing to conceal as regards our conduct, nor as regards our treatment of the whole rifle subject. It is a vital subject; it is a subject that goes to the very heart of our success. We have nothing to conceal; we invite no controversy, but we run away from none. Our course has been clear and is not only defensible, but impregnable from beginning to end. Because it is a vital question, one

of the most important of tthe thousand problems that confront us from day to day, it has received-, in a special degree, the supervision of the Prime Minister, a supervision that has directed iand surveyed, with ceaseless vigilance -and with a care -and an energy that almost passes comprehension, every phase of this work of this Government. On the record of this Government we stand and we fear the criticism of no man. Fortunately for us every step in the path that we have followed is now marked out by a long line of official reconds. They are there for all Canadians to read, and we urge upon the people of Canada to read those records in full and to study them carefully, and we appeal with the -almost confidence to the judgment of every impartial and intelligent man.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. minister says: We are dealing with one of the most important *phases of our responsibility in connection with the war. We cannot give this matter too careful attention. We are here to listen to the best that the Government can state on behalf of its course in this connection We have listened carefully and we have heard from the lips of the Prime Minister and from the lips of his Solicitor General, whom we all agree is not the least able member of the Cabinet, the best reasons they have to give for the fact that to-day we 'are called upon to vote $2,660,000 for rifles that are not to be used at the battle front. After we have paid to the amount of $6,500,000 for Ross rifles made in Canada, not one battalion, not one platoon of Canadian troops at the front is armed with that rifle, after two and a half years of war. In the face of such facts as these, I ask hon. gentleman on the other side of the House: Of what avail is the special pleading of the Solicitor General here to-night? What difference does it make to this country what advice I have given to the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House 'during this debate, or what advice the hon. member for Pi^m. or any other member has given? The question before the country is not what advice we have given; the question is: What has the Government done and how far can the Government justify what it has done before the high court of public opinion? The question of the furnishing of our troops with what is called small arms, with rifles, is the most important question with which we have to deal; but we are dealing to-day with a vote of $500,000,000, appropriated in bulk for expenditure by this Government for the support of Canada's part in
 .
the war, and on the most vital point in all this vast expenditure, we find the result that I have already stated, that we have spent $6,500,000 and we practically have not a rifle in the firing line, and we are being called upon to-night to vote, if my hon. friend presses his motion, to pay $2,660,000 for rifles that are not yet manufactured and that will never see the front after they are manufactured. This is a far reaching matter. If such is the record of the Government on this the most important feature connected with the war so far as we are concerned, what are we to believe in regard to the other phases which involve the whole of this stupendous expenditure? WTe and our children's children will be paying on account of the burden that we are laying upon the people of the country by this vote to-day. We vote the money freely; our people pay it willingly; but surely we ought to know from the Government that the money is being expended wisely and for the purpose for which it is voted, and yet on this vote for rifles to arm our men we are paying $6,500,000 and we have not a rifle in the firing line.
The Solicitor General, in justification of that position, says that The members on this side of the House, the late Government, fourteen years ago, entered into a contract to make rifles in Canada for the use of Canada, which contract binds Canada for all time, and that because of that contract, this condition that I have spoken of exists and we who have ceased to have direction of the affairs of our country for more than five years are to be held responsible, and these gentlemen who have had full dirrC-tion of the affairs of our country for more than five years are absolutely absolved from responsibility by the special pleading of the Solicitor General and even by the remarks of the Prime Minister the other night. There never was an occasion on which a more absurd contention was presented for the consideration of any deliberative body in the world. While I think it is a waste of time to discuss before this House and the country the respective responsibility of ourselves on this side and they on that side, yet seeing that my hon. friend is a very eminent member of the Government as well as of the legal profession, and that he has laid great stress upon that point and alluded particularly to my humble self, I shall not be accused of trespassing unduly upon the time of the House if I deal with that matter for just one instant. We admit that the Liberal Government made a contract with the Ross Rifle Company; we believe

that it was provident to make such a contract at the time at which it was made, and we believe that it was a provident contract. My hon. friend ha3 said and repeated and repeated that we who made the contract are responsible if the rifles made under that contract are ineffiicient rifles. That contract provides, as I have already said: First, that in case of war or emergency the Government does not need to take rifles from the Ross Rifle Company beyond the number that the Ross Rifle Company can supply to the Government's order. Therefore, the Government was not bound for all time, nor for all rifles. And when the Solicitor General says specifically to a listening world that the Government and country were bound, may I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, with your consent, to suggest that the Solicitor General is attempting to deceive the public.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: I will just complete that. The second point is, that the contract entered into by the Liberal Government provided that the Ross Rifle Company should make any alterations in the rifle, or the type of rifle, made by them, at the demand of the Government. Therefore, if the pattern of rifle made under the orders of the late Liberal Government was in any degree insufficient, there was within the four corners of the contract-that, I understand, is the expression used by a legal gentleman-specific provision which places the responsibility upon this Government to maintain that rifle in its condition of efficiency. There was a further provision in the contract that if and when the Government desired to have the company make another kind of rifle altogether the company was bound to comply. These gentlemen have been in power for more than five and a half years. It was their responsibility during that period to see to it that the rifles manufactured for this country were efficient; it was within their power during the whole of that time to ensure that they should be efficient according to their viewsN If to-day we have not a battalion, a company, a platoon, at the front armed with Ross rifles, the responsibility is absolutely theirs, and no amount of special pleading, either by the Solicitor General or by the Prime Minister, can place responsibility upon the late Government or upon 'any member on this side of the House. My hon. friend was strong on the point that the rifle which was in the hands1 of the troops who crossed the ocean in September, 1914, was of a pattern which had
been approved by the late Government. Admit for the sake of the argument that this is true. Specify, if you please, that we eliminate the time intervening between the outgo of the Liberal Government and the declaration of war. Assume that there was no provision in the contract which placed the responsibility upon this Government, and say that the late Government was responsible for the type of Mark III Ross rifle. Yet the late Government never ordered a Mark III rifle to be made, and there was never a Mark III Ross rifle made while the late Government was in office. The Solicitor General himself told us to-night that it was not until December, 1912, a year and two months after the late Government had left office, that the first Ross rifle Mark III was delivered.


Arthur Meighen: It was in November.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman said December, but I will alter it to November if he pleases. Now, I submit that the Government which found no difficulty, no impediment to the cancelling of a contract for the building of a Canadian navy, a contract which they had in their desks when they took office, accompanied by a deposit of $100,000 of securities for its fulfilment, is not in a position to claim that, because the late Liberal Government had sanctioned Mark III Ross rifle, they were not bound to order the making of that rifle, nor to accept delivery of it when it was made. As a matter of fact, the order for the making of Mark III Ross rifle was given by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) and not by a member of the Liberal Government. So, if my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) did not catch what I said a few minutes ago, perhaps he will understand it when I now repeat it: When he made the statement he did attempting to throw responsibility upon the late Government for making an inefficient rifle under the control of this Government, he was attempting to mislead and deceive the public as to the facts of the case.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody believes that, not even the hon. gentleman himself; he has more intelligence than that.


Frank Oliver: I accept my hon. friend's interruption, considering the source from which it comes. Now, my hon. friend has rested his case on the two points, of responsibility of the late Government, and the assertion that the report of Sir John French did not condemn the Ross rifle. Before I touch these points, let me say, as I said

the other night, that the responsibility for ensuring that the troops of Canada were efficiently armed and equipped rested upon this Government and not upon the Government of Great Britain, upon our military department, and not the military department of Great Britain; and our friends have no right, either in constitutional practice or as a matter of right, to attempt to shelter themselves behind the officers of the British military administration. We maintain a Militia Department for the purpose of ensuring efficiency in the conduct of our military affairs. We cannot call Sir John French before the bar of Canadian public opinion to condemn him for what he says or does. A system of responsible government is supposed to prevail in this country, and we look to the Minister of Militia and to the Prime Minister of our Government to see that efficiency is maintained. My hon. friend attempted to be funny over the idea that I had used a contradiction of argument in speaking of the necessity of our making our equipment conform with the British requirement, and at the same time holding the Government here responsible for inefficiency in the equipment. I can see no contradiction in those arguments; on the contrary, it appears to me that they are in entire and proper sequence. I leave the question as to the merits of that to the judgment of the committee and of the public. I say, therefore, that this Government had no right to wait until Sir John French reported as he did with regard to the Boss rifle. They had a right to inform themselves- it was their first duty on behalf of the people of Canada and of the soldiers of Canada-in regard to the efficiency of that weapon upon which the lives of our soldiers, prestige of our country and the success of the Allied arms depended. They did not do it-that is confessed and admitted; there is no argument about it. Not only did the Government not attempt to inform themselves as to the efficiency of the Boss rifle, but the ex-Minister of Militia has assured us on the floor of the House that the rifle was and is absolutely efficient. It would be absurd to suggest, in view of the attitude of the ex-minister in regard to the rifle, that the Government used due diligence; that the Government was not guilty of absolute negligence concerning the efficiency of this weapon. They are all the more guilty in the matter because amongst their own followers were men who for years had persistently criticised that weapon as manufactured under Liberal administra-
tion. Those critics were either satisfied that a different and superior rifle was in the hands of the troops, or they were willing to submit their criticisms and opinions to political exigency. I do not wish to accuse hon. gentleman on the other side, or indeed, any good citizen of Canada, of being willing to submit such a question as that, involving the issues that it did, to political exigency. I bqlieve that they believed that our troops were armed with an efficient rifle. They had a right to believe that, and today when it is proved that our troops were not armed with an efficient rifle they have a right to hold the ex-minister of Militia and the members of the Government absolutely responsible for the consequences that resulted, terrible though those consequences were.
My bon. friend rests his whole case on the assertion that 'Sir John French reported in favour of the efficiency of the Boss rifle. On my reading of the report, the hon. gentleman's assertion-his argument, his special pleading-has absolutely no foundation; the report of Sir John French can be read only as a condemnation of the Boss rifle as an efficient weapon in the field, based on the experiences of Sir John French in connection with the operations that were under his direction and control, and for which he was responsible. We judge of what a man thinks by what he does, and the higher and more responsible his position, the more that holds true. When Sir John French, without reference to the Canadian Government or to our Militia Department, Lee-Enfields being as scare as the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General have said they were, disarmed the First Canadian Division of their Boss rifles and re-armed them with Lee-Enfields-^doing so, as he specifically says here, (because he did not wish to send them into a certain important battle armed with the Boss rifle-I say that if lie had covered a. hundred pages with apologies for or explanations of the Boss rifles it would not alter the reasonable and proper conclusion which may be drawn from what he actually did, and the reasons why he did it. My hon. friend reads certain sentences from Sir John French's report (and he ascribes to them certain interpretations that, in my humble judgment, with all due respect, I do not consider that the language permits. In his report to the War Office in London on June 19, 1915, Sir John French, speaking of the committee of investigation, said:
The proceedings of this committee were laid before me on the eve of a serious offensive

operation in which the Canadian division was to take part, and I was at the same time informed that over 3,000, or more than one-third of the infantry, of this division had already succeeded in re-arming themselves with the Lee-Enfleld rifle without any authority having been given for them "to do so.
(1)	To the unanimous opinion of my committee that the Ross rifle could not be relied upon to work smoothly and efficiently in rapid fire with any ammunition other than that of Canadian manufacture;
(2)	to the fact that no ammunition of this nature was available in this country, and that sufficient supplies could not be obtained from England.
Further on he said:
I did not feel justified in sending this division into battle with the Ross rifle, and ord'ered the re-arming of the infantry of the division with the Lee-Enfield rifle, which was carried out before they went into action on the 15th inst.
I submit that there is only one conclusion to be drawn-.from those words; and yet by picking other sentences out of the report, sentences which are not governing in their character, sentences which I am bound to suppose were put there for the purpose of letting down easily the Canadian Department of Militia, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have endeavoured to create the impression that Sir John French did not report against the Ross rifle. Sir John French quotes the report of the committee of which he speaks. In his first report he says, in section 7:
I have expressed and acted upon my opinion that, so far as I could test, the ammunition of British manufacture is not suitable for use with Ross rifles, that there is a large and growing feeling of want of confidence in their rifles on the part of the men in the Canadian division, which is amply justified by the report of the committee.
Now, that is a report on the rifle, and that is what Sir John French says. I submit that when the Solicitor General undertook to read another meaning into that report, he was not fair to the House or to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I read the report.


Frank Oliver: Carefully edited. I will
take the liberty of calling the attention of the House again to some portions of this report of the committee:	[DOT]
Opinion of committee: A unanimous opinion was expressed that Canadian manufactured D.A.C. 1914 Mk. VII ammunition only, of those tried, was suitable for rapid Are with the Ross rifle.
That deals with the question of ammunition, and it points otlt that.only a certain
brand of Canadian ammunition would work satisfactorily in the Ross rifle. He says:
That provided a sufficient supply of Canadian manufactured ammunition of this type could be supplied.
But he did not suggest that it could be provided, it had not been provided, and there was no reason to believe that it would be provided.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman forgets that the War Office stated at the very same time in reply to that letter that it was provided.


Frank Oliver: This is the report of the
committee on which Sir John French based his report. I am reading it to the House. It was upon Sir John French'e report that my hon. friend tried to justify himself, it was not on some other report of some body else, it was on this report; and this report explicitly says that the Ross rifle did not work satisfactorily except with a certain kind of ammunition which was not available in sufficient supply.


Arthur Meighen: Read it, it was with re spect to the future.


Frank Oliver: He stated:
That provided a sufficient supply of Canadian-manufactured ammunition of this type could be supplied.
Provided it could be supplied, but it had not been supplied and Sir John French gave no indication of hie expectation that it could or would be supplied.


Arthur Meighen: The War Office did it.


Frank Oliver: That is another story.
This is the report which my friend was taking up and upon which he rested his whole case. He edited it carefully and I am giving it exactly as it is. He says, and I would like the committee to listen to this feature very carefully:
The other defects apparent were not sufficient to condemn the Ross rifle in view of the present shortage of rifles generally.
They were sufficient to condemn the Ross rifle if other rifles had been available. Is that the proper meaning of these words? There is no other meaning that can be attached to them, and if that is not a straight and square condemnation of the Ross rifle on its merits, then the English language has lost its significance at the hands of my hon. friend. It goes on:
The committee were practically unanimous in advising that the Ross rifle should be employed on the lines of communication, and



that if possible, the Canadian troops should be armed with the British rifle.
The merry jest of the right hon. the Prime Minister the other night that the Ross was a rifle for peace and not for war, under the Liberal make, is borne out by this report of the committee that it was good for some places where fighting was not expected, on the lines of communication, but that the troops should be armed with the British rifle. Does my hon. friend attempt to justify the action of this Government in asking this House to vote $2,-
660,000	to make 80,000 more of these rifles that were specifically condemned in these ternis by the authority to which he deferred as being absolute in this matter? The committee sat on the 5th June, 1915, and the report of Sir John French was made on the 19th of June. You will observe that the difficulties and delays which have interfered with the action of this Government in dealing with this matter of rifles did not interfere with Sir John French forwarding his report in a very short time after he got the opinion of the committee to investigate the rifle. There was no delay on the other side of the water; there has been nothing but delay on this side of the water.
Just to go into some of the details of this report, 1 will ask any man who cares to bring his judgment to bear what conclusion he could possibly reach other than that reached by the committee and transmitted by Sir John French to the War Office.
With regard' to the following specific points which the committee was asked to answer, the questions and answers are as stated below:
1.	There are frequent reports that the bolt action jams after about 5 rounds.
Now that is not a question of ammunition, that is & question of construction and mechanism, and that is the first statement that the committee made, " there are frequent complaints that the bolt actipn jams after about 5 rounds," and the Solicitor General tells this House and this country that the report of Sir John French justifies the Government in refusing to take action to replace the Ross rifle with a m.ore efficient weapon as they should have done, and could have done under the contract. The committee go on to say:
2.	Full value of rapid fire cannot be developed unless:
(a)	Ammunition of Canadian manufacture
is used.
(b)	Rifle is perfectly clean.
It will be observed in this No. 2, the question of ammunition is considered, and

it is stated that the rifle is better adapted for use with ammunition of Canadian manufacture than that of British manufacture. That has nothing whatever to do with the first clause, which said that the bolt action jams after about 5 rounds.


Mr. HANNA:: Why did it not jam when they fired 100 rounds in the trial?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: You had better read it.


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend know??


Adelbert Edward Hanna: Yes, it was because they were using Canadian ammunition. They fired 100 rounds and it did not jam.


Frank Oliver: That is not what this report says, and I can only give what the report says.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: It is exactly what it says.


Frank Oliver: This is what my hon. friend the Solicitor General rested his case on, and I am willing to rest my case upon it also. I ask the House to read that section, and to take it as it stands, and as it was meant to stand. The second part of section 2 is that the rifle must be perfectly clean. That is a 'condition that cannot be maintained in trench warfare, and the rifle whose efficiency depends upon perfect cleanliness is net an efficient weapon in trench warfare such as prevails to-day. That has been the contention all the time. It was reported from the front by the first men who went there, and it is borne out by this statement by this committee. The report goes on to deal with the question of ammunition:- -
That English-made ammunition is slightly larger than Canadian so that immediately the cartridge exploded the cartridge case fills the chamber so tightly as to cause a jam.
That is not in place of the other disabilities ; that is in addition to the other disabilities. No. 4 reads:-
That orders exist that on no account are troops to take out their magazine as it necessitates stripping the rifle.
That is the objection. Then:-
(b) Unless the magazine is unloaded every 24 hours and the spring action eased, the magazine fails to respond.
That had nothing to do with the ammunition.
(5) That dirt accumulates easily in the holt head and also in the receptive thread in the breech of the rifle. Owing to difficulty of cleaning jams are caused.
That has nothing to do with ammunition:

(6) The screw of the bolt expands under heat and renders it difficult to open the breech (presumably due to the number of bearing surfaces affected.
That is to say, under rapid fire the bolt heats and causes jams.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that my hon. friend does not desire to mislead the committee, hut what he is doing is this: he is reading the questions iae if they were answers, while the answers are given below. He hae apparently become greatly confused. The first twelve of these questions raise points which the committee were to investigate, and he is reading them as if they were the reports of the investigators.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Robert Laird Borden: The reports of the investigators are further down, 1, 2, 3, 4 and up to 12. So let us understand what the situation is, and not run away with the idea that what the hon. gentleman is reading is the report of the committee. What he is reading is matter submitted for the consideration of the committee.


Frank Oliver: That is absolutely correct, hut the answers themselves do not give an intelligent knowledge of the matter. .


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend wants to give an intelligent statement of what the committee did find, he should read the points which he mentions and then read the findings of the committee on them. He has not been doing that.
Mr. OLIVER? T will follow the Prime Minister's suggestion.
(1)	There are frequent reports that the bolt action jams after about 5 rounds.
The answer to that is, "yes."
(2)	Pull value of rapid cannot be developed unless: (a) ammunition of Canadian manufacture is used.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: The second is:
(b) Rifle is perfectly clean.
The answer to that is:
Pull value of rapid fire can be developed with ammunition of Canadian manufacture only.
(b) This point was not tested.


Arthur Meighen: That is the second.


Frank Oliver: Yes. The third is-
English-made ammunition, is slightly larger than Canadian.
That is of course the contention in regard to the ammunition. The answer is:
33i
The British-made cartridge case appears to he of a slightly thicker gauge than that of Canadian manufacture and the diameter of the cartridge immediately under the rim appears to be slightly greater than that of Canadian manufactured ammunition. This may be the cause of jamming.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: But it does not say that it is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: This may be a very jocular matter to some hon. members, but the question is asked specifically, and the answer is made by a responsible committee who say it may be. They do not say it is.


Arthur Meighen: What does Sir John French recommend?


Frank Oliver: That the rifle be taken away.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; just read his recommendation.


Frank Oliver: I am going to read it.


Arthur Meighen: He recommended that we enlarge the chamber, and that is just what we did.


Frank Oliver: He took the rifles away and replaced them with Lee-Enfield rifles; what he argued about is a matter of minor consideration. Remember, what he did, he did on the strength of this report.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: That was his interpretation of the report.


Arthur Meighen: Until the chamber was enlarged, and we got Canadian ammunition.


Frank Oliver: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Frank Oliver: Then the hon. member is in this position, if he says that, he says that Sir John French did not know his business.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


Frank Oliver: Because, after the chamber had been enlarged, Sir Douglas Haig reported on it exactly as Sir John French had reported. Therefore, either Sir John French did not know his business, or he did not report as my hon. friend suggests he reported.


Arthur Meighen: The report is there.


Frank Oliver: I am telling him that it is there, and the report is-I will read it again. It says:
There is a large and growing feeling of want of confidence in their rifle on the part of the men in the Canadian division which is amply justified hy the report of the committee.
Can there be any plainer language than that. Then he says:
I did not feel justified In sending this Division into battle with the Ross rifle, and ordered the re-arming of the infantry of the division with the Lee-Enfield rifle, which was carried out before they went into action on the 15th instant.


Arthur Meighen: He gives the reasons; you are afraid to give the reasons.


Frank Oliver: I am reading the reasons; I am not afraid of them. I say that the reasons are ample. Either they are ample, or Sir John French was not fit for his position. Now, I do not think that either my hon. friend or myself is in a position to criticise Sir John French. The ex-Minister of Militia may do so, but I do not think we are in that position.


Robert Laird Borden: Or the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell).


Frank Oliver: Possibly, but when Sir John French on this report takes certain action and says that he takes certain action on this report, I am bound to believe that he did what he did for the reason that he gave, and the reason which was good enough for him ought to have been good enough for this Government.
(4) That orders exist that on no account are troops to take out their magazine as it necessitates stripping the rifle.
The answer to that is: "Yes".
The next is:
4.	(b) Unless the magazine is unloaded every 24 hours and the spring action eased, the magazine fails to respond.
The answer is:
Possibly this is the case, but the committee were unable to test this point.
Next:
5.	That dirt accumulates easily in the bolt head and also in the receptive thread in the breech of the rifle. Owing to difficulty of cleaning jams [DOT] are caused.
The answer is:
This may be so, but the rifles were not tried under dirty conditions.
Next:
6.	The screw of the bolt head expands under heat and renders it difficult to open the breech (presumably due to the number of bearing surfaces affected.)

The answer is:
The expansion of the bolt, head w'as not apparent when firing 100 rounds of Canadian-manufactured ammunition.
Next:
7.	The Ross rifle sight is defective because of its delicacy and the smallness of the figures which make it difficult to adjust the sight easily.
The answer is:
Admittedly the figuring of the sighting Is small and difficult to read as compared to the British Lee-Enfield rifle.
Next:	.
8.	The magazine case is too thin and is dented' easily. This causes a jamb as the spring cannot work.
The answer is:
The magazine case is flat and any dent therein would seriously affect the spring therein.
Next:
9.	The foresight is not good for service work. The circular cover easily gets filled! with mud and is difficult to clean.
The answer is:
The committee did not consider . that any great amount of difference existed in this respect in comparison with the British rifle.
Next:
10.	A hole has recently been bored in the base of the magazine to enable the cleaning of the magazine to be carried out without stripping the rifle.
The answer is:
This hole should be covered by a small revolving plate, adjusted by a screw.
Next:
11.	It is far easier to load the Lee-Enfield rifle than the Ross rifle with a clip of ammunition. A Lee-Enfield rifle takes 10 rounds, a Ross 5 rounds.
The answer is:
Undoubtedly the loading of the Lee-Enfield can be carried out in half the time, mainly owing to the fact that the guide for the clip on the British rifle is directly over the magazine chamber.
Next:
12.	That the shape of the fore part of the chamber of the Ross rifle is different to that of the Lee-Enfield. That this does not allow of the same expansion and is the cause of the jam.
Undoubtedly there is a difference of the shape of the fore part of the chamber, but the committee was not able to decide that this was the cause of the jam.
And this is the representation upon which my hon. friend rests his case, that the Government was justified in enlarging the chamber of the Ross rifle as a means of

preventing jams, instead of ordering a new rifle at that time, as they were entitled to do under the terms of the contract made by the Liberal Government.


Arthur Meighen: Did not Sir John French recommend us to enlarge the chamber?


Frank Oliver: I am reading the report of the committee appointed by Sir John French.


Arthur Meighen: Why does not the hon. gentleman answer my question? Did not Sir John French recommend us to enlarge the chamber, and not abandon the rifle at all?


Frank Oliver: I am not discussing what Sir John French said. I am discussing this point: We have been considering the reasons why the rifle jammed, and it has been contended by hon. gentlemen opposite that the rifle jammed because the chamber was too small, or thait Sir John French believed it jammed because the chamber was too small. The Government delayed more than a year from taking measures to secure an efficient rifle under the contract, because of the statement of Sir John French. And here we have a report of the committee appointed by Sir John French, and that report states that the committee were not able to decide that the bore of the chamber was the cause of the jamming.


Arthur Meighen: Why did Sir John
French recommend us to enlarge the chamber? And he having so recommended, will the hon. gentleman say that we should not have followed his recommendation?


Frank Oliver: In a case where the credit of Canada is at stake, where the lives of our men and the success of bur armies depend upon the efficiency of the rifle, and when Sir John French reports that he disarmed our men of the Ross rifle, as he did, before he dared send them into action-in such a case I would most certainly take what he did before what he said, even if he said what my hon. friend says he said, for if he said it, he said it without the authority of the committee he had himself appointed to report. The report of the committee, I assume, was available to this Government along with Sir John French's report. It was sent by Sir John French with his own report for the information of this Government, and they are responsible for not giving due consideration to the report of this committee, whatever Sir John French saw fit to report.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman contend also that the British Government should have thrown away the Lee-Enfield rifle, instead of enlarging the chamber as they did?


Frank Oliver: I know nothing about the Lee-Enfield, and have no idea what the British Government ought to do. I am talking for the soldiers of Canada and the people of Canada. That is the business that is under the hand of the Prime Minister, and that is quite sufficient to absorb the attention of the best of us for the present. I do not know what the British Government did, why they did it, or what the result was. But I do know that this Government delayed a full year in ordering an efficient rifle, which they should have ordered and could have ordered under the contract, while they were enlarging the chamber and tempering the bolts; and at the end of that time Sir Douglas Haig found, as Sir John French had found, that the rifle was inefficient, and that the troops had lost confidence in it. As a matter of fact, the slaughter of Canadians, armed with the Ross rifle, under Sir Douglas Haig's command in 1916, was greater than the slaughter under Sir John French's command in 1915.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The same rifle?


Frank Oliver: Absolutely the same.


William Wright: And the slaughter was greater?


Frank Oliver: More men were engaged.


Arthur Meighen: The German slaughter was greater, too.


Frank Oliver: Possibly; I do not know. I am not seriously concerned about the German slaughter. What I am seriously concerned about is this: When I know that Germany is equipped with the best arm that science can devise and money supply, it is up to the. Government of Canada not to delay or question or haggle, but to make sure that the soldiers of Canada, too, have a weapon as good as science can devise and money supply.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman knows that the Germans are armed with the best weapon that science can devise and money supply, why does he recommend this Government to order Lee-Enfields?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is good at conundrums, and I will let him answer that himself; it is really not material. I was desiring to recall some parts of my

hon. friend's suggestions in regard to myself, but they have slipped my memory, so I will not trouble the House with refer-ing to them.
We have spent a great deal of time here in discussing this question of the Ross rifle, and for my part I have no apology to offer for having done so. What has struck me most seriously in this connection is the fact that this Government, charged with this stupendous responsibility, could consent to take up the line of argument and the form of discussion that it has seemed good to them to follow. To the damning conditions that exist they set up the plea of due diligence in the effort to amend those condiitons. There is, to my mind, a most striking resemblance in the attitude of the Government in regard to the making of efficient rifles in Canada to that which prevailed a year or more ago in regard to the making of munitions of other kinds iD Canada, such as shells and fuses and other articles of a like character. Our hon. friends must accept the position that the attitude was taken that Canada could not do this and Canada could not do that, but Canada did do this and Canada did do that in regard to other munitions of war. munitions that had never been manufactured before in Canada, that had never been manufactured before on this side of the Atlantic. We were able to establish factories, to secure capital, to train men, to enter upon forms of industry that we had never before seen or heard tell of almost: but we were not able to secure the skill or the capital or the energy or we were nor able to take the measures that necessity called upon us to take to give our soldiers an efficient weapon with which to meet our enemies in the field of battle. I cannot imagine how any Government can accept such a position as calmly as they have done, and particularly I cannot understand how. in the face of all that has been said, of the fact that they have not been able to make out a case for themselves before the country, they can come before this House and ask us to vote $2,660,000 for the manufacture of still more of these rifles which the British Government practically refuse to allow them to send over to England and which they refuse to allow our armies in France to be armed with further.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the British Government has ordered 100,000 of these rifles and that it has refused to cancel the order, is still taking

delivery of them and will be for months to come?


Frank Oliver: I am not concerned about the British Government; but now the hon. gentleman has risen to his seat, he reminds me of that little matter which slipped my mind and sio I shall be able to refer to it. The committee will pardon me if I bring this matter to their attention. The committee will recall that my hon. friend was very strong on the point that the Government of Canada had on the 15th of May ordered the arming of our troops with Lee-Enfleld rifles.


Arthur Meighen: Authorized, if Sir Douglas Haig approved.


Frank Oliver: What my hon. friend tried to convey to the country was that an order had been issued for the arming of the troops with Lee-Enfleld rifles.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not
say that and now he says he does not mean what he said,


Arthur Meighen: What I said meant exactly what I said, exactly what I intended, namely, that we had authorized the change if in the judgment of Sir Douglas Haig it was the best thing to do. That is exactly what I stated and what is true.


Frank Oliver: On February 2 my hon.
friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) read to the House from the papers that were laid upon the Table a cable message from the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The message, which is dated Ottawa, June 5, 1916, is reported on page 410 of the Unrevised Hansard and contains the following:
Secret.
Following from Prime Minister for Sir William Robertson. By reason of rumored dissatisfaction with Ross rifle I held consultation with General Hughes on 15th May and sent unofficial message to Commander in Chief that we were prepared to leave matters to his judgment after making all necessary tests of both rifles under such conditions as are experienced at the front.


Arthur Meighen: Just w'hat I said.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend
conveyed the 'impression that he had sent an official message, not an unofficial message.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say whether [DOT] it was official or unofficial.


Frank Oliver: That is precisely the point. My hon. friend did not say that he had

sent an unofficial message. He did not say that he had sent a message that couild be withdrawn under certain circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: It was not withdrawn.


Frank Oliver: No, it was not withdrawn.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference, then?


Frank Oliver: What my hon. friend did was to put before the House what he desired the House and the country to understand, namely, that the Government had taken the responsibility at that date of ordering the troops to be armed with Lee-Enfield rifles.	.


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not.


Frank Oliver: Now he admits that he did not do so on that date.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly I never said so. I said exactly what you read.


Frank Oliver: Never meant to say so?


Arthur Meighen: Never meant to say so and never did say so. I said exactly what is stated in that cable message.


Frank Oliver: No, my hon. friend will have to withdraw a little of that because "unofficial" is stated in this cable message and he did not state "unofficial".


Arthur Meighen: I did not pay a bit of attention to it. Will my hon. friend tell me what difference it makes as long as the message was not withdrawn?


Frank Oliver: It is not a question as to whether it was withdrawn or not. It was a question of the intent of the message, and the intent is as plain as day.


Arthur Meighen: Without withdrawal, the effect is the same.


Frank Oliver: This leaves open the privilege of withdrawal.


Arthur Meighen: It was not withdrawn.


Frank Oliver: It was not an order?


Arthur Meighen: I never said it was an order; I said it was an authorization.


Frank Oliver: We are quite in agreement. All I wanted was to get the position of the hon. gentleman as it is and not as he desired it to appear to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I desired it to appear just as it is.


Frank Oliver: Was that the last telegram that was sent in this connection?


Arthur Meighen: No, there was one on 5th of June, one on the 24th of June and several since.


Frank Oliver: Was there not a reply to this telegram received from Sir Douglas Haig?


Arthur Meighen: Not that I received.


Frank Oliver: There was a despatch
from Sir Douglas Haig?


Arthur Meighen: He reported to the War Office.


Frank Oliver: Yes, he reported to the War Office in pursuance of that communication.


Arthur Meighen: I presume so. Perhaps he had another communication from the War Office. I do not know.


Frank Oliver: I think it is very likely he had, but anyway he reported on the 28th of May, and he reported specifically without equivocation for the re-arming of the Canadian troops with the Lee-Enfield rifle.


Arthur Meighen: We had authorized him to do what he thought best before we got the report. That report was -sent to the War Office and by them it was' transmitted to Sir George Perley and sent out to us in July. Rut the troops had been re-armed already,' and this was done with our authority.


Frank Oliver: I think the telegram I have reference to is in Hansard, but I cannot put my finger on it at the moment, and I will not delay the committee. As a matter of fact, the Government did not accept the report of Sir Douglas Haig.
Mr. MEIGHEN. He did not report to us, but to the War Office.


Frank Oliver: This Government sent another despatch which insisted that in their opinion the Ross rifle was an efficient rifle.


Arthur Meighen: We sent on the 24th June, before we had seen Sir Douglas Haig's report, submitting the same proposal to him-that a change should be made if in their judgment it seemed best. And we got that report in July.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman may have got confused about a letteT of 31st August, page 425 of Hansard.


Frank Oliver: On 7th June, the Prime Minister sent a despatch to the War Office, containing the following sentence:
The Ross rifle is the only one we are at present equipped to make in Canada, and we believe it to be efficient if properly handled.

To this Sir Douglas Haig replied on 21st June:
After consultation with the officer in command during recent heavy fighting, the experience of commanding officer in this fighting was that the Canadians of Third Division at least had lost confidence in their rifle. I must therefore adhere to my recommendation that the 2nd and 3rd Canadian Divisions should be re-armed shortly with the short Lee-Enfield rifle, and X would recommend that the necessary steps to give effect thereto be taken without delay.
Sir Douglas Haig bad' reported on 28th May in favour of re-arming the troops with the Lee-EnfieJid rifle. On 7th June this Government reported against that report in the terms that have 'been read.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman listened to what I said, or if he goes by the document, he must 'be aware that that statement is n'ot correct. Sir Douglas Haig's report was made on 28th May. I have statedd'hiat it was written to the War Office. This reached us through Sir George Perley in the month of July. We did not protest against the report of Sir Douglas Haig when we did no't get it, of course.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend may, perhaps, recall that on 17th May last I had the honour to bring to the attention of the House a certain extract, a letter addressed by General Alderson to General Gwatkin and published in the Ottawa Citizen. The Prime Minister said that before that date he had cabled to Sir Douglas Haig for a Teport on the Ross rifle. I am bound to suppose that the Prime Minister received a reply.


Robert Laird Borden: I have explained to my hon. friend over and over again that I sent the message through the same channel as that through which I received communication. The telegram came from Sir Max Aitken, on the 13th or 14th, and on the 15th I sent a message to Sir Douglas Haig through the person through whom I had got that message.


Frank Oliver: Is this the situation? Having received a telegram dated 12th May from Sir Max Aitken to the Minister of Militia of that time, saying that a serious condition had arisen in regard to the Ross rifle, the Prime Minister stated to the House that he had cabled to Sir Douglas Haig, through Sir Max Aitken. And do the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General tell this House and the country that they never heard any more about that matter until July?


Robert Laird Borden: We heard nothing more except what is contained in the correspondence brought down.


Frank Oliver: I am assuming, for the credit of the Government, that the report of Sir Douglas Haig, made on 28th May, was in response to the cablegram sent by the Prime Minister, as stated. If that is not the case, and if they did not hear from Sir Douglas Haig until July, I can only say that the Government is absolutely condemned for not using'due diligence in securing information as to the condition of the Ross rifle. They had received an urgent and special 'message from their special agent in regard 'to a serious condition on the field of battle, and they still tell this House that they heard no more about it until July? Well, if that is the measure of this Government's sense of its responsibility in regard to a matter so grave as this, we may as well close the discussion. This Government expends tens of thousands of dollars to keep a military staff in Canada and in England, and to maintain communication between them. We can get everything attended to, apparently, except this Ross rifle business. But it is the most important thing that claims our attention. Either that report of Sir Douglas Haig was in response to the cablegram of the Prime Minister, or it was not. Either the Government heard of it, or it did not. If they did not hear it, if they got no response, that means that they did not use due diligence to gain a knowledge of the circumstances to which the despatch of their agent refeis.


Arthur Meighen: What about the cablegram that followed?


Frank Oliver: If they did receive Sir Douglas Haig's despatch-and I am bound to believe that they did-then they did not accede to the arming of our troops with Lee-Enfleld rifles until they had put in the protest which I have read, until Sir Douglas Haig had made his reply, repeating his first recommendation, and until the War Office had communicated with this Government ordering them, in effect, not to send any more Ross rifles to England.


Arthur Meighen: What is the use of explaining anything to the hon. gentleman if he ignores both the explanation and the facts that are clearly stated in the documents?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to take the facts as I give them.


Arthur Meighen: You do not give them.


Frank Oliver: I give the facts as they are.


Arthur Meighen: You refuse to listen when I tell you about the telegrams that were sent.
Mr. OLIVER; My hon. friend insists that I have not stated the facts. I will give place to him in order to afford him an opportunity of stating the facts as be believes them to be.


Arthur Meighen: I have already done so two or three times, but if the hon. gentleman wants it again, I will give it to him.


Frank Oliver: Again, please.


Arthur Meighen: 
Frank Oliver: I will take from my hon. friend just what he has said, and I ask him what position the Government is in when, having a High Commissioner in London who was a member of the Government, having this special agent there with all the necessary paraphernalia at hand, they could not get an answer to a question as important as this? I say that the Government is absolutely condemned for lacking diligence in dealing with this matter. My hon friend says that on May 15 they gave specific instructions for the re-arming of the troops with Lee-Enfield rifles, subject to Sir Douglas Haig's opinion. On the 7th they again wrote to the War Office saying:
The Ross rifle is the only one we are at present equipped to make in Canada. We believe it to be efficient if properly handled.
They were not leaving it to Sir Douglas Haig.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, we were. Read all of it.


Frank Oliver: I am reading this part of it, which carries its own meaning.


Arthur Meighen: No, it does not.


Frank Oliver: The meaning of that paragraph was that this Government desired a report in favour of the Ross rifle-some such report as they got from General French. But they did not get it from Sir Douglas Haig; that is the only difference. They tried to get it, but they were not successful.


Arthur Meighen: What nonsense.


Frank Oliver: My hon. frienji is to be congratulated on his parliamentary courtesy. The fact remains that we are called upon to vote this money to a Government which, on its own confession, from start to finish, has convicted itself of absolute lack of diligence on the most important subject under its consideration. They have convicted themselves of leaving in the hands of our soldiers an inefficient rifle after they knew it to be inefficient, and when the terms of the contract with the rifle company enabled them to change that inefficiency to efficiency whenever they desired to do so.


The CHAIRMAN:: The resolution before the committee is to be considered in the same manner as a resolution of Supply. The amendment that the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has proposed does not seem to be in order, for the following reasons:	The Governor General
having given his consent to the resolution under consideration, it is not competent for this committee to do otherwise than to agree, reduce, negative, supersede or withdraw by leave. May, in the 11th edition, under the heading, "Committees on Exceptional Expenditure," says:
"Procedure in a Committee of the Whole House appointed to consider expenditure not included in the Estimates for the year's supply follows, in principle, the procedure of the Committee of Supply.

Under the heading, "The Committee of Supply," the same author says:
Each resolution for a grant forms a distinct motion, which can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn.
I could quote Bourinot, who, page 427, expresses the same opinion. A decision of the same nature was given during the last session hy the Chairman, of Committee's and may be found in Hansard of May 15, 1916, page 3944. Therefore, in my judgment, it appears that the amendment is not in order, and I so rule.


George Perry Graham: I do not question your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I think that this motion was put to the committee once by the Chairman to-night. Members on the other side cried "Lost" and it was, I am almost sure, declared lost until an hon. gentleman rose to make a few additional observations. I am not quite sure that once a motion has been put to the committee the chairman can very well rule it out of order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The amendment was not declared lost, but, for the reasons stated, the amendment has been ruled out of order, and so I declare it.


George Perry Graham: For reasons which have been explained to me by the Prime Minister, I think it wise to allow this resolution to get into the bill stage, with this understanding of course, that no gentleman who wishes to discuss this further in the committee stage of the Bill will be thought to be retarding the passage of the measure. That is not our object at all. Several gentlemen on this side, thinking the discussion would last so late to-night that the resolution would not be passed, went home. They have some observations to make on other ' phases of it, and I should like the Prime Minister to fully understand that in agreeing to the passage of this Resolution it is understood these gentlemen will not be thought to be taking up the time of the House unduly or taking advantage of the situation if they discuss the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. members who have gone home, and I should be the last to desire to restrict them in discussion when we come to Committee on the Bill. Some information has been asked for which I shall be very glad to give when we come to the committee stage of the Bill, and there will be exactly the same opportunity of discussion then that there has been upon the Resolution.
fThe Chairman.]


William Pugsley: I should like to say a few words when the Bill gets into committee, more especially with regard to the equipment which was supplied to the Canadian troops and which was discarded when they reached England. I asked a question with regard to the Oliver equipment, but the Minister side-stepped the question by converting it into a motion for a return. I should like to get the information before the Bill reaches the committee stage.


Robert Laird Borden: All of these
political stories about large sums having been lost to the country through equipment having been discarded will toe found to have very little foundation. Information on that subject can be given to my hon. friend. I made some pretty careful inquiries into it, and I shall have the information for my hon. friend.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, for granting to His Majesty aid for military and naval defence.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, February 6, 1917.