1917-07-11

PRIVATE BILLS.


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

Mr. KYTE:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the granting to beam trawlers registered in the United States the privilege of using ports in the province of Nova Scotia for the purchasing of supplies, the shipping of men, etc., without license therefor as required under the modus vivendi.



SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN COAL FIELDS STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Has
the Minister of Labour any information to give the House in regard to the report of a strike in the coal fields near Estevan in southern Saskatchewan? I understand the men are striking in order to secure the same terms as have been given to the coal miners in Alberta.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS:: I have had no direct information, but I heard indirectly from Winnipeg, as I was asked whether the jurisdiction of Mr. Armstrong, recently appointed director of coal operations in District 18, extended to that region in Saskatchewan. I replied, of course, that it did not. I was told that some prominent gentlemen in Winnipeg were endeavouring to adjust the difficulties.


John Gillanders Turriff: Can the minister give any reason why the coal mines in Saskatchewan should not be under the jurisdiction of Mr. Armstrong, or whoever may be appointed by the Government, as well as the others?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: At the time when the director was appointed a few days ago, there was no intimation of any difficulty elsewhere than at District 18. If necessary, we may extend his jurisdiction to take in these other mines, but thus far that matter has not been considered.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military	Service.-Sir Robert
Borden (resumed from Tuesday, July 10).
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 13-general provisions:
13. (1) The Militia Act, the Army Act and the King's Regulations and Orders for the Army shall so far as applicable and not inconsistent therewith apply to and form part of this Act.
(2)	-Section twelve and subsection two of section forty and the proviso to section forty-five of the Militia Act shall not apply to men liable to be called out under this Act.
(3)	The Minister of Militia and Defence may transfer to the Naval Service any man who has reported for duty under the provisions of this Act.
(4)	! Unless fur|ther authorized by Parliament the reinforcements provided under this Act shall not exceed one hundred thousand men.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Do I understand that any transfers to the Naval Service of men enlisted under the provisions of this Bill would come within the number to be conscripted under this measure, that is, the 100,000?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Yes.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is a conscript transferred of his own accord, or may he be sent without his consent?


Arthur Meighen: Such transfer would be of the same nature as transfers to the artillery service or to the air service; that is to say, the man could not finally determine whether he went or whether he would not. His wishes, however, would be considered to the utmost extent possible.


Charles Marcil: He might be sent against his will.


Arthur Meighen: He might finally.


Charles Marcil: Are there any exemptions in regard to persons called upon to act upon these local tribunals?


Arthur Meighen: The measure makes no provision for such exemptions, and I cannot see; the need of such a provision in view of the authorities who appoint the tribunals. They will take care that those who should be exempted are exempted.


Charles Marcil: In the Militia Act members of the, Privy Council, members of the Senate, and so on, are exempted, so I thought the same provision might apply here.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there will be any great rush to appoint members of the Privy Council to these tribunals, and I do not think there is any need of exemptions. The exemptions in the Militia Act are in regard to military service, and we have practically the same exemptions here. At all events, we have the exemptions which appear in the schedule.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Will my hon. friend tell me the meaning of subsection 2, which reads:
Section 12 and subsection 2 of section 40 and the proviso to section 45 of the Militia Act shall not apply to men liable to be called out under this Act.
I have not the Militia Act here. Will my hon. friend read section 12?


Arthur Meighen: Section 12 of the Militia Act reads:
Half-pay and retired officers of the regular forces shall not be required to serye in the militia in a lower grade than that of their rank in such forces.
That is rather negatived by this section.


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not
apply?


Arthur Meighen: It does not apply. That is to say, the men cannot insist on their right. The second clause is:
No person shall be entitled to exemption unless he has, at least one month before he claims such exemption, filed with the commanding officer within the limits whereof he resides, his affidavit made before some justice of the peace, of the facts on which he rests his claim.
I really do not think that would apply anyway, as it is inconsistent with the Act, and when we were negativing we negatived the whole section. Subsection 2 of section 40 is:
No officer shall be bound to serve in the militia in a lower grade than that of the rank with which he has been retired.
That is negatived also. The proviso in section 45 is-and I will read the whole section so that the meaning of the proviso will be apparent:
The Governor in Council may make regulations, applying to officers and others, belonging to His Majesty's regular forces, and to officers of any military force of any part of His Majesty's dominions, when serving in Canada, and to officers of the militia, as to the persons to he invested as officers or otherwise with command over the militia or any part thereof, or any person belonging thereto, and as to the mode in which such command is to he exercised:	Provided that command
shall not be given to any person over a person superior in rank to himself.
Wherever section 45 is applicable and consequently is included in the new Act it is only applicable without the proviso. The proviso is negatived.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why is the proviso negatived?


Arthur Meighen: Because it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Militia Act, which says the militia authorities shall have full
 '
control over rank, etc. In fact, every one is brought down to the same level at the moment the Act applies to him.


Charles Marcil: Regarding the position of the conscript soldier once he is enlisted does he rank in every respect on the same footing as the volunteer, as regards promotion, pension in case of disability, pay and so on? Are they both treated on the same footing?


Arthur Meighen: As the law stands here, there is nothing to put him on any different footing.


Mr. OLIVER:: Might I ask the reason why the provision of subsection 4 contains the words: "The reinforcements provided under this Act shall not exceed 100,000 men."


Arthur Meighen: It is so that Parliament wiil be apprised of the entire scope and destiny of the Act. It was thought well that Parliament should understand from the beginning just what was the limit that might be reached under the Act it was asked to pass.


Frank Oliver: Is it to be understood that when these 100,000 men are raised Canada's military obligations in connection with the war have ceased?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. I do not think there is any ground for that understanding. Canada will still he in the war, and very much in the war-in fact, more in the war than ever, when the 100,000 men are raised. It will be for Parliament thereafter to decide whether or not the Act should be amended.


Charles Marcil: Has any thought been given to the transferring into the Canadian service of Canadians who are in the Imperial service? I saw in the paper yester

 day that a large number of Canadians had enlisted in New York for service with the Imperial troops. Has any attention been given to the idea of having all Canadians serve with the Canadian corps, instead of having them dispersed through the British regiments.


Arthur Meighen: You mean, in France?


Charles Marcil: No, in England. There are a large number of Canadians enlisted with British regiments, and I wanted to know whether the idea of transferring all Canadians to the Canadian corps had been considered, and whether the same thing would not be done in the United States. A day or so ago one of tbie Ottawa papers published a picture, showing Canadians enlisting in New York for service with the British troops.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: As I understand
it, the hon. gentleman raises two questions, first in respect to the enlistment of British subjects and Canadians in the United States, and second as to those already enlisted in the British army being transferred to the Canadian forces. In regard bo the latter question, the matter has not had any consideration so far as I know. In connection with recruiting in the United States, when a man desires to enlist, he chooses whether he wants to go into the British army or into the Canadian army. So far, I think, most of the recruits have chosen to go with the Canadian forces. I am not informed as to the exact numbers, but the men can choose which force they will go into.


Charles Marcil: What about transferring
Canadians now enlisted from the English regiments to the Canadian corps?


Albert Edward Kemp: I said that matter had not been considered. What my hon. friend desires to know is whether any action has been taken to transfer the Canadians now in England or in France serving in the British army to the Canadian corps. So far as I know, the matter has not had any consideration.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: So far as I am aware there are not very many Canadians serving as privates in the British army. They are principally officersi-men who went overseas very early in the war. In a good many instances they were offered commissions in the British army, and accepted them.


Charles Marcil: Perhaps it would be in
the interests of the service to have these men put together, with the Canadian corps.


Robert Laird Borden: There has already been more or less difficulty about surplus of officers. I do not think it would be of any advantage to recall those officers from the British army.


Frank Oliver: I asked the question in regard to the further effect of this subsection in connection with our obligation under the Act, and the reason for fixing the number at 100,000 men, because I recall my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middle'bro), speaking on the second reading of the Bill, very emphatically announced that this Bill was for the purpose of raising 100,000 men, and when the 100,000 men were raised the Bill was dead.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I said, without further legislation.


Frank Oliver: Exactly. The Bill was
dead. Further legislation would be necessary in order to do .anything more in connection with Canada's part in the war. I just wanted to ask further what relationship this Bill in its terms under this subnotion bears to the pledge given by the Prime Minister on behalf of Canada as to the part Canada would take in the war. Is it supposed to have a connection with that pledge or to be entirely independent of it?


Robert Laird Borden: The purpose of this section is to reserve the control in Parliament as to compulsory military service beyond the number stated in the Bill. We thought it proper that Parliament should have the control.
I had mentioned the number, 50,000 at least, possibly 100,000, when speaking on the subject on the 18th May. The Bill, therefore, limits the number to be raised under its provisions to 100,000. If a further number is required then a very short Bill would be necessary simply to in-, crease the number from 100,000 to sucli further number as Parliament, in its wisdom, might determine. The Bill has no relation to the supposed pledge which my hon. friend has quoted beyond the fact that it is to provide a certain additional number of men for the purpose of maintaining the Canadian Expeditionary forces at the front. When my hon. friend speaks of a pledge I assume he means the authorization which was given in January, 1916, by which the authorized Canadian forces were increased to 500,000 men.


Frank Oliver: That was my allusion. I am somewhat surprised at the Prime Minister speaking of a supposed pledge, or raising any question as to there being a pledge when, if I recall correctly his remarks on introducing the Bill, he himself spoke of that announcement, or authorization, as a pledge on behalf of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is not quite accurate. I said that it was not in form made as a pledge, but as the authorization, in the form in which it was given, had been regarded or treated as a pledge in some quarters, in so far as I was concerned, I was content so to regard it.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear. That bears out exactly what I said, that the Prime Minister did, in his address to the House on the introduction of the Bill, allude to his authorization of January 1, 1916, as a pledge.

d240


Robert Laird Borden: I alluded to it, but in the way I have stated.


Frank Oliver: Yes, in that way as a pledge and as a pledge on behalf of Canada. I desire to draw attention to the fact that notwithstanding that pledge, in which I am bound to say the honour of Canada is involved, this Bill specifically does not provide for its being fulfilled according to my calculation. We have had statements made that we have bad enlistments in Canada for overseas service of 418,000 men. If we count
418.000	men as having voluntarily enlisted, and if we add 100,000 conscripts to that, we will have over 500,000. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when we claim credit for having enlisted
418.000	men, we are claiming credit under
false pretenses, because we claim to have enlisted these men for overseas service. When the men did not go overseas and are not continued in service, we are not entitled to credit ourselves with having fulfilled our promise to that extent. The other day the hon.	Minister of	Militia (Sir	EdwardKemp), for the first time since this matter has been under consideration, favoured the	House	with	ia statement	as tohow	many	men	had actually goneoverseas, or	were	available in	Canada
to go' overseas, and how many we had enlisted who had not gone overseas and were not going overseas. He went into very considerable detail in the figures, so that there is no matter of' argument about it. As for the total, it amounted to a little over 75,000 men altogether who were enlisted but who did not go overseas and who are not going overseas. Therefore I may claim that in any future calculations we make 75,000 men should be deducted from our nominal enlistment so as to give us the actual enlistment we have made, If we deduct 75,000, men from 418,000 we will have the actual effective enlistment and if then we add 100,000 to be raised by conscription under this Bill we are still short a little over 50,000 of the pledge made on the first of January, 1916.
I do not wish to emphasize too strongly the position; it is beyond argument in this connection. I do not think it is creditable that we should make a pledge and then fail to fulfil it. Neither do I think it is wise or creditable that we should claim to have done something that we most emphatically have not done. In connection with these men who have been enlisted and who have not gone overseas, it was a noticeable fact that with respect to the 75,-

000 after the Minister of Militia had gone into detail as to what had become of 64,000 there were 10,000 or 11,000 that he could not account for but whom he had absolutely lost off his map. Under these circumstances surely we are not entitled to claim credit for enlistment up to the amount we have been persistently claiming before the country. I must accept this Bill as an absolute indication of the position taken by the Government that the pledge made by, or on behalf of, the people of Canada on the first of January, 1916, is not fulfilled and is not intended to be fulfilled.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is, of course, quite ready to accept anything that is in his own mind and no one can complain of that. It is a matter for himself. As far as this Bill is com cerned, it is not anticipated that more than 400,000 will be raised under its provisions before Parliament will meet again. Therefore, it is desirable to reserve control to Parliament at its next sitting.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the hon. Solicitor General hew long it is expected it will take under the operations of this Bill to raise 100,000 men?


Arthur Meighen: It is hoped that we will do it before next session is very far advanced.


Frank Oliver: About what month of the year is that likely to be?


Arthur Meighen: I have not given very specific consideration to the point yet. I am more anxious to secure the passage of the Bill and get it immediately into operation. The longer we delay here, of course, the longer we will be in getting the men.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt about that and if my hon. friend will permit I will quote him a little story that I read one day of an Irishman who missed a train. They said: "Pat, you did not run fast enough." He said, " Bedad, I did, but I did not start soon enough." If my hon. friend is anxious about the passage of this Bill, I can only say that if he had started sooner he would have been through sooner. May I ask if the Government had taken into consideration the number of classes that are likely to be called out under this Bill and what classes they are likely to be?


Arthur Meighen: It is utterly impossible ts determine how many classes will be required. We will call out whatever are nece-ssary. We will know that as soon as

we get tie A-ct into operation, and of course tie sooner iit is in operation tie isooner we will know it.


Frank Oliver: Did the minister say that only the first class would be called?


Arthur Meighen: Oh no; all will be called that aie necessary to get the 100,000. We do net know how many will be called, and [DOT]we cannot tell until the Act is in operation. We will be able to form a fairly accurate idea as soon as the results of the first call iare known,


Frank Oliver: Since the minister has
raised the question of delay in the passing of this Bill and getting it into operation, may I suggest that if he had included in the provisions of the Bill or in a preliminary Bill a provision for registration, he would have saved a great deal of time in getting the full effect of the measure, because, if I understand him aright, he intends to make a call, say for class number one, and if that class does not yield enough men, he will call number two, and so on. We have no assurance how many classes will .have to be called before the required number of men aTe secured. I submit that even yet it would be the part of wisdom, if that is the method in which the Government intends to proceed, to incorporate a provision in the Bill for a registration of the man-power of the country and to have that done without delay.


Arthur Meighen: Registration would get us one result and one only. It would get us the names and ages of the various men in the country; it would get us the numbers in the different classes. But we would not be any further ahead because we should not know.how many of these would, under the operation of fair principles of selection, be available for military service; we should have to go through the whole process of selection. In other words, we should have to apply all the provisions of the Bill first to -registration and then to enrolment. So far as I can see, it would duplicate the work and the length of time, and secure no better result.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister was
good enough to say on the second reading of the Bill that the Government would be glad to receive suggestions from members of the Opposition. It was not possible to make suggestions at that time, but now that the Bill is in committee I have taken the liberty of making several suggestions which do not seem to be well received, so I hope I have relieved myself of any responsibility laid on me in that connection. Has the minister reached any conclusion as to the approximate number of men who are likely to be finally enlisted from the different sections of the Dominion?


Arthur Meighen: No, there have been
no calculations made for the reason that there is not sufficient data on which to ifiake them.


Frank Oliver: One of my hon. friend's
colleagues was good enough to offer the House certain suggestions in regard to the number of men who would be required from the different sections of the country; and I may say that, he being the most recent acquisition to- the 'Cabinet, and therefore most closely in touch with, both the people and the Government's policy, his statements have been given very wide acceptance throughout the country. Perhaps the Solicitor General will pardon me if I make a somewhat definite inquiry as to. what foundation there was for the suggestions made by the hon. minister in regard to the levy of men from the different parts of the country.


Arthur Meighen: The minister to whom
I think my hon. friend refers is not in the House. Perhaps we might proceed with the Bill and take that up later.


Frank Oliver: I am not interested- so
much in what that hon. gentleman has to say; he has already made his statement. What I am anxious to learn is what foundation there was for his statement. Has the hon. member who has drawn the Bill and is conducting it through the House any knowledge on the subject, and if so would he impart it to the House?


Arthur Meighen: I have no intimation
from the minister concerned as to what he said or his foundation for it.


Frank Oliver: What he said was that the burden of raising 100,000 men. might be divided in this way: 25,000 from Ontario, 25,000 from Quebec, 5,000 from New Brunswick, 5,000 from Nova Scotia, 2,500 from Prince Edward Island, 10,000 from Manitoba, 10,000 from Alberta, 10,000 from Saskatchewan, and 10,000 from British Columbia. He went on to explain that the raising of 25,000 men from Quebec, from which province he comes, would not be a serious burden on that province. He went into a great deal of detail in the matter and evidently made his statement for a very definite purpose. I am anxious to know if the minister in charge of the Bill has any knowledge on this question which he will impart to the House.


Arthur Meighen: No, I have not. From the statement of the words of the minister in question given by the hon. member for Edmonton, it would appear very clear that the minister did not pretend to have any knowledge either. It would appear that the minister was using a specific result that might be possible, in order to indicate what the burden of the Bill would be. He did not say that he had any reason to know what the result would be. He had to take some result apparently, to give a specific argument, and according to my hon. friend he simply used the word "might." I presume the word "nlight" might be used as to anything.


Frank Oliver: The minister will pardon me for being somewhat pointed in this matter-


Arthur Meighen: I did not observe that myself.


Frank Oliver: -because it is a matter of very serious interest in various parts of the Dominion. We do want to know on what terms and principles this Bill is to be administered and what consideration is to be given to the sacrifices already made. For that reason we insist that if it was intended by the Government that the Bill should be fairly administered with regard to the conditions of the country, with regard to the need for men in the fighting line, and with regard to the services already rendered, provision would have been made in the Bill requiring a certain number of men for the firing line out of a certain proportion of population; and when the Bill does not contain that provision- and the hon. minister says the Government will not insert such a provision-I am compelled to come to the conclusion that the reason for that most extraordinary action in this case is because it is not intended that the Bill, shall be administered fairly as between section and section of this country.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest in that connection that the hon. member might move as an amendment a division among the provinces in such a way as he sees fit, in order that we may have something specific for the consideration of Parliament.


Frank Oliver: I have said and repeated and repeated-


Arthur Meighen: Ycu have not moved though.


Frank Oliver: No-, it is not my business to move. It is my business to suggest, and 
I have the promise of the Prime Minister that any suggestions I make will be considered. I have made specific propositions and will be glad to have an answer. I made propositions five minutes ago. I said: take the population of the Dominion of military 'age, deduct the men who have gone into the fighting line, and -apportion the requirements 'according to that population.
Mr. MEIG'HEN:	Province by province.


Frank Oliver: Yes, province by province, most undoubtedly. If the Government is not able, or does not -dare to do that, then the Government is proposing to do exactly wh-at I have 'accused them of doing, n-amely, undertaking to place an undue sh-are of the burden of this war on those -parts of the country which have, in, the past, been most willing to bear it. The only reason for a conscription Bill is that the unwilling shall be -made to bear their share of the burden. Those who have been willing in the past -are still willing to bear the -greater share of the burden in the future; we have no need of a conscription Bill for them. It can be do-ne by voluntary enlistment. I s-ay the minister has 'admitted that the Government does not intend to give the people of this country a square deal under this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I have not said that.


Frank Oliver: What has the hon. gentleman said?


Arthur Meighen: I have simply stated
that this Bill endeavours to seek out the 'Slacker, not in one or two provinces, but in all provinces, wherever he may be, and not allow him to escape because someone else in his province, w;ho>
could have done better service at home, was patriotic enough to go-that the -slacker nowhere shall escape on that ground, but that wherever he is, in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec, h-e shall be sought out under this Bill and sent. I hope the hon. .gentleman will not accuse -m-e of discourtesy, i-f I do not ans-w-er for the eleventh time, the argument he repeats this afternoon.


Frank Oliver: The minister has asked me a specific question, as to how I would apportion the draft under this Bill. I have answered him directly. Will he answer me this question: does he say that it is the intention of this Bill to make the levy according to the principles I suggested?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman refers to the principles. The principle

upon which this Bill intends to make the levy is according to the proportion of available men in each district and in each province.


Frank Oliver: But the hon. gentleman will not make provision in the Bill that that should be done.


Arthur Meighen: Such provisions are
there now.


Frank Oliver: Then we will have to argue that point, as to whether the provisions are in the Bill now or not. There is no specific provision in the Bill that will require the section of the country that has not done its share in the war up to the present time, to do its share now. I am in the judgment of the House and the country-in the judgment of this House at all events-that I have certainly made suggestions to the Government as to the amendment to the Bill desired on that point. I have repeated it to such an extent that my hon. friend says he will not answer any further suggestions in regard to it. Therefore, I am bound to conclude that it is not the Government's policy to make this Bill one of conscription of equal service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank Oliver: Pardon me. I wish to
argue now in regard to the provisions of the Bill, as to the assurance of equal service.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that point, will he tell me what section or sections of the Dominion have not done their share, in the hon. gentleman's opinion?


Frank Oliver: One of these sections, I might say, is the province of Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the hon. gentlemen naming the sections in the order in which they have fallen furthest short of doing their duty, when he names Ontario?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Cameron Edwards: Are there any other sections, which, in the hon. gentleman's opinion, have done less than Ontario?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: What are they? We will deal with them first.


Frank Oliver: I am not dealing with them at all.


William Cameron Edwards: What section of the Dominion in the hon. gentleman's opinion has
fallen furthest short of doing its share? That would be the one naturally to which the hon. gentleman would apply first.


Frank Oliver: I am not here for the purpose of gratifying the idle curiosity of the hon. gentleman from Frontenac. We are not here to take up time in that way. My hon. friend asked a question and I answered it properly, and he was not satisfied with the answer. I shall not keep on answering his questions all the time. We are here for serious business.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: In justice to a great many men who have not gone to the front, and who are not slackers, I might take the liberty of suggesting that all who have not gone to the front should not be classed as slackers. I should like to see a battalion raised under this measure which would be able to march to the front and ieel that it could not be said that they weTe slackers. Hundreds of thousands of these men have not gone to the front for want of some such action as this, to give them an opportunity to go.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be understood as finding any fault with the people who have not gone. I am only insisting that, when we undertake to make men go, we shall do so on fair principles. My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) asked me a question in regard to people who had not done their duty. I have not all the figures available, but I have some figures which will, perhaps, interest him. I find, according to a statement placed before the House by the Government, that in the population of Ontario between the ages of 20 and 45, there are 371,291 Canadian-born. There is a population of British-born in the same province of 101,171 between the ages of 20 and 45. I understand that Ontario is said to have enlisted 168,000 men. I do not know how many of that 168,000 are included in the lost army of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia-the 75,000 he has lost-but taking it for granted that the enlistment is 168,000 from the province of Ontario, I think it will be agreed that, of the enlistment of Ontario, at least 50 per cent are from amongst the British-born.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: I think the casualty list
will show that beyond any argument.


Mr. CURRIE:: I might say that the controversy as to the proportion of enlistments among the British-born and the Canadian-born, which arose in the early days of the

war, was not carried to sufficient length to suit the political object of a certain class of the community; that is to say it did not become a fight between the British-born and the Canadian-born of English descent, on the one hand, and the Canadian-born of French descent on the other. The attestation papers were made up at Valcartier in such a way that it was impossible to get the exact data on the question the hon. gentleman has mentioned. A man was *asked his Christian name and surname and so forth, and then he was asked his nationality.
Even the commanding officers were sometimes in doubt, as to the designation of a man's nationality; they did not know whether a man who was Canadian-born should be put down as an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Scotchman. In the majority of cases the men -gave the nationality pf their fathers. I do not see that this point is one that should be emphasized, because the men are all desirous of serving Canada; it matters not whether they be English-born or Canadian-born. I myself know a number of cases where men pf Canadian birth were put down as being Scotch, Irish or English. When the sergeant asks the man who comes before him what his nationality is, the man naturally says: my father is Irish; therefore I am Irish. The sergeant then, would put him down as Irish.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That would be all right if he was Irish.
Mr. 'CURRIE:	That is the way this information was obtained. I think that in this respect a mistake was made, because mpst of the men of the First Contingent were Canadians. I do not wish to take any credit from the British-horn, because they did enlist in large numbers. After the controversy had been started as to whether the British-born, were enlisting in greater numbers than the Canadian-born, almost every British-born man in the country rushed to the colpurs to justify the contention that the British-born were enlisting faster than the 'Canadian-born. The Canadians have done their duty; I think it ill-'becomes any body to make reflections upon the Canadians for not enlisting, because they enlisted voluntarily and well.


Frank Oliver: This is not a question of reflections upon anybody. This is a question of how we are going to apply this conscription Bill; whether it shall be fair or not fair. As I have figured it, there are sections pf the country where there has not been that response in the matter of enlistment that there has been in other sections.


John Allister Currie: Suppose there were two towns, one on each side of the Ottawa river, each containing 500 people; and suppose that in each town there were 100 men of military age of a certain class. From one of the towns 50 men have gone, and from the other none. When this law is applied, the 50 in the one town will have to go, and. the 100 in the other. It is not practicable to apply a percentage system; the proper way is to take all the men of the class called out. The hon. gentleman does not seem to have studied the Bill; otherwise he would have known that that is the way the Bill works out. When a class is called out, every man in that class in any given section of the community has to go. All men except those who are exempted have to serve; nob'ody can escape. A village in Quebec has 100 men of military age of a certain class; a village in Ontario has only 10 men left of that class. The 100 will have to go from the village in Quebec, and the 10 from the village in Ontario. That is the way the Bill works out. I do not see any objection to that.


Frank Oliver: If that was the Bill, there would not be so much objection. The only trouble fs that that is not the Bill.


John Allister Currie: That is the Bill.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no; it is not. The hon. gentleman himself, the Prime Minister, the Solicitor-General-all those who have spoken on the Bill-know that .the Bill is not a Bill to find men for the firing line only. It is a Bill to find men for the firing line on the one hand, and for the industrial enterprises of friends of the Government on the other.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is
talking politics.


Frank Oliver: That is what my hon.
friend himself said the other night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: That is what the Bill is intended for; that is what its provisions contain, and that is why I am insistent upon knowing how this burden of military service is to be distributed.


William Sora Middlebro: Will my hon. friend point to a single provision in the Bill which compels a man to work in a munition factory against his will?


Frank Oliver: No, but I can point to two provisions in the Bill which are put there especially for the purpose of providing for the exemption of men who are working in

such industries, or are -willing to do so. There is, therefore, no such condition as the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has suggested: that if there are so many men in one town and so many in another, all of the same class, they must all go.-That is not what the Bill provides.


John Allister Currie: All who are included in the class called out are liable to service; of course, the exemptions come afterwards.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman was endeavouring to prove that there was an injustice even in respect of the calling out of the classes. He contended that only a certain percentage in various localities should be called out, and that the percentages could be adjusted to call for more or less according to the number from various sections that have already enlisted. But how can the calling out of the men be proceeded with otherwise than as provided in this Bill, in order that it may be justly and fairly done? IT it were provided that a percentage of a given class should be called out in one locality and another percentage in another then we might well say that the Bill was unjust; but when every man of a given class is called out, surely it cannot be said that there is injustice. A village in Quebec with a population of 500 will give every available man of the class called; an Ontario village from which a number of men of the class called have gone to the war will give those who remain. I think that that is a fair proposition. I agree with my hon. friend that the Bill is a little lax in some of its clauses; perhaos the tribunals are allowed to- let men off a little too freely-I think that there should be some check on those tribunals. But there is no use in wasting all the afternoon arguing about something that is in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: This is a very important matter. It is the most important piece of legislation, I suppose, that has come before the Parliament of Canada since Confederation, arid it is desirable that we should understand thoroughly what its results are going to be. We are not quibbling about the percentage of a given class; what we want to know is whether the results will be fair and equitable. Unless the results are fair and equitable, the Bill will become an instrument of 4 p.m. tyranny- and oppression, not a manifestation of the spirit of democracy or of a desire to win the war. If the Bill simply contained provisions intended to provide men for the firing line,
certain restrictions would not be needed. But in view of the fact that subsections (a) and (b) of section 11 have been deliberately placed there for the specific purpose of exempting men from the firing line, how can my hon. friend or anybody else say that there is any assurance, under the provisions- of the Bill, of equality in its administration?


John Allister Currie: I know of cases such as this: if the maker of a special tool in a factory were conscripted, a hundred men not of military age would be thrown out of employment. Why should there not be some arrangement whereby men of this kind should be exempted? There is no argument at all in favour of the hon. gentleman's contention, in which there is neither common sense nor justice. If the hon. gentleman would confine himself to objectionable clauses of the Bill, we would make much more progress.


Frank Oliver: I have stated my case as to the Bill having tjvo purposes. Beyond any argument, it is a double-purpose Bill. That being the case, those of us who are subject to its provisions in respect of one of its purposes are insistent upon having knowledge as to how far its other purpose will be employed for the benefit of other people. The Solicitor General has rested his whole case on behalf of this Bill upon the contention that those who are charged with its administration will administer it fairly and according to its intent as stated to the Committee.
He rests his whole dependence upon that and refuses absolutely, specifically and persistently to provide any safeguard of any kind whatever. Having rested his case absolutely on the good intent of himself, his colleagues and those who may through their instrumentality be appointed to administer this Bill, he will have to permit me to say that, since the beginning of this war on August 4, 1914, until this minute of this hour, there is nothing in the waT administration of this Government to warrant the supposition that anything administered by it in regard to the war will be fairly administered. From the day war broke out, from the day when boot contracts and horse contracts were let, down to the disbanding of the battalions in England, down to the arming of our men with Ross rifles, and down to the introduction of this Bill, there is no instance in which my hon. friends can claim that Canada's military administration has been conducted fairly and with, regard only to the winning of the

war. It lias been a double-barrelled administration, just as this Bill is a doublebarrelled Bill. It has been one barrel for the war and the other barrel for politics, just as this Bill is one barrel for the fighting line and the other barrel for the munition plants.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman, will you
please read the section under discussion?


Frank Oliver: The section under discussion refers to the raising of 100,000 men.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blain):: Section
13, reads:
(1)	The Militia Act, the Army Act and the King's Regulations and Orders for the Army shall so far as applicable and not inconsistent therewith apply to and form part of this Act.
(2)	Section twelve and subsection two of section forty and the proviso to section forty-five of the Militia Act shall not apply to men liable to be called out under this Act.
(3)	The Minister of Militia and Defence may transfer to the Naval Service any man who has reported for duty under the provisions of this Act.
(4)	Unless further authorized by Parliament the reinforcements provided under this Act shall not exceed one hundred thousand men.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking in regard to the last subsection which refers to the raising of 100,000 men.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Oliver: I am asking for information in regard to the section re the raising of 100,000 men. That, I take it, is the critical section of the Bill. When the minister asks us to rest our dependence upon the administration by -the tribunals and by the Government, I ask him: There being no registration of the man-power of the country, a call being made and that call not being responded to, what is the action, of -the Government? What responsibility do the Government purpose assuming, and how do they purpose exercising that responsibility?


Arthur Meighen: In what case?


Frank Oliver: The issue of a call for,
say, class No. 1 and the non-response of some members of that class in a certain locality. What measures are the Government going to take to ensure that all the members of that class in that locality respond?


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
[DOT]will look at subsection 4 of section 4 of the Bill, he will find that any man who does

not report is guilty of absenting himself without leave and is liable to be tried by court-martial. There have been trials by court-martial before, and future trials by court-martial will be much the same as those that have taken place. Or, such a man is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment. There have been summary convictions before, and tnere have been imprisonments before. Those that will take place under this measure will be the same as those that have taken place during the last forty years.	.


Frank Oliver: John Smith is in class 1, and he does not respond to the call; he simply stays at home. What happens?


Arthur Meighen: John Smith is guilty
then of absenting himself without leave, and he is liable to have court-martial applied to him, the same as courts-martial have been applied time and again in this country; or he is liable to eumm-ary con-' viction and to imprisonment, the same as every year thousands in this country are liable to summary conviction, and can be sent to prison.


Frank Oliver: Who is going to bring
John Smith to the court-martial or to the magistrate's court?


Arthur Meighen: He will be brought by the machinery of the law, and if there is not enough machinery now, we will make more.


Frank Oliver: Who will put the law in motion?


Arthur Meighen: Those oil whom the
responsibility rests under the British North America Act will put the law into force.


Frank Oliver: Who, does the minister
consider, those will be?


Arthur Meighen: Those on whom the responsibility generally rests for the administration pf the law. I really thought the ex-minister knew that. The responsibility for the administration of law is on the provinces.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The initiative may be taken by others. If the initiative is not taken by others, we will take the initiative, because it is the intention of this Government to enforce this Act.


Frank Oliver: That is the ppint I wish to make. I think I have arrived at a full explanation that in the last resort it does not depend upon the tribunal; it-depends

upon this Government, whether the law is enforced or not. If John Smith does not respond to the call, it depends upon this Government whether or not he is going to be brought. I think that is agreed.


Arthur Meighen: The tribunals have their functions; the Government have theirs, and the various authorities in Canada who are considered the responsible officials of Canada, have theirs. We hope and trust that all will discharge their duties, but I can say that whoever fails, that party will not be the Government of Canada.


Frank Oliver: Then, the matteT comes to exactly what I say, namely, that we have to depend upon the fair play of this Government in the administration of this measure in bringing men to appear before the tribunals under their liability to service. I have no confidence in the good faith of this Government in the administration of this measure, especially after the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in this House in his address on the second Teading of the Bill, and on account of the further remarks of his colleague, the Minister of Inland Revenue, (Mr. Sevigny) in regard to this Bill.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would a coalition Government improve matters?


Frank Oliver: The statement was made
to this House that it was intended to give special favours to a particular province in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frank Oliver: That was stated absolutely and specifically, as plain as words could state it.


Some hon. MEMBER:: No.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member says that I made that statement, I will ask him to retract his words and I will ask for the enforcement of my request.


Frank Oliver: Will, the minister permit
me to read from Hansard in justification of my statement?


Arthur Meighen: I do not need to give the hon. gentleman permission; he can read what he likes from Hansard:


Frank Oliver: May I read from Hansard, Mr. Chairman?
This Bill in its results will work more lightly on the province of Quebec than on any other province in Canada.
I believe that ought to be satisfactory to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is thoroughly satisfactory to me, but if my hon. friend has any sense of reason, it must be very unsatisfactory to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: If that is not good enough, let me read more:
-this Bill as drafted is not intended to, and will not, if I understand the Bill, work unfairly to that province. Rather, on the other hand, for just and good reasons-not because that province desires any favouritism for it gets no favouritism but for just and good reasons, "this Bill in its results will work more lightly on the province of Quebec than on any other province in Canada."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Frank Oliver: I do not know why. It is for my hon. friend to say. My point is that the hon. minister stated in this House that this Bill was framed to fall unequally upon the provinces of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frank Oliver: That is what Hansard has him as saying-that it will fall more lightly upon the province of Quebec than upon any other province.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Admit you are caught, and go on.


Frank Oliver: No, I am not caught. Does the hon. minister desire me to retract?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly I desire you to retract.


Frank Oliver: What does the hon. minister desire me to retract?


Arthur Meighen: Everything you said regarding my statement in the House, which was directly contrary to the fact, and which I may say now you knew to be contrary to the fact.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. minister will be good enough to state the words he objects to, I will be very glad to retract them on his assertion.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend makes one statement too many. I do not intend to repeat what was a gross error, if not worse.


Frank Oliver: I can only r say then that the hon. gentleman desiring me to retract what I said, I will with your permission, Mr. Chairman, retract it, and you will permit me to read from Hansard what my hon. friend said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it all.


Frank Oliver: I think it will be very-interesting for the House. At page 2643 he says:
I want to say something else, and X do so with especial earnestness. It may be that in the heat of discussion I do not avoid animosities perhaps as carefully as I should; but I say this to those hon. gentlemen opposite] whose position with regard to this Bill is surrounded by embarrassments much, heavier than those that surround us, I say to them, that this Bill is not designed and is not framed to be unjust to the province of Quebec or to any other section of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: I point to the provisions of the Bill. This is not the time to discuss it in detail, but a few words will, I think, make my meaning apparent to everybody. It is framed and it is advanced in no spirit of recrimination whatsoever, in no spirit of petty jealousy, because the real men of this country, from end to end, are not of that feeling and do not want that feeling expressed by this Bill. We of English-speaking Canada have the kindest feelings towards our French Canadian compatriots.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Do I hear that from the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), and the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) P


Mr. ARTHURS:: You will find Parry Sound does its duty.


Frank Oliver: We realize that there are certain considerations having to do with this subject of recruiting that apply to them that do not apply with the same force to us. I want to say to the members from Quebec-
I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) to tell us what these are?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend had better finish the reading first.


Frank Oliver: -I want to say to the members from Quebec that this Bill as drafted is not intended1 to, and will not, if I understand the Bill, work unfairly to that province. Rather, on the other hand, for just and good reasons- not because that province desires any favouritism for it gets no favouritism-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: -but for just and good reasons, this Bill in its results will work more Mghtly on the province of Quebec than on any other province in Canada. In what way will it work soi lightly? In the first place, the province of Quebec is an agricultural province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: LMr, Oliver.]
In the first place the province of Quebec is an agricultural province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: A much larger proportion of the population of that province is engaged in agriculture than is the case at least with any other of the other old provinces of Canada. Agriculture is one of our essential industries, our greatest essential industry, necessarily em-^ ploying much the largest proportion of our population. Consequently, under the terms of the Bill, the exemptions to agriculture will far outnumber the exemptions to other avocations of our people. Therefore, the exemption clauses, applied evenly and fairly all over this Dominion,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: -as is the intent, will, for just and good and sound reasons, be of more value to the province of Quebec than to any other province of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Secondly, in the province of Quebec, the young men marry at an earlier age than in the English provinces. It is a custom that deserves commendation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: How does that affect the operation of this Act? Under this Act, the first three classes to be called out embrace only unmarried men between the ages of 20 and 34. Under those three classes it is not impossible that the whole 100,000 may be secured, and, in that case, the Act will apply to a smaller proportion in the province of Quebec than in any other province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: This, however, is the case not because the Bill makes favourites, but because the Bill is fair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: It is for good, sound and sufficient reason, and is in the general interests of the state. Consequently, this Bill, so far from being! designed or framed to result in unfairness to the province of Quebec, will, on the contrary, in its practical effects, for good and sufficient reasons of state, fall more lightly on Quebec than on any other province.
Now, my hon. friend has drafted a Bill for making it fall more lightly on Quebec. The English language is there to be read, and that is the climax of his protestations to the province of Quebec, that they are under the terms of this Bill treated more lightly than any other province of Canada.

When my hon. Mend made -the protestations he did, and dragged them into his address without any cause or provocation, we must 'be compelled to reach the conclusion that he desired to impress upon the people ' of the province of Quebec that they had received special consideration at the hands of the Government in the drafting of this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: He said nothing of the sort.


Frank Oliver: I have read what he said.


Arthur Meighen: And it is contrary to What you state.


Frank Oliver: I am entitled to place a fair interpretation upon it, according to my judgment.


Arthur Meighen: But not to misrepresent. Let me say that I would not trust to my hon. friend's judgment, because he has gone wrong.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to trust Hansard. I have read Hansard to the House, and as a member of this House I .am entitled to interpret what my hon. friend says in the fair light of the English language. That is what I have done.


Arthur Meighen: No, that is what you have not done.


Frank Oliver: And it will be accepted both by my hon. friend and his friends, that that is what has been done. I will not delay the House by re-reading what my hon. friend has said. The purpose of it is so evident that he will pardon me if, living in another part of the country, under different conditions, to which part of the country my hon. friend has not extended his assurances of protection, and to which he refuses to extend any assurance of protection, if I feel some question in my mind that this Bill does not protect the interests of the people of the country, because it is not intended to Dirotect them.
As a matter of fact, it does not. We must depend on the fair play of the Government for bringing forward the men who are to give military service. I interpret his assurance to the province of Quebec as meaning that special favour will be given in that province and I have no faith in the assurance that the Bill will be administered fairly and that the men will be brought forward. If he intended that it should be administered fairly, why should he not say to this House, following up and correcting the statement of his colleague, how 'many men are to be taken from the province of Quebec and how many from Alberta? His
colleague made the suggestion to the House for the purpose of its being sent throughout the country so as to influence the public mind just as he made this statement for the purpose of influencing the public mind. We are entitled to hold the view that if the Government will not make provision in the Bill that it shall be administered fairly as between man and man, industry and industry, and section and section, it is because they do not intend to so administer it.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried:


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, all right. Since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) has ascertained that in the last analysis the enforcement of this Bill depends upon this Government, and since he, or his side could have introduced safeguards by joining in a coalition Government will he explain why it is that the Liberal party in Parliament refused to join in the coalition which might have been effected?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid I will have to disclaim responsibility in the matter.


Richard Blain: Perhaps I should direct the attention of the committee to this rule:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must he strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I am only reading this in the hope that we will be able to keep order in the committee. The committee, I am sure, is as anxious about that as I am.


Frank Oliver: There is another feature of the administration of the Bill to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister, and that is the question of appeals. When a man is called up and the tribunal decides that he is entitled to be exempted, the appeal from that decision depends upon the Government. Assuming that there is a section in which public opinion is not in favour of military service, that the tribunal as appointed reflects public sentiment in that case, that those who go forward and ask for exemption, are given exemption, it is absolutely within the responsibility of the Government, under the provisions of this Bill, to see that these cases are appealed. Essential power then is in the hands of the Government to see that this Bill is properly enforced. The Government, while professing to divest itself of the responsibility-which, in my humble judgment, it should not do-does

not so divest itself of responsibility, and therefore there is all the more reason why provisions should be in the Bill which would protect the public interest and the public welfare. I have used the reference that my hon. friend has made to the province of Quebec. The Minister of Inland Revenue referred to the province of Quebec. It is not that I have anything to say about how they administer their affairs in Quebec, but if I am compelled to read what they say as indicating an intention to extend favouritism to that province, I expect a square deal in my own province. Favouritism in one part of the country might just as well be favouritism in another part of the country and it is for that reason that I ask that provision may be made in the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I, first of all, wish to thank my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), for extracting and quoting so generous a portion of my speech of the 21st June which formed a very fertile oasis in the dreary desert of his own address. I cannot extend my thanks further or compliment him on his ability in interpreting words. His method of interpreting words is that when I stated that the Bill makes no favourites of provinces, he takes that to be a statement that it makes a favourite of the province of Quebec. All the difference there is between my statement and his, I find, is that there is a "not" in my statement and the " not " is left out of his interpretation. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend in one conclusion. He says that if the Bill is administered unfairly by the parties responsible for its administration it will not be a success. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But in the choice of those tribunals hon. gentlemen opposite aTe to have just as much to do as we have. That is the statement of the Prime Minister and it is the policy of the Government. We provide for a condition under which the best men will be selected.


Mr. NESBITT:: How would they have
the selection?


Arthur Meighen: Because the board of
selection which names one of the members of the tribunal is intended to be composed of persons chosen by hon. members opposite to as great an extent as persons are chosen by hon. members on this side of the House. That is the intention and it has already been so stated. The board selects one member of each local tribunal and a judge selects the other. I do not think it is ex.ag-

gerating the condition of affairs on the bench to say that most of the county court judges in Canada to-day were appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite. lit is ait least within the mark to say that in the choice of this board of selection, hon. gentlemen opposite and those appointed by them, will have really more to say than hon. members on this side and those appointed by them. The appeal tribunals which are above the local tribunals 'and which are to correct errors made by the local tribunals 'Consist solely of judges, and I do not think it is wrong to say that most of these judges also were appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite. That is in the nature of things because they were in power for sixteen years while we have been in power for something over five years. Then, the central appeal judge is chosen from the Supreme Count bench, consequently there again hon. gentlemen opposite have already reposed perhaps the highest standard of confidence that could be reposed' in any man in Canada. If, under these circumstances, we have to assume that we are going to have a set of worthless local tribunals, a worthless central appeal judge, and .a worthless Government, of course the Bill will not be a success.
That is the only conclusion in which I can agree with the hon. member for Edmonton. But I have not lost faith in human nature. The hon. jpember for Edmonton has hem in a state of cerebral distemper or something lately-I do not know what is wrong. He seems to have no faith or confidence in any one. This is a selective compulsory service Bill. We want to apply a process of selection to get those men. In working that out I should like to have employed the finest analysing and selective instrument in the world, which is the human mind. The hon. member for Edmonton, on the contrary, would rather commit that task to a box of dice or to some instrument of chance, having lost faith in human nature. I have not lost faith in my fellow men. The hon. member wants to substitute blind chance for human judgment. He has no confidence in two men, but all kinds of confidence in two straws. That is the difference between myself and the hon. member for Edmonton. It is a question of the choice of the best method. I am in agreement with him also that what he stated this afternoon had been stated by him before; in fact I would go further and say it has been stated by him over and over again before and has been answered before. I cannot congratulate him upon having made any impression by

that kind of so-called reasoning upon either his own side of the House or this side. All I can do is to reaffirm now that, so far as we have been able to do it, ihe principles imbedded in this Bill are the principles which, fairly acted upon by reasonable men, will select the most available men for the front, which is the primary object, with the least injury to agricultural and industrial pursuits at home. That is the purpose, and if, in effecting that purpose, there is any definite suggestion or amendment that in the opinion of hon. gentlemen will secure that end more clearly and certainly, -we shall be only too glad to hear it.


George Perry Graham: Do I understand that the suggestions that have been made concerning the forming of these tribunals have been already rejected by the Government.


Arthur Meighen: No. I do not think that any suggestion has been made from either side of the House inconsistent with the principle that I eaid was to 'be adopted, namely, that the same say in the choice of the board of selection should be given to hon. gentlemen opposite as to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.


George Perry Graham: We were urging that
county court judges should be chosen to act on these boards, and I inferred that that suggestion had been rejected.


Arthur Meighen: That was a suggestion, hut it has nothing to do with the argument on the point I was making. I have gone very carefully over the notes made on the suggestions of yesterday, and some of them, I think, can be embodied with advantage in the Bill. It would seem to me best to take them up in rotation later.


George Perry Graham: Suppose that 100,000
men are not secured by the calling up of the first class and that by the calling up of the second class 110,000 are secured. Does not the Solicitor General think that, notwithstanding what he has said, the ballot would be the fairest possible way to make a choice?


Arthur Meighen: No, I should think not. In the first place, I do not think there is any reasonable possibility of our getting over the 100,000, for the reason that we have power to divide classes into subclasses. But if by any chance we should1 get a small number over, it would appear to me that rather than resort to the ballot, it would be fairer and more in consonance with the general principle of the Bill to release the older men in order of
age until only the necessary number was left.


Mr. DEVLIN:: After the 100,000 are secured under conscription, will all organization relative to conscription cease ipso facto?


Arthur Meighen: After securing 100,000 men the Bill cannot be used to secure any more. The organization will then be at an end until Parliament acts again, if it does act.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is there any provision
for exemptions in the 100,000?


Arthur Meighen: No, they have got past the exemption stage and are in the army.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: So that the Bill may call for more than 100,000?


Arthur Meighen: No, More than 100,000 reinforcements cannot he secured under it. Should more be enlisted, then, under powers which the Militia Department now has, they may release some of the men, and I gave a suggestion of a principle on which release might he possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: If, say in the city of Ottawa, a'large number of young men who would be liable to conscription under this Bill should fail to come forward, what provision is there for punishing them? It might be the duty of the Attorney General of the province to enforce the law, but he would not likely take any action. I have not yet been able to ascertain that under these circumstances the slackers could not get off.


Arthur Meighen: It would be the duty of the authorities, no matter how many men had reported themselves, to see to it that the law was enforced as to those who did not. And, so far as the Government is concerned, that is the intention.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would be the duty of the authorities to see that they were registered, but haw would the authorities know?


Arthur Meighen: The general answer
' would be, in the same way as they know of the violation of any law, but specifically I might say that, inasmuch as everywhere in Canada there are those who have gone forward, and who are interested that more go forward, and that this war be pressed forward with all the strength of the country, it is believed that that class of people will make themselves of service to their country by making known to the authorities those who disobey tbe law, and I think there are good grounds for that belief. I do not think



there is any section in Canada where there are not sufficient numbers who are interested generally in the enforcement of the law, and interested specially in the enforcement of such law as strengthens the army of this country for the war, and who will assist their country by reporting men who fail to do their duty under this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to say a word in reference to an idea, which seems to influence the minds of some hon. members, and to point out that there would not be any safeguard in the registration that has been spoken of. I call attention to the fact that the men are to report. That is their first duty. Suppose that you provided for a distinct registration, you would have in front of you exactly the same difficulty.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sure, I understand that.


Robert Laird Borden: You would have the question as to whether or not all have registered, and in the United States, at the present time, they are hunting up men who have not registered, and taking proceedings against them under the law, so that there really is not any additional safeguard in registration. If there were a distinct provision for registration we should be in precisely the same position.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not advocating registration. I was trying to find out if the Government had any means of knowing the men who did not come forward, because, with all due deference to the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), in many sections of the country they would think it tattling, as we used to s.ay when we were boys, to tell on a neighbour's boy who did not go forward. There is no question, they would think it disloyal to their neighbour.


Arthur Meighen: They would think it better to be disloyal to their neighbour than to their country, at such a time as this. I have full confidence that, depending on the means I have stated, infractions of the law will be ascertained, but if that dependence is not sufficient, and if other means should be found necessary to find out those who have not registered, such means as may be necessary will be taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: No doubt the Government will find ample means to find the slackers, if you call them by that name, but I must say to my hon. friend that, if he has to depend on the informer, he may not obtain the information.


William Sora Middlebro: The only provision in the United States law for the man who re-
fuses to register reads as follows:-
Any person who shall wilfully fail or refuse to present himself for registration or submit thereto as herein provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, and shall thereupon be duly registered.
So that they have the same provision as we have.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That does not cover the point.


John Allister Currie: The language of this Act is not very clear. It says, "called out for active service," and there is also the matter of enrolment and the matter of registration, which they use in the United States, and which we are not using here at all. I think all the classes should be first enrolled, and the call for active service should come subsequently. Then you would have all the manhood enrolled in the first place between the ages of 20 and 45, but a man could not dodge between the two classes. A man might be of such an age that he would require six months to get into one of the classes called out, and, by the time the class was called out, he would be in the other category, and might evade both classes in that way, but if they were both called out and enrolled in the first instance, it would save a great deal of trouble. Any one who has anything to do with the enrolment of soldiers will understand that it requires a tremendous amount of work to prepare the papers of the men. I know of cases where it will take two or three weeks of hard work, with a staff of five or six hundred men, to get the attestation papers of a thousand men filled up and everything in proper shape. So that there is going to be a great deal more work in addition, calling these men out or enrolling them. The word "enroll" is not mentioned in the Act at all. I presume that if they are called out and come before the tribunal, they are enrolled and papers are prepared for them.


Charles Marcil: If they do not claim an exemption, they do not go before the tribunal at all.


John Allister Currie: Where do they go?


Charles Marcil: That is what we want to find out.


Arthur Meighen: They will report as provided in 'the proclamation.


John Allister Currie: Would it not be better to have them all report, in the first place? You would have all the men and you would know how many would go into one cate-

gory and how many in the other, and the matter would he settled in the beginning. I think everybody should be enrolled from 18 to 45, and then if you want to call out those from 20 to 30, you can do so. A man would then get his papers to show he was enrolled, and if he were arrested by the corporal's guard, he could produce his paper to prove, he was enrolled.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill provides for that.


John Allister Currie: But it does not provide they shall all be called out at once. If you call them all out at once, every man in the section would be enrolled. The military tribunals will meet in every parish or township, and the young men will have to be enrolled. If you fail to get 100,000 in the two classes, you have to call out the third class. In foreign countries, men always carry their papers in their pocket. If a man is in a class which has not been called out, he has his papers in his pocket to show he has been enrolled. I think we should follow the same procedure, and it would simplify matters. I think hon. gentlemen should not insist continually on numbers being given in this House. Hours have been spent in arguing about the number of men sent to the front, and the number who have not been sent to the front.
It is one of the first principles of war that information as to numbers or strength of troops should noit be given out fco any person. It is simply- giving aid to the enemy to ask, as gentlemen in this House have constantly asked, how many men have enlisted from time to time. I hope that the Government, when this Bill is enforced, will insist -that this rule shall be observed. To give information as to'how many men are enlisted, where they are enlisted, and that sort of thing, is a violation of one of the fundamental rules of war; namely, that information as to the number of troops enlisted or enrolled or the figures of parade states of the army should never be given. I hope, therefore, that members on the other side will not constantly endeavour to make an issue of the number of men enlisted, for by doing so they -are unconsciously helping our enemies. If the Minister of Militia said that 70,000 more men enlisted than really did, he was only giving the Germans a greater scare to that extent. He should have said 100,-CGO there-or he should have refused to give any information at all. Everybody who has read anything of military law or military history knows that it is -a crime to give figures in this regard,
207*
*and that rule should be enforced here in this Ho-use as it is outside.
Mr. MiARCIL:	Is all voluntary enlistment on the -part of men who will not come under the classes named in this Bill to be *suspended the moment the Act comes into force?


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing in the Bill to that effect.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am sure that the Government are to be congratulated upon having my hon. friend the colonel to advise them in this matter. M.ay I ask the Solicitor General wihert/her section 3 has been passed?


Arthur Meighen: The whole of section
3, which is the section dividing the classes, w.as allowed to stand.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) is in his place. May I direct Ms attention to the following statement which he made in the House on June 25, page 2751 of Hansard:
The law authorizes the raising of 100,000 men, in nine provinces. I do not know what number of men the tribunals of each province will decide to send to the army, hut let us suppose it will be as follows:	British Columbia, 10,000 ; Alberta, 10,000; Saskatchewan, 10,000; Manitoba, 10,000'; Ontario, 25,000 ; Quebec, 25,000; New Brunswick, 5,000; Nova Scotia, 5;00 0; Prince Edward Island, 2,000. We reach a total of 102,000 men; the law authorizes but 100,000. The Government thinks they can be found, but once more, I say the tribunals will decide.
May I ask the hon. gentleman upon what basis he suggested that distribution of men?
Mr. SEVIGNY; I was just showing that it was very easy to find 100,000 men in Canada.


Frank Oliver: Am I to understand that
the minister made the suggestion without, any knowledge of the facts?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: According to the Bill,
the men must be chosen by the tribunals. I do not think that any man in this committee or in the country can -say now what the tribunals will decide.


Frank Oliver: The tribunals are to exempt men, not to ehooee men.
Mr. 'SEVIGNY: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman's distinction. In my judgment, the men will be chosen by the tribunals. The tribunals will decide what men are more essential on the farms, on the railways or in the industries, and they

will decide at the same time what men can he spared for the army.


Charles Marcil: That would mean that no man would be enlisted' unless he went before the tribunal. My understanding is that the only men to come before the tribunals are those who claim exemption. If a man does not claim exemption, his case will not come before the tribunal.


John Allister Currie: My understanding of the
Bill was that the tribunals pass on everybody; I was surprised to hear the Solicitor General say to-day that they do not. Men who are more valuable in certain employments than they would be at the front are still, ae they were under the
5 p.,m. voluntary system, able to go of their own free will. There is nobody to say: You cannot go. Many men are essential to the industries of the country for other purposes. As the Bill stands now, unless such a man objects to going- and many men will be too proud to ask for exemption-he goes. I think that the names of men in certain trades or categories-farmers especially-who are called upon to go should come before the tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is not quite right in his interpretation of the Bill. The obligation is not imposed upon the man himself of applying for exemption. He may apply, but if any one else feels that it is in the national interest-that that man be exempted, that person may apply on the man's behalf.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I can understand that that would apply to large manufacturers or makers of munitions who might apply on behalf of 1,000 or 5,000 men in their employ. But how can it be worked out in regard to the farmer or the farmer's boy? In such cases application would not be made by a stranger or by -anybody except by the boy himself or his father. The member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says that in many cases the men will be too proud to apply for exemption. Such men would necessarily be conscripted and attached to the army unless -application for exemption were made on their behalf. There is a great deal in what the member for North Simcoe says that, in the interests of the nation, many positions in various occupations should continue to be filled by those who are now filling them. That more especially applies to the farmer, the farmer's son or the farm labourer. The Minister of Inland Revenue has said that the tribunals pass on every man.

They do not; they pass only upon men who make application or on whose behalf application is made. If application is not made on a man's behalf, he necessarily becomes attached to the army and must serve. If he declines to serve, he will be treated as a deserter and be liable to punishment accordingly.


Albert Sévigny: That is the way I understand the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that it should go out from the House that application for exemption brings any ignominy or disgrace upon the applicant, even if he applies on his own behalf. I think that men engaged in agriculture in Canada who are of opinion that they serve the national interests at home do no dastardly or disgraceful act in applying for exemption. They are doing what they believe to be in the national interest, and I think they will not fail to apply. I think that there will be no general feeling -of revulsion against those who do this. If they fail in individual cases to do so, -there are others who can apply on their behalf, and I do not think that those others will fail to apply.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is well that we should understand exactly what are the principles of this Bill. They are very clear and well known; I am surprised that they should be discussed -at all. The principle of the Bill is that every man between the ages of 20 and 35 is liable to be a soldier. There is no distinction; the law is that every male British subject in Canada is liable to service. He will be called upon and he will be obliged to obey; he has no- recourse except that of going before a tribunal and claiming exemption. Exemption can be claimed upon various grounds. He can say: my health is not good. He can say: my family are suffering. Or he can say: I am a big banker;
I have a big business to carry on; therefore I should not be called upon to perform military service. Subsection (d) of section 11, which contains the exemptions, provides that exemption m-ay be granted if it be shown:
That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position;
What is the meaning of "his exceptional financial or business obligations"? As I understand it, a banker who has a large financial institution can claim exemption on that account, and it will be for the tribunal to declare whether his claim is right or wrong.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think my right hon. friend's interpretation is right. That a man is a big hanker would not be a proper claim for exemption under clause (d), which refers to claims of hardship, not on account of big assets, but on account of big liabilities. A man does not become rich from the size of his liabilities.


Wilfrid Laurier: He may be exempted on account of the big business he is carrying on, whether you call it obligations, or assets, or anything else.


Arthur Meighen: The word in the clause is "obligations."
S.ir WILFRID LAURIER: The clause reads:
Owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, obligations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Obligations to whom? To the public whom he is serving, not his own personal obligations, because that would be a still worse claim. At all events, he can claim exemption, and it will >be for the tribunal to decide whether his claim is right or wrong. Then the clause says that he can claim exemption on account of his "domestic position." That is a most elastic term. What does that mean? Can he say that he should be exempted because he is the father of twelve children? There might be something in that. The hon. member for Edmonton had something to say upon that point. I do not think, however, that the fact that a man has a large family is what is meant. At all events, a man can claim exemption for a multitude of reasons, such as for poor health, for business obligations, for financial obligations, for domestic position. But the broad principle upon which the Bill is based is not that the tribunals will constitute the army; the principle is laid down that, without any exception, every British subject between the ages of twenty and forty-five is a soldier and liable to be called out, and that he must go unless exempted by a tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: That is the principle of the Bill, shortly, but not completely stated.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the tribunals have power themselves, from their own personal knowledge, to exempt anybody?


Arthur Meighen: No, the Bill does not contemplate ,exemption except following an application.


Charles Marcil: After this Bill is passed, if a man who. should remain here should insist on enlisting voluntarily in order to go to the front, will he have to go although it is in the interest of the country that he should remain here?


Arthur Meighen: As to voluntary enlistment, this Bill makes no change whatever.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: In regard to section 11, the Solicitor General mentioned a moment ago that an application for exemption may be made by any man for or on behalf of any man. The wording of the Bill is:
Or in respect of any man.
There is a distinction between an application made on behalf of a man and that made in respect of a man. The former,
I assume, would be made by a parent or an agent of the man. It is open to any outside individual, not an agent of the man himself, to apply a tribunal to have that man retained in Canada?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, the wording should not be "on behalf of a man"; it should be as printed in the Bill: "in respect of any man."


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should have an explanation from the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) about his former statements. Besides what the hon. minister has said in his speech in this House, he has given an interview to the press of Quebec, in which he gave pretty near the same figures as those mentioned in his speech here, with this exception, however, that he went farther. In that interview, he said that the province of Quebec would probably be called upon to contribute
25,000	men; in this total figure, the contribution of the city of Montreal would be 10,000 men; that of Quebec, 1,000 men, and each of 1,200 municipalities of the province would furnish 10 men and the balance would be contributed by the towns of Fraserville, of Three Rivers, of St. Hyacinthe, of Sorel, etc. My hon. friend has been most generous in his nomenclature of towns who should contribute. Now, from what has just been said, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and from the hon. minister's own words, he seems to have simply drawn an inference with the sole object of demonstrating that 100,000 men could be easily drafted in the country. Now, I must say to

the hon. minister that his statements have been construed otherwise; the newspapers have seized upon them and they seem to believe, in the province, that these statements have been made on behalf of the Government, that is to say that, in consequence of this law, 25,000 men would be levied in the province of Quebec only. Would he please tell us if it will be 25,000 men or more than 25,000, that the province of Quebec shall be called upon to contribute?


Albert Sévigny: In reply to my hon. friend from Kamouraska, I iwill tell him that, no more than he, do I know the number of men which the province of Quebec will be asked to contribute as a result of this enactment; it is possible it might be only 10,000 men and it is equally possible it will be more. By the words I spoke in this House as well, as in the interview mentioned, I simply meant to show that the province of Quebec could easily furnish these 25,000 men, and that Montreal could easily supply 10,000; I believe that, on that point, my hon. friend from Kamouraska will be of my opinion.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not at all in accord with you as regards this Bill.


Albert Sévigny: I understand that my hon. friend's opinion would be to do nothing at all.


Ernest Lapointe: I said, as far as this Bill is concerned.


Albert Sévigny: I believe that Montreal might contribute 10,000 men and Quebec, with her population of 100,000 inhabitants, could furnish 1,000 of them. Moreover, we have, in the province of Quebec, 1,200 municipalities and I am of the opinion that all these municipalities, even that of Kamouraska, could furnish 10 men each, especially so, if my hon. friend would make some effort. Consequently, if these 1,200 municipalities supplied 12,000 men, and if we add to these Quebec and Montreal, we have a total of 23,000 men. It seems to me that the balance of our contribution, that is to say 2,000 men, could be furnished without any difficulty by the cities of Hull, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, St. Hyacinthe, Chicoutimi, Levis. My object was simply to show how easy it would be for the province of Quebec to furnish 25,000 men without suffering from it to any material extent. I believe that if this province did furnish these 25,000 men, she would be most proud of it, not only for the time being, but especially in the future.

Now, I do not know, no one in this House knows, how many men will be called in the province of Quebec, and I would not be surprised if that contribution was far inferior to that presumed figure of 25,000 men, for we have in that province many large families, and a great portion of the population is engaged in agriculture.
As the Government's object is above all to take into account the needs of the agricultural class, it is possible that the province of Quebec will not be asked to contribute 25,000 men, but, at all events, I assert that, in my opinion, she could easily furnish them.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will
my hon. friend allow me a question?


Albert Sévigny: Certainly.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The
hon. Minister has just mentioned the name of the city of Hull. Has the hon. minister any idea of the number of soldiers furnished by the city of Hull and toy the county of Wright?


Albert Sévigny: I
know that the city of Hull has furnished 800 men.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And the
county of Wright?


Albert Sévigny: I do not know.


Mr. PROTJLX (Translation):: How many men does my hon. friend think the county of Dorchester is going to furnish?


Albert Sévigny: I may say to my hon. friend that I shall certainly do my utmost to induce my electors of the county of Dorchester to do their part generously, and I know they will do it. I have more confidence in my compatriots than my hon. friend from Prescott or my hon. friend from Kamouraska. I know tnat my compatriots are willing to do their full duty in the present crisis, but, unfortunately, they are misguided.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like to know from my hon. friend, the Minister of Inland Revenue, on what ground he bases himself; how does he come to the conclusion that he can find
10,000	men in Montreal?


Albert Sévigny: I did not catch the question.


Ernest Lapointe: ! ask the hon. minister on what he bases his opinion that he can find. 10,000 men in Mhntreal?

Upon what basis, how do you figure it out, how do you get these 10,000 men upon whom, you can lay your hands and send to the front?


Albert Sévigny: I may tell my hon. friend that, since the question of conscription has come up, some fifty Montreal people have stated to me that the city of Montreal could easily contribute 10,000 men.


Ernest Lapointe: Are the parties who have s!o well informed the hon. minister people who would like to ge themselves, or are they persons in favour of the present administration, or rather, those who surround him that have made such a statement. Upon what does he rely to make that statement?


Mr. RAINVILLE (Chairman of the Committee) (Translation):: I believe this debate somewhat exceeds the limits of the clause we are now discussing.


Ernest Lapointe: Paragraph 4 of article 13 reads as
follows:
Unless futher authorized by Parliament the reinforcements provided under this Act shall not exceed one hundred thousand men.
I believe that under this paragraph 4, we certainly have the right to know where, how and in what way these 100,000 men are going to be levied; I believe we are perfectly in order when we ask the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, who declared, a few days ago, that 25,000 of these 100,000 men would be probably levied in the province of Quebec, upon what he bases his calculation. The hon. Minister just said that the province of Quebec could easily furnish 25,000 men, without in any way suffering from it; without injury to agriculture or to the industries. Could she furnish twenty-five, thirty, forty or fifty thousand men, without any injury to agriculture or manufacturing? Does my hon. friend limit to 25,000 men the sum total of suffering to be inflicted on the province of Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: I have given my answer just now, it is useless to repeat it.


Frank Oliver: I wanted to get some
further information from the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue in regard to the statement he favoured the House with [DOT] some weeks ago. He made the suggestion as to the apportionment of the requirement of men to meet this 100,000 draft, and I feel it is most important that we in other parts of the country should know if his statement
was made with authority or not with authority. I understand my hon. friend disclaimed having any authority for making the statement he did.	*


Arthur Meighen: He did not make his statement as to any proportion of the men that would be taken.


Albert Sévigny: I wanted to say that in my opinion it would be very easy to get 100,000 men in Canada. As I said a few minutes ago, speaking in French, it would,
I believe, be easy to find 25,000 men in the province of Quebec. I figure it this way: the city of Montreal has a population of 600,000, and, in my judgment, it would be easy to find 10,000 in that city. I have been told this by at least fifty people who live in the city of Montreal since conscription was first mentioned in this country. Take the city of Quebec, where there is a population of 100,000, and in my judgment it would be very easy to get 1,000 men in the city of Quebec. There are 1,200 municipalities in the province of Quebec, and I should suppose that it would he very easy to get at least 10 men in each municipality, which would make 12,000 men, and, including my estimate for Quebec and Montreal, you would thus get 23,000 men. We have in the province, cities like Hull, with a population of 20,000; Sherbrooke, with a population of 20,000; Three Rivers, with a population of 20,000; Valleyfield, with a population of 10,000; St. Hyaciirthe, with a population of 8,000; Sorel, with a population of 6,000, and Levis, with a population of 10,000, and others. In my judgment, it would be very easy to get from those cities the 2,000 men necessary to bring the total up 25,000.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue tell .me whether he has had an opportunity of discussing this question of conscription in the province of Quebec since the Dorchester election, so as to place him in a position to form an opinion as to the feeling of the people in any large gathering in any city, or in any county in the province? Is the minister in a position to inform the House as to the feeling of the people on the question?


Albert Sévigny: I know that there has ' been .agitation in Quebec during the last two months and for different reasons-perhaps for political reasons in many cases. I may say to my hon. friend that since I made my remarks in this House on June 21, I have received some very nice letters of congratulation from the good farmers of the

county of Dorchester, and from many persons in different parts of the province.


Charles Marcil: That is from those who
are not going to the front.
would like to ask him on what ground he made the suggestion that 10,000 men might properly be conscripted from the province of Alberta under this Bill.


Albert Sévigny: I may give one instance of the appreciation I have met with. The other day I met a young man from Montreal, who was practically a stranger to me, and he said: "Mr. Sevigny, I have always been a Liberal, but I am ready to support your Government on this conscription question; I think the Liberal party of the province of Quebec is wrong on this question, and in future I am ready to give my support to the Conservative administration." Now, I am willing to give the name of that man, and I may add that he is .a very important man in the city of Montreal.


Charles Marcil: If the hon. minister would go further and give us the opportunity we ask of submitting the whole question to the people of- the province of Quebec, and of the whole Dominion of Canada, we could settle the matter then once for all. We have been assured that if the majority of the people of Canada declare for conscription the province of Quebec will submit, because the people there are a law-abiding people. The chief objection is that the people in the province of Quebec have not been consulted. They claim this moribund Parliament has no right to call upon them before the people have given their verdict.
'Mr. SEVIGNY: I would advise my hon. friend to address those remarks to his friends on his own side of the House who have voted against a referendum.


Charles Marcil: I followed my honoured leader, and voted with him. I hope the Prime Minister will give the people an opportunity to pronounce upon this question by way of a general election or otherwise. We hear a great deal about Quebec in this connection, but there are eight other provinces in the Dominion. If there is any aouibt a'bout Quebec there cannot be any doubt about the other eight provinces. If the people want conscription, let us have it unitedly; iet us get the people all united so that Canada will be of some assistance to the Mother Country and the Allies, but do not let us keep quarreling and wrangling among ourselves as we are doing now.


Frank Oliver: I think we can take it for granted that the suggestion placed before the House by the Minister of Inland Eevenue is probably a suggestion lie would make to the Cabinet when the question was under consideration. For that reason I


Albert Sévigny: Alberta has done splendidly since the war broke out. At the same time I have been told by several persons from the province of Alberta-I was told last night by a gentleman from Alberta, Mr. Boileau, whom I think my hon. friend knows that while Alberta had done splendidly in recruiting since the war broke out the impression was that Alberta could supply 10,000 more men.


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend think it is a fair proposition that Alberta, having already sent 35,000 out of a population of 400,000, should be called upon for 10,000: more, as compared, we will say, with the province of Quebec which, having sent 44,000 is to be called on for 25,000 more? Does my hon. friend think that is a fair equalization of the burden?
Some hon. MEMBEES: Carried, carried.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the minister will be good enough to give a reply.
Some hon. MEMBEES: Carried.


Albert Sévigny: I have already said that Alberta has done splendidly but this law will be not for the province of Quebec alone* nor for Alberta alone, but for all the provinces of this Dominion, and if it is possible to find 10,000 fit men in Alberta, I am sure they will be ready to do their duty. In many cases, no doubt, they will come before the tribunals and ask to be exempted and if the reasons are found good they will certainly be exempted. I am sure the tribunals of Alberta will take into account what has been already done by that province.


Frank Oliver: It is quite evident that the points I have been trying to place before the committee are established, and that it is the intention of the Government under this Bill to make the willing horse continue to bear the greater part of the burden. The suggestion that 10,000 should he taken from Alberta in comparison with
25.000	from Quebec is one that would satisfy anybody as to the intention of the Government in regard to the administration of the Bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Why does the Minister of Inland Eevenue propose to take
25.000	from Quebec and only 25,000 from Ontario? Taking into consideration the

difference in population, does he intend to punish Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Edmonton might answer that question if it be addressed to him.


Frank Oliver: I have no hesitation in saying-


Ernest Lapointe: I am speaking to my fellow citizen who represents the province of Quebec in this Parliament. The hon. member for Edmonton is defending his own province with all the knowledge and talent which he possesses. It is incumbent upon the Minister of Inland Revenue to explain why he proposes to make this difference between these two provinces; that is, that the province of Quebec, with a population of 3,000,000, shall furnish 25,000, and that Ontario, with a million more people, shall furnish 25,000 men?


Albert Sévigny: A million?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Albert Sévigny: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Not as much as that. Let the minister give us the reason why he takes 25,000 from Quebec and only
25,000	from Ontario.


William Pugsley: Before this section is carried- Oh, the Minister of Inland Revenue has not answered yet.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that before any information is asked from the Minister of Inland Revenue the hon. member for Montreal, St. James (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) should settle the preliminary dispute between themselves. One of them says that 25,000 is too many from Quebec, and the other that 25,000 from Quebec is altogether too few.


Frank Oliver: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. I say that 10,000 from Alberta is too many in proportion to the number from Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member (Mr. L. A. Lapointe) does not think so.


William Pugsley: The question I am about to ask the Minister of Inland Revenue will not be so difficult to answer. I was very much interested in the way in which he thought the 100,000 could be raised. I would like to ask him if his figures are based upon the young men from 20 to 23 years of age or upon the total from 20 to 45 years of age, whether his figures are based on the calling out of the first class or the calling out of the total classes.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: The figures
which the hon. gentleman gave were preceded by the words "let us suppose." He has already explained that he gave them purely as an illustration.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister, of course, does well to come to the relief of the Minister of Inland Revenue. Perhaps it is well that he should, "but I do not think that he has afforded any excuse to the minister for not doing me the courtesy of answering my question. The minister has stated that it would be quite possible to raise 100,000 men and he said that so many could be raised in the province of Quebec. Indeed, he has quoted prominent people in Montreal and others to the effect that 25,000 could be raised in that province. What I ask the minister is whether the information is that they could be raised out of those who are called in the first draft, from 20 to 23, or whether it would include all the classes from 20 to 45, both married and unmarried. It is not an unreasonable question. I am quite sure the minister will not take the suggestion of the Prime Minister and decline to answer.


Albert Sévigny: I will examine the question and I will be glad to give an answer to my hon. friend to-night or to-morrow.


Charles Marcil: When Canada went into this war we offered 30,000 men. That number was further increased to 150,000. Last session, when England adopted conscription, 1 asked the Prime Minister whether the fact that compulsory military service had been adopted in England would in any way mod:fy Canada's participation in the war. The right hon. gentleman answered very briefly that because they were doing more over there it was no reason why we should do less here. I understand now that by an agreement between the Allies, as the number of English troops increases at the front the French troops are reduced and a iaige number of these French troops have been brought back to peaceful avocations. There seems to be an understanding between the various countries participating in the war as to what proportion of troops shall be furnished by each nation. Is Canada consulted or are we entirely at the discretion of the British war authorities? Can we hope that next year our numbers may be decreased in any way? How does the matter stand?


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is depending purely on newspaper rumours, .which are not always a very safe guide. The only purpose, so faT as I am

aware, which animates the Allies, is that each nation should throw its full strength into the war in order to bring it to a determination, with victorious results, as soon as possible. That is the only purpose that I know of.
So far as France is concerned, I think that all of us will agree that, perhaps more than any other nation, she has fulfilled that purpose to the full national strength of which ishe is capable. Every man has been sent to the front who is capable of giving military service, except those who have been retained in munitions factories and other absolutely essential industries, to carry on the necessary work of the nation. There is no such agreement or understanding as my hon. friend has suggested, because the whole strength of all the nations is being tested to the utmost in the effort to win the victory in this war.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Can a man who has failed to receive his exemption from one local tribunal go to several other tribunals, with the permission of the minister?


Arthur Meighen: No, he may not. He
would never get the permission of the minister, even if provision were made for that. There is no provision which contemplates that contingency.- It might happen that a man who had received a conditional exemption from one tribunal imighit, of necessity, and not in any wiay to avoid his responsibilities -in a military -sense, be in another pait of the country when his conditional exemption expired, and in such -a case the minister -might deem it ihi-s duty to permit that man to- apply to a tribunal near where he was, th-us obviating -a journey of perhaps a thousand -miles.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does not subsection 5 of section 11 infer that the minister may grant permission to a -man who -has already been turned down to go to another tribunal?


Arthur Meighen: Provision is made for
exceptional -cases -such as I h-ave spoken of.
I do not think any hon. -member would suggest that the Act should be so iron-clad that even in such exceptional oases the minister should not have -power to give permission to a man to renew his application before -another tribunal if the circumstances were such that it would be -a hardship on him to go before the original tribunal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But once the certificate
would be refused, he would have no right to go 'before another tribunal, even if permission to do so were granted by the minister?
fSir Bobert Borden.}


Arthur Meighen: It is no-t contemplated
that any -such cases as that would be permitted. If the certificate is refused, the man must report- or go to the court of appeal.


William Pugsley: I was surprised to hear the Solicitor General, in answer to the hon. member -for Wellington, say that an application might be made, not only on-behalf of a person-, where the applicant would be supposed to be his agent, but in respect to any person; in other words that,- without a -man's knowledge, his employer might select the tribunal and himself make application without the knowledge of and not at the request of the person for whom exemption is asked. An application of that kind might be made in respect of a man before one tribunal, and then if that man applied to another tribunal he would be subject to a penalty of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. I suggest that ithe minister might well make provision against xhe occurrence of any such injustice as that.


Arthur Meighen: If such a case occurred there would be power in the minister to permit the man to make his own selection and be relieved of the first tribunal. The object here in view is to avoid havin-g a man who has -been refused an exemption by one tribunal going to another tribunal, trying his luck where he thinks he may win. I do not think there is -any substantial danger of the kind my hon. friend has in mind.
Referring to the first point raised by my hon. friend, the Bill says that there shall he such notice and intervening time as the regulation may provide. The man in respect of whom application was made would know that and he could go before the tribunal and say he did not want exemption. His case would be heard and great weight would be given to his own desire. If it were no-t given, all he would have to do would be to enlist voluntarily.


William Pugsley: Where an application
was made in respect to a man, any notice would be sent to the man making the application. Take the manager of a large factory employing 1,000 hands of military age; these men would of course beome liable to serve the moment the proclamation was issued.
This manager, without ^consulting the men, we will suppose is of the opinion that their services are required in the national interest, and that it is very much better that they should work in his factory than that they should go to the front. He makes the application, hut it need not he on their

behalf .at all. The words, "in respect of" have been used, in order to eliminate the personality of the men entirely. The manager makes the application on behalf of a 'thousand men in his employ. Any notice which is given by the tribunal will be given to the man who makes the .application, not to the man in respect of whom the application is made, .but will be given to the manager, and the whole matter might be tried and the man might toe either forced to serve, or might be forced to remain in the factory, without his ever having been consulted, and, indeed, without his ever having any knowledge whatever of the proceedings which are being taken in respect of him.


Arthur Meighen: The regulations certainly would provide that the man affected would have notice.


William Pugsley: How can the hon. Solicitor General assure this Parliament in regard to regulations to be made toy a Judge who is not yet appointed? The Solicitor General said the Government would not make the regulations, tout that they would be made by the central judge. What guarantee have we that regulations would be made to cover a case of that kind? Possibly, the attention of the judge would not be called to this particular section. It seems to me that in framing a law of this enormous importance, a law which is to give the right to the Crown to deal with the life and liberty of the subject, difficulties of this kind should be provided against, and a direct provision should be inserted jn the statute.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of anything that would so manifestly present itself to the mind of the central judge than that, in the event of some one applying in respect of another, the party affected should have notice before final decision. Notices in all details like that are left to regulations, the building up of which, in a systematic way, is a work that naturally follows the passing of an Act, and has, for fifty years in Canada, always followed the passing of such an Act. Nothing could be more manifest than that that was in its sphere of regulations, and would toe governed by regulations to be framed. It is because I attribute to the central appeal judge common sense that I conclude he would frame regulations in regard to that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can the Solicitor General tell us what would be the policy of the Government in respect to bona fide rejections made prior to the coming into
force of this Act, where those who were rejected held a certificate of rejection? Would a person who was rejected prior to the coming into force of this Act, and who held a certificate to that effect from the proper authority, be required to come forward and prove his rejection?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That should be made clear publicly now, or made public in some other way.


Arthur Meighen: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one. The question came under review in the preparation of the legislation, with the idea of ascertaining whether or not it would be possible to avoid the coming before tribunals of some or all of the class mentioned by my hon. friend, namely, the class who heretofore have been rejected, but the result of the deliberation showed that there was no way tof getting at those who should be finally rejected on that account. Some-of them hold certificates and some do not. Some who hold certificates should not now be exempt. Some got a certificate that, perhaps, they should not have got, had such an Act as this been in effect: consequently, it is felt that they should come in the same class as the whole body of the population, and that all men heretofore rejected must appear again, and obtain exemption, if they desire it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I rather agree
with that, as a matter of policy, but I think particular pains should be taken to have the public understand that.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is correct.
On section 14-burden of proof.


Arthur Meighen: I ask that this section be allowed to stand for the reason that there may be some changes in it.
Section stands.
On section 15-
15. (1) Every man within the classes described in section three shall, after his class or subclass is required to report, as provided in section four, whenever required by a peace officer or by any person who has authority for the purpose, produce his certificate if he has one, and shall answer truthfully all inquiries bearing on the question of his compliance or non-compliance with any provision of this Act.
(2) Any such man who fails to comply with this section shall in respect of each failure be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the hon. Solicitor General has explained before, but it is not clear to me, what arrangement exists between the United States and Canada in the matter of the enforcement of this law. With reference to Canadian subjects residing in the United States, is there a reciprocal arrangement between the United States and Canada, by which American citizens on this side of the line must comply with the American law, unless they enlist voluntarily and vice versa?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already mentioned that the subject has been discussed, but- no definite arrangements have yet been made, pending the passage of this Bill. As to some matters, there have been arrangements of a certain character: for example, we have agreed that United States subjects residing in Canada, who are subject to the law which has just been passed in the United States, shall be considered eligible for registration in Canada. If I am not mistaken, we have agreed that they may register at any post office in Canada. Some other minor matters of a like nature may have been determined, but there has not been an arrangement such as my hon. friend's question suggests. Of course, there has been an arrangement by which we are permitted to send recruiting officers into the United States. I think that has been mentioned by the Minister of Militia.


George Perry Graham: Is there likely to be such an arrangement?


Robert Laird Borden: The subject has been discussed, but nothing has been concluded yet. We have said to the United States Government that the Government of Canada will be prepared to co-operate, in any reasonable way, for the purpose of making their law effective.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is any provision made for cases where certificates referred to in section 15 have been lost?


Arthur Meighen: Any one who loses his certificate may obtain a duplicate upon the payment of a fee of 50 cents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Under what clause is
that provided?


Arthur Meighen: Subsection 7 of section 11.
On section 16-
16. (1) All expenditure under or for the purposes of this Act shall be paid out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.

(2) This Act shall come into force on such day, after the passing thereof, as the Governor in Council may fix by proclamation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that amendments are ' to be submitted by the Government to some of the sections which have been allowed to stand. I would suggest, therefore, that subsection 2 of this section stand until all other sections of the Bill shall have been finally passed.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good.


George Perry Graham: I would judge from subsection 1 that the expenses of the enforcement of this Act will be taken not from the special vote under the War Measures Act, but from a special vote for this purpose.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask whether the subsection the hon. gentleman desires to stand is:
This Act shall come into force on such day after the passing thereof as the Governor in Council may fix by proclamation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yea.


Arthur Meighen: Very well; that is
agreeable
Subsection 2 of section 16 stands.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.


George Perry Graham: At six o'clock, I asked a question in reference to section 16, subsection 1, which says:
All expenditure under or for the purposes of this Act shall be paid out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.
My question was: Will the cost of the enforcement of this measure be paid out of the war appropriation, or will there be a special appropriation?


Arthur Meighen: I have not given that matter special consideration, but I would expect the cost would be met out of the war appropriation.


George Perry Graham: Can the Solicitor General give us an estimate of the cost of the enforcement of this measure?


Arthur Meighen: No. The hon. member will see from. statements already made that the Government has in mind the keeping of that expense down to the lowest reasonable limit. I instance the statement of intention that we do not purpose pav;ng the -tribunals. If we paid them, the total

expense would be very large. Our intention of not paying the tribunals is not, how-over, chiefly from the point of view of expense, it is in the belief that in that way we afford an opportunity for men, who are very anxious to perform some service, to do so; it is in the belief that by getting that class of men, we shall secure a better class than if we got those who seek the position by reason of money incentive.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the expenses of this Act are to be taken out of the War Approbation Act?


Arthur Meighen: That is my expectation.
I do not see any other fund that they can logically, be taken out of.


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not
matter much whether they come from one appropriation or another. From the way in which the Bill is worded, it seems to contemplate a separate appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: It may be a separate appropriation, but it will be a war appropriation.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: In regard to this question, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a matter that I have brought up in the House on other occasions. In all the Federal Acts there ought to be some provision for the enforcement of the Act, and for providing the expenditure necessary to that end. When the United States Congress pass a federal law, they make provision for its enforcement. In the Act itself they say: It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States to enforce this law, and for this purpose a certain specified sum is set apart in the Act. They further say.: The Attorney General is hereby empowered to employ experts, attorneys, or special agents, and to do anything necessary for the enforcement of this law. The United States has become a strong country because it has federal law which is enforced. We in Canada have federal law, but we do not always enforce it. As the leader of the Opposition may recollect, when I had this question up before the House in regard to another Act, he said that the duty of enforcing the Act was on the Attorneys General of the provinces. That is not the proper method of enforcing a federal law. In my opinion, every federal law ought to contain a provision putting on the Attorney General, or the minister in charge of the department concerned, the responsibility of enforcing the law, and -there ought to be a money grant from this Parliament for that purpose. In the United
States great improvement has been made in the way of reaching certain crimes that were supposed to be within the jurisdiction of the different states. There was lack of enforcement of the laws and lack of money to enforce the laws, but they gradually came to 'the conclusion that while they had federal laws there must be federal enforcement of it by the responsible officers of the federal administration, and that money for that purpose had to be provided. An instance in connection with the United States is this. The authorities could not get at the crimes that had been committed throughout the whole Union in connection with labour troubles and things of that kind. As the railways were under the federal jurisdiction of the United States, they passed an Act in connection with the Transportation Act of the United States to make it illegal to use the railways for crime in connection with labour. In this way they made nearly all such crimes that were in the Codes of the different states a contravention of this new Act which they passed in connection with the railways, and in this way they got enforcement of the law. We in this country are not getting enforcement of many of the laws passed by this federal Parliament. We leave that enforcement to the provinces, and most of all to private prosecutors. To-day there is a great combine in paper, and although that is in contravention of the federal law, there is no enforcement of that law. The matter is left to the individual. We are passing a new insurance measure, and the other day I asked the Minister of Finance how he purposed enforcing it. I purpose asking the same question when we come to discuss the Railway Act. In the discussion in the committee on, the Railway Act, we found the evidence submitted was largely on how the law in connection with railways was to be enforced, and we have not yet come to a clear understanding on the matter, and it will come before the House.
In connection with all these Acts, however, if they are to be effective, there should be inserted a provision placing the responsibility of enforcing them on the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, and another provision providing money for that enforcement. The United States have had such provisions for some years now, and they have secured national unity largely through their declared intention of enforcing federal laws, of charging the responsible officers of the Government with the duty of enforcing the laws and of making the

national treasury responsible for providing funds for that enforcement. If we want to have national unity in this country, we shall have to follow the example of the United States and to insist upon our national laws being enforced by some responsible officers, and upon plenty of funds being provided in the law for their enforcement. That does not, perhaps, apply so much to this Act as to other Acts, but I take this opportunity of directing the attention of the House to the matter, and I hope in this Act we shall have no question as to its enforcement, who is responsible for it, and whence the money for that purpose is to come. If we do that, we shall have our national laws respected as they have not been respected before. We shall know that some officer is responsible for their enforcement. We have no federal enforcement of federal laws,


Hon. Mr. HAZEN:: Would the hon.
gentleman apply that remark to offences under the Criminal Code?


William Findlay Maclean: The way to secure the enforcement of the Criminal Code is to put its enforcement as a duty on somebody, and grant the money necessary for its inforcement. The great complaint in Canada has been that until quite recently we could not get the enforcement of any code or law which was made by the federal Parliament. They went farther in the United States, and we will have to come to it in this country-they created federal courts for the enforcement of federal laws.	v


Wilfrid Laurier: It was that
way from the first in the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: It may have
been and to that extent they were that much better off than we. We have the power to crea/te federal courts, and we have created the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court, and we have gradually put responsibilities on different officials ; for instance, we propose to put the responsibility of enforcing the Railway Act on the Railway Commission.
I would go much further than this, however, and I would say that the enforcement of every Act should be put as a duty on some official. In the United States they have a selective conscription measure, and they have made every provision for the enforcement of it. All the federal attorneys in the Union may be employed to enforce the law. The courts that will enforce it, just as our special tribunals, are federal creations; but 
they also bring in the state Governments. They are in .a position to command each state to produce its levy, and they apportion the levy on the different .states. The point I wish to make is that they have the federal machinery and a federal grant of money for the enforcement of federal statutes, I hope this House will impose the duty directly on someone in the Administration who will have to do it. This is a war measure and it must be enforced. Perhaps it may be enforced by the Militia Department.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Justice will do it.


William Findlay Maclean: Then let us say that it is the duty of the Minister of Justice or of the Department of Militia to enforce the Act.	,


Wilfrid Laurier: It is so stated in the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I know it is. Whatever department is charged with the enforcement of the Act must be supplied with funds for that purpose, and I am quite convinced the money will be freely voted by this House. The time has come now in Canada, after our fifty years' experience with poor enforcement of federal laws, that we should have it specifically set out that the Act is to be enforced, and who shall enforce it, and sufficient money provided for the purpose. Of course, it may be said it will be provided by a special grant, and that may be the way of doing it, but ultimately we must come to the point that the money shall be provided for its enforcement, and until we come to that we will have lack of administration, and we may have lack of funds for the purpose. I hope the Minister of Militia, and the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Finance, will not only make provision for the enforcement of the Act, but that the money will be forthcoming, not only to enforce this Act but to enforce every federal law.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Perhaps it is not very appropriate at the moment to enter into a discussion of the general questions as to the enforcement of laws. I think it is quite obvious that with regard to - general laws, such as the Criminal Code and other laws enacted by the Parliament of Canada, that inasmuch as the administration of justice is specially confided to the provincial authorities, very great difficulties might arise if you created divided authority in the enforcement of those laws. As I understand it, under the Criminal Code information may be laid

by any party who considers himself interested, and I presume it would be within the function of this Government, or any department of this Government that felt specially interested in the prosecution for a particular offence, to cause information to be laid and the machinery of the law set in motion. However, there comes a certain time in the prosecution of a criminal case when the Crown is charged with the duty of carrying on the prosecution, and I do not think there is room for question that the Crown in that sense means the Crown in the right of the province, the administration of justice resting with the province. I think I may point out that you might give rise to a very anomalous situation if after a party had been committed for trial you had the Crown in the right of the province in the exercise of its function of seeing to the administration of justice, undertaking the conduct of the prosecution, and this Government seeking to have another representative of the Crown intervene and take the matter up. I only point this out as showing that it is not such a simple thing as would appear to the hon. gentleman, to suggest that the enforcement of all of the laws made by this Parliament would advantageously be put in the hands of this Government. There are no doubt particular statutes appertaining to matters specially within the purview of this Government with regard to which it might be desirable that the prosecution should be instituted at the instance of the Government. There are certain offences which this Government may consider it its duty to prosecute, for instance, offences of counterfeiting, offences affecting the currency of the country, and, I suppose, other instances might be thought of if one considered the matter. Now, as regards this particular Bill, I think its provisions make it clear that there are certain offences the prosecution of which belongs to the Minister of Militia, and in so far as representing the public interests before the local tribunals or the appeal tribunals it is sufficiently clear the duty is upon the Minister of Militia. As regards the administration, of the Act generally, it is confided to the Minister of Justice, and as I understand the law, it lays upon the Minister of Justice the duty of seeing to its carrying out. No doubt we would look to all competent authorities, and to every public-spirited citizen, to give us their co-operation wherever it could be useful or effective in connection with the enforcement of this law,
but I may say that as I understand the responsibility resting upon the Government -and the responsibility is put upon the Minister of Justice in connection with the administration of this particular law-while we would expect 'to have the cooperation to which I refer, we would quite recognize, and I in particular would recognize, our responsibility in seeing to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.
As regards the suggestion that there should necessarily be a vote of money, I do not see why we should make special provision for it in this Act. No doubt it will be a proper thing so far as money will be required that we should come to Parliament for a vote of money for the purpose of carrying out this Act in the manner we would come before Parliament for a vote of money for any other like purposes.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a good deal in what the hon. Minister of Justice says, but it does not quite deal with the difficulty. He has spoken of general laws as I have and we have found out that many Acts of this Parliament are not enforced. Take that most important law in war time -that against combines to enhance prices contrary to the public interest; we have never had any enforcement of that law in this country, tout they have enforced similar laws in the United States. They not only have a commission, but they have converted that commission into a court for the enforcement of the law. There are criminal proceedings threatened to-day against the paper manufacturers of the United States under the Federal law and the Federal Government are enforcing that law. We have never done that here. The more we see of legislation going through this House the more it does seem apparent that we ought to have some provision for the enforcement of not only one Act, but of all Acts, even if their enforcement does more or less clash with the authority and responsibility of the provincial governments. The provincial authorities have not always enforced the Criminal Code. You cannot get them to. Complaints have been made that the Ontario Government should have at times enforced the law against combines. It has not been enforced. While I agree in a measure with what the minister has said, it does not meet the situation and we are not meeting it in Canada. We have not risen yet, after fifty years of experience, to an appreciation of the duty imposed upon this Parliament to provide for the enforcement of its own

laws. I have not any doubt that in this particular case, following the ordinary routine, a sum. of money for the enforcement of the law will be forthcoming and will be voted as a money grant. But, sooner or later, we must depart from what is now an obsolete method and we must come to the practical, democratic method of enforcing Federal laws; that is, by putting the responsibility on the Government and high officials and giving them money for that purpose.
As to the Act itself: I have not spoken a great deal on it so far. I have almost left it alone, for the reason that the thing that has struck me in this debate as far as it has gone has been that in war time, no matter how democratic your government may be, and I am a believer in democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is not so much a question of legislation as it is of administration. For four weeks or more this House has taken up time in discussing the matter. I disagree with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who proposes a referendum on this question. A government charged with the responsibility of conducting a war must carry on that war as a matter of administration. If it wants legislation, it is the duty of that government to get that legislation in short order, put it through Parliament and assume the responsibility of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Better dispense with Parliament altogether.


William Findlay Maclean: No, not in a case of this kind. I want to tell the right, lion-gentleman that in England and the United States they put their conscription through in 3hc.rt order. Can my right hon. friend imagine a government, clarged with the administration of the war, having a long discussion in Parliament on a law which it proposes? War time is not a time for discussion but a time for administration.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend had better sit down then.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I will not sit down. I shall deal with that in a moment in another direction. The duty of the Government in war time is to carry on the war and if it wants legislation it ought to come to Parliament and get it. This Parliament should have put through this measure in one week if it was necessary to do it. I believe it is necessary. In the United States and Great Britain they got similar legislation through in a much shorter time be-

cause they regard these things as matters of administration and not so much matters of discussion.


Charles Marcil: Has my hon. friend read in to-night's paper that the German Reichstag had been closed because the parties failed to agree? '


William Findlay Maclean: That may be. I do not want to take my line of conduct in any respect from Germany. I want democracy, I want democratic government apd democratic principles, but in time of war, when we have a responsible Administration charged with the conduct of the war, we are perfectly justified in putting a measure through in short order and carrying it out as a matter of administration. To-day, a government that believes in conscription is asked to go to the people and get their approval in connection with this measure. What we have .to do is to allow the Government to carry on the war and put the responsibility upon them when the time comes.
There is a corollary which follows what I have just said. What is it? We had a peace government in this country when war began. We have carried on the war for three years and we are now beginning to have a war government. The people think that the time has arrived when we should have a national government, a union government, a coalition government, if you care to call it such, to carry on the war. The trouble in Canada to-day is that we have not got a united government. We only have a government so far on party lines. There has been a proposal in the country, and it has been referred to in the House, to get a union government. We have to get that union government to carry on the war and to enforce this Act. I started out to talk about how we were to enforce the Act and I discussed the question of money and of the officer who was responsible for its enforcement. But we must have a union government to enforce vthip Act. The people demand it and my hon, friends on the other side of the House who voted for conscription showed that they had heard the voice of the people demanding the enforcement of this conscription Act. They want to see it put through in short order. There are three things that the people of this country want -first, conscription, second, a union government, and, third, and above all things, to avoid an election in which political passions are called into play in this time of war. In some way or other, we want to see national unity but it is a hard thing

to get. I do not despair of that unity and the way to get it is to begin with a national government, a government representing all the people who are in favour of com scription. We cannot get them all but in war tjme, if we are bound to win the war, if we want to create national unity, or at least unity among all those who believe in conscription, we must have a national government on that line. I hope national government will come and that it will be made up of those who are in favour of a national policy to win the war and of devoting all the energies of the people to that end. I do not think Canada is going to be disrupted on this question by reason of this proposal for conscription. What you want is vigour and strength in doing what ought to be done and the responsibility for that is on the Administration. The Administration then ought to go forward with the law that does require what should be done, a law that has to be enforced and, above all a law that will be enforced and upheld by a national government.
We must'come to that in this country; we must come to it within the next six weeks or I do not know what is going to happen. There will be dissension in this country, because there are to-day signs of a lack of unity. But there are also growing signs of national co-operation among the different parties in this country. The speeches that have been made in this House by hon. gentlemen on the other side in favour of conscription have only reflected the opinion of the people of this country, and this House must be as big as the people. But we are not. The people of Canada are largely in favour of this law; they are in favour of its enforcement; they are in fav.oux of unity and co-operation, and not of political dissension. We are making headway in that line to-day and we have been for a good many days past. The people are with us. They desire to have this Parliament reflect their views and establish a national government which will help to build up and strengthen national unity. They also want, above all things, to have all the resources of the country devoted to the winning of the war, this to be worked out on lines of administration. This is not a time to discuss questions of principle that should have been settled and were settled in this country years ago, when the present Militia Act was passed. We have undertaken in this time of war to re-discuss a principle that was settled long ago, a principle which we have no business to be discussing" to-day. The Administration here should be as strong as the Administration in England has been since the establishment of a national government. That Government oame down' and said: Here is a conscription measure which we propose to put into force. We want Parliament to pass it within a few days. That was done in England and it was done in the United States, and these are both democratic governments, just as much ,as ours is. We can learn from them a good many things about how to conduct a democratic government, even in war times. But the characteristic of all governments in war times ought to be administration and not discussion. The Government has assumed the responsibility and can easily discharge it if they will rise to the point-and the Prime Minister has risen to the point-of proposing a national government. If that is done, there will be no trouble in enforcing this law. I d>o not want to see this discussion prolonged. I want to see the law placed on the statute book and to see it enforced, and I want to see a union Government to enforce it. If that is done we will get the 100,000, or any number of men we have to get. We will get them in some way, and a union Government will have no trouble in getting them. With a union Government there will be no delay in administering the law; it will go right ahead with it. If we can do that on this occasion there will be very little disunion in the country, there will be, on the Contrary, a splendid display of national union, all our people joining together in a mighty effort to win the war. We are fighting for principles which we hold dear, the principles of liberty. Every nation now in the war is working on the principle of conscription.


William Pugsley: What about Australia?


William Findlay Maclean: 

conscription measure does not intend, or is not able, to enforce it?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that. I say they will enforce it much betteT, judging by public opinion in this country, and I am guided by public opinion, as I gather it, and am only putting forth, my own views and representing the views of the province from which I come when I say that the people believe in conscription and believe that a measure of conscription can best be enforced in this country by a union Government.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: How can you say they believe in conscription if you do not consult them and give them a chance to express their views?
Mr. "W. F. MACLEAN: You had a chance to discuss this when it was up in this country, and Canada to-day is committed to conscription by the Militia Act, What surprises me and the people of Canada is that we are ire-discussing this question of conscription. I am willing to have discussion of the matter, but it should be reasonable discussion. I am trying to reflect the views, not of either political party in this country, but of the people, and I say that the people of . Canada to-day are largely in favour of this conscription measure, and in favour of its enforcement, and that they think the best way to get it enforced will be by a national government.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that the question of whether we are ito have conscription or not was largely settled some days ago when the second reading of the Bill w.as passed.


William Findlay Maclean: I grant that.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend apparently takes the ground that we should take this law as read without any question as to any of the clauses,


William Findlay Maclean: I did not quite say that. I said that the legislation ought to (be put through this House in the same way and in the same time as in England and the United States.


George Perry Graham: To get hack to the Bill, which :my hon. friend has been retarding for some time, buit which the rest of us are so .anxious to get through.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a fine
remark.


George Perry Graham: All this discussion we
had on the second reading, and if my hon.

friend had been here during the past few
days discussing these questions iandj making suggestions in response to the invitation of the Government, he would understand how anxious the House is not to throw all the responsibility on the Government because no man can go away into the country and say that the Government did something for which he is not responsible. Each member has to take his responsibility. I do not want any government, national or otherwise, to take responsibility that I should assume myself. I assume a share of responsibility, after the second reading of this Bill, and eo does every member, to have the Bill placed in as practical and as workable a shape as possible.
In that direction both sides of the House have been working for some days. In reference to section 16, has the Solicitor General made any estimate of the number of men it will take to enforce this measure? I do not' mean any special work, such as looking after those who refuse to come before the tribunal, but in tbe formation of the tribunal. I agree with the Solicitor General in one respect; I think there is a large number of good men in Canada, who, 'being unable to go overseas themselves would gladly give their services in any direction the Parliament of Canada would suggest to them. I made the same statement when the National Service Board was being selected. I thought it was a great error to select partisan men, and pay them so much a day, or per month,- and expenses, when men of equal calibre would gladly do the work for nothing. Would it not be wise, not as an essential, but for the appearance of the statute when it is printed and bound, that subsection 2 should be made a section by itself, possibly the last section in the Bill? It is one of the most important sections.


Arthur Meighen: There could, be no objection to making subsection 2 a section by itself, and it seems to me it would be all right to make it the last section.


William Pugsley: It should be a separate section, and not a subsection.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The same criticism could be made of other sections. While they are cognate in a sense, they are not closely cognate, always, to the sections where they appear, but still it was thought better to have them inserted in that way.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I think it was an afterthought.


Arthur Meighen: It was sufficiently previous to be in the Bill.


George Perry Graham: It was a sub-thought.


Arthur Meighen: There has been no estimate made of the number of local tribunals that will be required. It has been stated in the debate to-day that there were 1,200 municipalities in Quebec. It seems difficult to me to assume that we could get along by including very many municipalities in one tribunal, either in Quebec or any other province. Therefore, the number of tribunals will run to a great many hundreds if not thousands.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister explain why this clause, in reference to the Act coming into force, is inserted in the Bill at all? If there is such great urgency for it as would be imagined, after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), why is it not provided that it shall come into force at once?


Arthur Meighen: This Bill requires regulations to be made, and certain preparations, and it is thought better to have it in this form, so that it could be made effective just as soon as it was thought proper.


Charles Marcil: The leader of the Government who proposed coalition evidently intended that this Bill should be submitted to the people in a general election.


Arthur Meighen: I think, if the hon. member will look at the letters which passed between the parties, he will find he is not correctly stating the position.


Charles Marcil: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that, after the passing of this measure, they might go to the people.


Arthur Meighen: The wording of the letters is much better than the understanding of any individual man.


Charles Marcil: The hon. Solicitor General cannot say whether this law is to be held up for any particular purpose?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is held up for its own purposes, if it is held up at all, not for political purposes.


William Findlay Maclean: If we have a national Cabinet on the line proposed, there is no question as to when it will be enforced, and how well it will be enforced. The point which has just been raised is the point which is agitating the public mind in Canada. They know that if this Act is to be enforced there must be a united public ' 2084
opinion in support of it, and the way to get a united public opinion in support of it is a national government for war purposes, and the very argument that I presented, only a few minutes ago, has now been raised by hon. gentlemen opposite, and they must see that, if they are anxious to get this Act enforced-and I think the people of Canada are all anxious to have it enforced- there will be no question as to the date when it will go into operation.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman, must not misstate what I said. I am not anxious for the Act to go into force. I am anxious to have it submitted to the people, but I want to know why the Government, if there is such urgency, does not provide that the Bill shall come into force at once.
Mr. LEMU.UX: That is an awkward question.
Subsection adopted.
On subsection 2 of the Schedule-Exceptions.
2. Members of His Majesty's regular, or reserve, or auxiliary forces, as defined by the Army Act.


Mr. NICKLE:: Will the Solicitor General state whether this section will exclude the members of the permanent force from the provisions of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Folger Nickle: If it should happen that a member of the permanent force was an officer, but was not a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, would he, as a member of the permanent force, be excluded from the provisions of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the meaning of "His Majesty's regular forces"?


Arthur Meighen: I think these are defined in the Army Act.


Albert Edward Kemp: His. Majesty's regular soldiers are the regular army of Great Britain.


George Perry Graham: We have no regulars here.


Albert Edward Kemp: They may be living here.


Arthur Meighen: It refers to the British Army and not to the Canadian Army.
Subsection adopted.	,
On subsection 3 of the Schedule-Exceptions.

3. Members of the military forces raised by the Governments of any of His Majesty's other dominions or by the Government of India.


Arthur Meighen: That refers to mem-
Tiers of the military force raised by any of the other Dominions of the Empire. "The previous section refers to members of the army of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain. A similar provision appears in the New Zealand Act.


George Perry Graham: Have we some of them here?


Albert Edward Kemp: They might be residing here, but not very likely.


George Perry Graham: They ought to be fighting somewhere.
Subsection adopted.
On section 4:
Men serving in the Royal Navy or on the Royal Marines, or in the Naval Service of Canada, and members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Mr. PROULX:: Does that include the
men who are overseas?
Mr. (MEIGHEN: Yes; also the -members of the Canadian. Expeditionary Force in Canada.
Mr. MARCflBL: What about the men who have been discharged from that force and are still available for service?


Arthur Meighen: The next clause exempts them.


George Perry Graham: I brought to .the attention of the Prime Minister the other day the case of young men under the minimum age mentioned in this Act, who had been to the front and who had returned home, wounded or gassed, for imedical treatment. I mentioned a concrete case: that of a boy who enlisted when under seventeen years of age, has returned to Canada and is undergoing medical treatment. Unless some special provision is made, under the ordinary terms of his enlistment that boy will have to go back after he has recovered, while a man a year older than, he is, who has not served at all, will be exempt under this Act. 'The Prime Minister said that he would .take into consideration my suggestion that a young man who is under age, who has seen service and has returned for medical treatment, be not asked to go back to the front unless he desires to do so. Although cases of that kind have nothing to do with this Act, provision to cover them might be put in the exceptions, or something might be done under the ordinary military service regulations.

'Mr. MEIGHEN:	That could not be put
in the exceptions. A man, however, who is a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or has been honorably discharged therefrom is excepted under this Bill. The question raised by my hon. friend has no application to this Bill, though his suggestion might be carried out under the regulations relating to the voluntary system.


George Perry Graham: I see that quite plainly. I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister the other evening in the absence of the Minister of Militia. I take this opportunity of directing the attention of the Minister of Militia to the matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend refers to young men who have been wounded and who are convalescent in Canada. Many soldiers about the age of nineteen are convalescent in France and in England. It must be remembered that very often, when friends and relatives of these men in Canada ask that they be retained in Canada, or in England, or that they be considered as having done their full duty, the young men themselves object. I had a case of that kind to-day. The parents of a young man made representations regarding his heart action. They had it in their mind, also, that he had varicose veins, and suggested that he should not be sent back to the front. Upon investigation, it was found that the young man was not troubled with either of these ailments; that he himself 9 p.m. never heard that he had such things. So that if we adopted my hon. friend's suggestion we might debar some young men who have been slightly, or, perhaps, severely wounded, from carrying out their intention of returning to the front after their recovery. You could not very well discriminate between those in France or England and those in Canada. Some might not want to go back to the front; others might want to go hack.


George Perry Graham: My suggestion was that they should not be compelled to go back if they did not desire to do so. I would not interfere with a young man in that respect; as a matter of fact, he could enlist the next day after his release if he wanted to.


Mr. GLASS:: What about the young man within the age of the class called who had seen service, had returned to Canada, had been honourably discharged, and was physically fit to return?


Arthur Meighen: He is exempted under clause 5 of the exemptions.

On subsection 5:
Men who have since August 4, 1914, served in the military or naval forces of Great Britain or her allies in any theatre of actual war and have been honourably discharged therefrom.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that subsections 5 and 6 be allowed to stand for the present. The Prime Minister desires to be present when the discussion with regard to them takes place.
Subsections 5 and 6 of the schedule stand.


Mr. MORPHY:: Take the case of an officer who spends a year and a half fighting in the trenches, comes back, takes another regiment over, is unable to go to the front on account of there being too many officers, is returned to Canada and is anxious further to do his bit. Would he be debarred by subsection 5 from going with the forces to be raised under this Act?


Arthur Meighen: No, he is not debarred at all. This Act puts no restraint on him.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: His services would be availed of if they were offered?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. I have some other amendments to propose which constitute important additions to the Act. I have not a large number of copies of them for distribution, but numbers of them will be distributed and available on the table of the House to-morrow morning. I will read the section which I propose as section 16 of the Act, the present section 16 to be made section 17:
16. Any person who comes within any of the classes set out in section 3 and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or regulations made thereunder for which contraventions or other penalty is herein provided shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500 and to imprisonment for a term of not less than one month nor more than twelve months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2)	Any person why by means of any written or oral communication or by any public speech or utterance advises, urges or advocates that the men or any of the men mentioned or intended to be described or included in any of the classes hereinbefore mentioned shall contravene, disobey or refuse, neglect or fail to comply with all or any of the requirements imposed upon them by this Act or by regulations made thereunder or who wilfully resists, obstructs, hinders or impedes or attempts wilfully to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede, or persuades, induces or influences, or attempts to persuade, induce or influence any person or any body or class of persons to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede the due execution of this Act in any respect according to its true intent and purpose or for the purpose of obstructing, hindering or impeding the operation or administration of this Act to
abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption under this Act or the evidence available in support thereof or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor'more than five years.
(3)	No proceeding authorized or pending before any of the tribunals provided for by this Act and no decision of any such tribunal shall by means of injunction, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus or other process whether of the like kind or otherwise issuing out of any court be enjoined, restrained, stayed, removed or subjected to review or consideration upon any ground whether arising out of alleged absence of jurisdiction in the tribunal, nullity, defect or irregularity of the proceedings or any other cause whatsoever nor shall any such proceeding or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered collaterally in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal.
(4)	Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to mitigate or affect the punishment provided by any other Act or law for the offence of assisting the enemy; nor shall anything in this Act be held to limit or affect-the powers of the Governor in Council under the War Measures Act, 1914.
(5)	Any person who prints or publishes or causes to be printed or published in any book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication whatsoever any editorial, article, letter, correspondence or other matter intended or having effect to advocate, advise, persuade, instigate or influence the public or any person, body or class of persons to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede the due execution of this Act or compliance therewith in any respect or particular according to its true intent, meaning and purpose or for the purpose of impeding or defeating the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption or the evidence available in support thereof or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass thel Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than five years; and whether the printer or publisher of any such book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication shall have been first convicted or not the same shall be summarily suppressed and shall remain suppressed for the duration of the present war; and moreover the further publication of any book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication whatsoever in any issue of which any such editorial, article, letter, correspondence or other matter shall have been published is prohibited and the same shall be summarily suppressed and remain suppressed for the duration of the present war.
(6)	This section shall come into force on the day of the sanction of this Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be
better to put martial law into force at once.

Mr. MEI'GHEN:	What I have read is
proposed as section 17 of the Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will that appear in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow morning?	.


Arthur Meighen: I intend to have typewritten copies laid on the table of the House to-morrow.


William Folger Nickle: It will appear in Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the committee return to the consideration of the sections that have been reserved. I will ask the committee to return to the consideration of one or two that are passed on the understanding that the suggestions made regarding them would he oorLsidered and spoken to in the committee.


John Gillanders Turriff: Before we go back to
those sections, I would suggest, in reference to exemption 6 that the Solicitor General is having a stand over, that we take into consideration the leaving out of that subsection altogether. It does not seem to me fair to the clergy to exempt them. In the different classes that are called they will be mostly young unmarried men between twenty and thirty-five. A large number of clergymen have gone overseas in connection with their own work or as trained soldiers to figfht for their country and I think the discretion should be left with the tribunals to exempt any particular case, but in a general way the clergy should be subject to the same law as the rest of the people. I have objected to farmers being exempted as a class, and I think it is only right that the clergy should not be exempted a,s a class.


Arthur Meighen: That section is not before the committee now.


Edmond Proulx: The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) should remember that under the Militia Act, the clergy are exempted. The exemptions in the Militia Act should be inserted in this Act.


Arthur Meighen: The (Section that will
be before the committee first is the first *section reserved, namely, section 3. In respect of this section, it has not been found desirable to recommend to the committee the acceptance of any of the suggestions made. There were not many made and none pressed with regard to this section.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not here when
that section was discussed. Take the first three classes. Supposing that there were

50.000	men in the first draft-is it proposed to call out only class I in the first place, and to pick those 50,000 out of class I, if they can be secured?


Arthur Meighen: Under this measure
only one class can be called out at one time, but there is no necessity, under it, of completing the selection from that class until the next class is called out. I would apprehend that if, after class 1 was called, the mechanism provided (by the Act is found to work out satisfactorily, just as soon as it would become apparent that there would not he enough men secured under class 1, class 2 or a sub-class of class 2, would then be called, as might .be determined upon from the information obtained in the report on>
class 1.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If it appeared that you
could get enough from class 1, you would not call clas-s 2 at all.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is a very
unlikely contingency.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot agree with my
hon. friend. I think it is very likely.
50.000	men in class 1, from 20 to 23 years of age inclusive, could readily be secured in this country, and I think it a great shame that these boys should be the only ones taken in the first draft. I am calculating on 50,000 men, not 100,000 men, being the first draft. It is a great shaxne and pity that the Government should take all these young men, and not call out the first three classes and take a certain proportion of the 50,000 from each of the first three classes. I seriously object to calling out only the first class and taking those young hoys away from their homes without calling out any of the other men of this country.


Arthur Meighen: The 'hon. gentleman
may have his opinion as to the number that can be secured from that class, but I can only say that I very emphatically disagree with him. Still, on my part, that is only an opinion, and no one can tell. I apprehend that all three classes will be called before the number required by this Bill is obtained, and it is the intention to obtain that number.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Take the exemptions.
The first exemption is:
That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged.

Many of those young men have not yet taken up a profession in life, whatever that may be. The same is true of the second exemption. They could not claim that they would 'be better employed m some other particular work, because they have not been habitually employed in other work. The consequence is that the Government will get many more men from that class than they expect, and it- is a pity and a shame that those boys should be taken away and the other men from 23 to 28 and from 28 to 34 should not be drawn upon at the same time.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
thinks the matter out, he will come to the conclusion that even if his prediction is correct

and I think that is very unlikely
__there is nothing in the nature of a shame.
If what he recommends should be done, it would mean that there would be some between 20 and 24 who would be available and some who would be left.
Well, under his proposal there would be just the same shame, if you call it that, as there is in this, because the shame is between those who were taken between 20 and 24 and those who were^left between 20 and 24. If there are more' available to go than this Bill calls for, then the shame is between those who go and those who dp not go.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend takes the wrong meaning out of what I said. I do not mean to say it is a shame that some shpuld be taken and some left. It is a shame that boys of that age should be selected out for the first fifty thousand men, without taking any of the others. A great many of these young men have never been away from home. They would he exposed to the temptations that might arise through being taken into the army, and so on. For that reason, and many others. I think the three classes should be called out together, and the selection made from thfe first three classes from 21 to 34 inclusive.


Arthur Meighen: It is quite possible the three will be called out so closely together that the hon. gentleman will find his anticipations are not realized.
Mr. NEiSBITT: I may tell the hon. gentleman I have given this subject a great deal of thought. I have thought about this particular section of the Bill ever since it was intrpduced. This is the part of the Bill I have-always been opposed to in my own mind, because with all due deference to, my hon. friend, I know he can select a great many of these boys out of practically every town in this country.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
will think longer I may be wrong and he may be right. However, just let me put this to him. If his prediction is right under his plan there will be, say, two boys, .as he calls them, in the same position, both 23 years of age. Smith will be taken for the "front, and Jones will he left at home.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You dp that anyway.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what you call
" selective ".


Arthur Meighen: What we do is this:
we take Smith and Jones, but we leave at home for the time being Brown and White, who are between 24 and 28. According to my hon. friend's plan he would take Smith and White, pne in the first class and one in the second class. 1 Now I am not sure that 'Smith would feel any better at the front because Brown was left at home than he would feel if Jones was left at home.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That applies all around, no matter how you select them.


Arthur Meighen: The only difference is that Jones is the same age as Smith, and cannot see any reason why Smith should be left at home. White is a few years older, and there may be something in leaving him at home for the time being.


John Gillanders Turriff: I quite agree with my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). In the stress of war as war is waged at the present time, I am thoroughly convinced that the men between 24 and 28 years of age, as defined by class No. 2, are physically better able to withstand the trials. They are more mature, and are able to stand the hardships better than the young men of 20. They are also betteT able to withstand the temptations of a soldier's life, and we all know this is a very serious phase at any time. While I can quite agree with what has been advanced by the Solicitor General on previous days, that the men between 24 and 28 would probably make a slightly bigger hole in the affairs of the country if they were taken away, because of the fact that a man between 24 and 28 is more likely to be established in life, still I think it is absolutely certain, as my hon. friend from North Oxford says, if you want to get 50,000 men in the first draft you may get every one of them in class No. 1, from 20 to 24 years of age, and you may have a great many in the same class left. I think it would be an absolute mistake to take 50,000 men from the men between 20 and 24 years of age. I should think it

would be much better to unite these three classes, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, into one class, and call them out together, and select your 50,000 men or 70,000 men from them. I believe 70,000 was the number mentioned by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. In that way you would get the men from 20 to 35 years of age, and would not get them all between 20 and 24. There is a great deal in what my hon. friend from North Oxford has said, and I think it is well worth while allowing the matter to stand over so that the Solicitor General may look into it further with a view to seeing if he cannot unite those three classes.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has, it must be agreed, hit upon the real test as to whether selection should be made from the younger men first or those a little further on in life, namely, the test of fitness for the endurance of the war. His judgment of the fitness of the men, however, differs from that of the responsible leaders at the front. Sir Douglas Haig has very clearly stated that the men who endure the hardships of this war best are the men between 18 and 25. I am no judge of that myself, but if I were asked I should say I hardly think this possible. However, that is his statement. Then, there is another very important matter. The air service, which requires a physically perfect man, not only from the standpoint of health but from the very vital standpoint of nerve strength, restricts its men to the ages 18 to 25. These two considerations seem to me to put it beyond the discussion of this House as to what class of men really endure the hardships of this war best. That being the case, it would appear to me that other considerations are secondary, although they are important. I want to add this, under this Bill if it is felt after a very thorough canvassing of the situation that the whole number can be secured in the first class, or for any other reason if it is felt that there will be little difficulty in proceeding with the selection under the tribunalls which have been inaugurated, we might very well call out class 1 on Monday, class 2 on Tuesday, and class 3 on Wednesday. For that matter, I think we might call one at nine o'clock, one at ten, and the third at eleven, on the same day.


Frank Oliver: Might I call attention to the United States Act placed on the Table to-day, which reads:
Such draft as herein provided shall be based upon liability to military service of all 
male citizens, or male persons, not alien enemies, who have declared their intention to become citizens, between the ages of 21 and 30 years, both inclusive.
. Mr. MEIGHEN: I know that is the United States Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am rather inclined to fall in with the view ci the member for North Oxford in regard to the classes as they are placed here.
I think, notwithstanding the statement alleged to have been made by General Haig, and having regard to the fact that our soldiers are citizen soldiers and the common knowledge that one has that a boy of twenty is after all hardly a man but only a bpy, that his physical being has not been perfected and that his bones are not probably any too well set, there is something a little repellent and repulsive about the idea of putting an immature youth into a war of the nature of the present one. It is true that these young men have gone and it is splendid that they have gone willingly. Lots of them went at 16 years of age without any conscription. But it struck me while the discussion was going on that if class two were put where class one is, having regard to the argument that the force may be found in one or other of these classes, if the more seasoned, yet young, men were put first in class one and the younger boys put in class two, it would be following along a line that would be congenial to my thought and I believe would be very well received in the country. Wie all hear of Germany being forced to put her young men in the field. The Government might ameliorate the situation by making a different classification that would not prejudice the working out of the Bill. The Solicitor General says that all of these three classes will be required. If that is so the reversion of the numbers, putting number two where number one is, probably putting number three where number two is and putting number one where number three is, making number one the last of the classes, I believe would be a change that would not injure the working out of the Bill but would give to the first draft a full man's strength of those first selected, men steadier in their characters, more set ip their frame and constitution, and more calculated to endure the rigours of war.


William Pugsley: Would the Solicitor
General tell me why there has been a departure from the English Act? He has been good enough to lay on the table of the House the two British Acts and in looking over these I can only find one class-from 18 to 41 years of age. Am I right in that?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Pugsley: The Solicitor General has spent hours quoting what has 'been done in England for our instruction and example. In fact, our Bill in many respects follows the English Act, and yet in England their experience shows them that it is wise only to have one class running from 18 to 41 years of age, making no distinction between married men and unmarried men. Yet, in this Bill the measure is complicated by creating ten different classes, which seem to be founded upon an arbitrary age limit for which there is apparently no good reason whatever. I would like to know why it is that the British Act has been so greatly departed from in that particular?


Arthur Meighen: I am not obliged, even in this instance, to depart from my veneration for British precedent. In Great Britain the Derby system was in effect for some time and a pledge was given by the then Pfime Minister to the married men who had enlisted that before they were sent overseas -I may not be precisely stating it-the unmarried man would be required. The first Military Service Act of Great Britain was for the purpose of carrying out that purpose in the main. The whole number between 18 and 41 were taken, but the Act applied there only to unmarried men, not to married men at all. Later on it was made applicable to married men. In the circumstances public opinion in Great Britain had reached such a position and the position of the Government as to the requirements in France had reached such a condition that they knew that they would need every one and perhaps more than every one they could possibly get. Consequently their Act covered them all together, but their Act provided what our Act does not provide, and I would like hon. gentlemen to note this, that they might be called out as would be set out in regulations. There they had the power by regulations to make the divisions. They divided according to age in Great Britain. Those first were all taken and after that they took them in order of age 'by regulation, commenting with-
' Air. PUGSLEY: What age?


Arthur Meighen: Eighteen.


George Perry Graham: What was the first class?


Arthur Meighen: I will read the regulations :-
Groups and Classes.
For convenience of administration a further distinction will he observed between the voluntary attested men and men to whom the Military Service Act applies. The voluntarily attested men will, as hitherto, be divided into groups according to their age and marital condition. The men to whom the Act applies will be divided into classes corresponding to the groups of single men who have voluntarily attested.
These voluntary attestations were according to age and those called put under the Military Service Act were called out in classes corresponding to the ages of the c.onscripts called out under the voluntary system.


William Pugsley: Could the Solicitor General give us those ages?


Arthur Meighen: They are as follows: Single men
born in.	Group.
1899	 B
1898	 A
1897	 1
1896	 2
1895	   3
And for married men it is exactly the same.


Air. TAYLOR:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to endorse the arguments which have been offered in favour of combining the first three classes under this Bill. I agree with what the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Alorphy) has said about the greater suitability of those covered by the second class for the service which we require from these young men in a war of the kind in which we are engaged. Prom the military standpoint, I know that we would have much better service out of these three classes by combining them than by taking them singly in any order. It is -quite true that Sir Douglas Haig is>
reported to have said that the very best service has been secured from the youngest men in the army, but I am quite satisfied that neither Sir Douglas Haig nor any other general officer, would be satisfied to have his battalion composed exclusively of these young men. We need the young men to give steam to the operations -and we need the older men to give ballast. We have heard a great deal about the number of Canadians sent across to the Old Country and returned to Canada as rejects, as physically unfit. My experience is that that has been caused largely by the system they have there, particularly in the winter season, of discarding the very young and the very oldest classes of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Then, having got all these old men together, they send a large number of them back to Canada as unfit, -and having got the hoy-s together, they decide that they are not useful either and -send them back or

keep them for a -very long period. If they were sent as battalions with the old and the young and the middle aged together, they would have for the military service
1.000	fit men, whereas, by the process of elimination that now goes on during the winter months, they have only 800 fit men and 200 rejects.
It seems to me that we would get much better service if we would combine the three classes first named in this Bill, and that the authors of the 'Militia Act who provided for the calling out first of all men from eighteen to thirty, based their decision very wisely.


Charles Marcil: From my hon. friend's experience, how long will it take these conscript troops before they are ready for the field?


George Taylor: From my own experience in Canada, I may say that I had a battalion fully trained and ready for any experience that might be before it in six months from the date of authorization. We were kept in Canada after that for four months because of the falling off in recruiting. f In June of last year the 131st Battalion was over the 1,000 mark, that being the. strength supposed to. be attained before >a battalion was permitted to go overseas. From June until October the conditions for recruiting were so difficult, even in British Columbia, that we go.t new men only sufficient to meet the wastage in Canada, and when we got the order to go overseas in October we were only two over the
1.000	mark. Our training then was no. better than it was in June, when we first reached the 1,000. We were noit any better, probably we were a little stale if anything from discontent on the part of ithe men. When we got to England the battalion was found ready for any service, and the first draft of 500 men was sent to France within two weeks of our arrival in England.
'Mr. GRAHAM: I think that if anything were needed to convince the House of the wisdom of the combination of these two clauses, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has provided that argument. I feel very strongly on this point, as I outlined the cither day. I am not sure that I would not make the minimum age twenty-one. This is not voluntary service; this is compulsory 'service, and we cannot base what we are going to do under this Act on anything that has occurred under 'voluntary service. You are compelling men to go, which is a far different thing from having them enlist. They can enlist at eighteen if they like. But there is a lot in what

niy hon. friend has said and also in the remarks of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). No person need tell a man who has raised boys that the boy at twenty is ias well 'seasoned as a man at twenty-five. I do not care	what kind of theory you give,
we know better. Any man wber is engaged in athletics knows that a man do.es not play out at twenty-two or twenty-three, but is at his best at twenty-five o.r twenty-six. Any man who engages men to go to the bush or elsewhere to endure hardships does not want the boys. As the hon. member for New Westminster says, the young man is aggressive, aggressive, perhaps, to recklessness, and I agree that no commander would want a battalion of that kind unless he had the steadiness of the older men with theop. Leaving out the domestic side of it-'because taking a boy of twenty years of age from home by compulsion is a serious thing-to my mind no argument has been presented to show that the man of twenty is preferable to the older man. I have no hesitation in saying that no such argument can be presented. He is not mature.
There is another side of it. It has been stated as the intention of this Bill to take men who are not needed in this country, that is men who are lees needed than others and who are not producing, but are rather consuming what others produce. If you go through the large cities and comb them to find out the men who are doing this thing, it will be found that they are not men between twenty and twenty-four, that -more of them are between twenty-four and thirty. The young man of twenty to twenty-four is probably a student and perhaps resides at home, just getting ready for life. If men are going to be non-producers, you will find them between twenty-four and twenty-eight. I agree with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy); I would reverse number two and number one at least. That would be my first suggestion. But, better than that, I would combine the three classes that have been named-first, -second and third. In that vray I think the desired number of men would be easily obtained, probably in this one class, and I have yet to be convinced that a better and more seasoned class of men would not be got with these three classes combined than you vyill get under the first class alone.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would also suggest
to the Solicitor General to consider whether

he should not change the minimum age in class one to twenty-one years instead of twenty, making the minimum age one year more than at present. If we were short of men I would not make that suggestion; if there Was going to be any difficulty in getting. 100,000 men in Canada under this Bill, I would not think of making that suggestion. But there is not going to be any difficulty in getting the men, and I think every one will agree that a young man of twenty-one is better able to meet the exigencies of a soldier's life than the man who is a year younger. I think it would be an advantage to leave the boy at home until he is twenty-one years of age.
Mr. -GLASS:	There are two reasons for
giving consideration to the proposal to change the minimum age limit to twenty-one years of age: In the first place, we would be following the precedent set by the United States; in the second place, we wp-uld be responding to public opinion in this country. I have received requests from a number of organizations, women's organizations and others, urging that the -minimum age be placed at twenty-one, and I understand that the 'Government have received similar requests, some from my own district. The arguments -that have been presented by the hon. member for North Perth and the hon. member for New Westminster strongly impress on my mind the desirability of combining these three classes. Then it will be necessary to combine classes four, five and six, because they stand in exactly the same relation, only they happen to be married instead of single men. But, so far as the physical powers of the men are concerned, these classes are on all fours with classes one, two and three. I think the suggestion is a good one, and there should be no difficulty in getting the full complement from these three classes.


Arthur Meighen: I do not pretend to set myself up as an authority before the committee, as to when a man is most physically capable of standing the hardships of this war, first, because I am not an authority on physical fitness, and, secondly, because I do not know anything about the hardships of the war, and I would not think of placing my opinion against that of hon. gentlemen, especially those hon. gentlemen who have had as much to do with the militia as the hon. member from North Perth and the hon. gentleman from New Westminster. I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that, in Great Britain, they divide them according to age, but that was not because
they expected to take all from the first age, namely, those born in 1899. That would be taking men who were only at that time 17 years of age. It was done merely for the convenience of enlistment. They knew, from the beginning, that they would require all of those ages that they could get. We are of the same opinion, and it is our intention to take, as I expressed it yesterday, those best available, wherever they are, . and of whatever age they are. But we want to start at this age for this reason: under the Bill, if those first three classes are grouped, which is suggested by several, it will mean that all of them will he called at once, and they will all come before the local tribunal at the same time.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said he could call one class at nine o'clock, another at ten and another at eleven o'clock the same day. Would that not be the same condition? .
Mr. MElGHEN: Yes, that could be done, but it is in the public interest that we should he enabled to make the classes as they made them in England. They may be made in the United States in that way for similar reasons, under regulations.	All
men are made liable there, and all men are made liable here. We go further than the British and United States legislation, and we make classes ourselves, which, if all three were called together, would mean that all would come before	the
local tribunal on the day named in. that call. That would mean the withdrawal from their ordinary avocation of all these men at once, and the reporting to these tribunals on the day fixed for reporting in the proclamation. We might get, by that means, far more than, the alloted number. We want to avoid that if we can, but we also wish to avoid congestion of the tribunals, and the withdrawal from other avocations of life of everybody at once. We expect to require three classes. We may require four. Our expectations are not founded on anything that could be called sufficient data, but the purpose is to call some on. one day, some on another, and some on a third day, and then to select from all these, but we do not wish to he compelled to call all at once, because it will be likely to result in the congestion of the tribunals, and it will unnecessarily call away at one time all these men from the ordinary avocations of life, and create a very unnecessary disturbance.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But they are only called out to report.


Arthur Meighen: And to apply for exemption.


George Perry Graham: The great majority will not apply for exemption.


John Allister Currie: The hon. Solicitor General informed the House, in answer to a question, that nobody appeared before the tribunal, except the men who wanted exemption.


Arthur Meighen: My statement was correct.	.


John Allister Currie: How does it come that every one of these men will have to appear before the tribunal?


Arthur Meighen: I said all who wanted exemption would have to apply to the tribunal, and we feel it will not be convenient that they should be all called at once, because if they were, there might, and likely would, result a congestion of the work of the tribunal, and there would be an unnecessary withdrawal, at the same time, from the ordinary avocations of life of these men, some for the purpose of entering their applications for exemption, and others for the purpose of reporting, and all, ultimately, who are enlisted, for the purpose of recording. They could not all be taken at once very well. If the Bill read, "all who would he called upon" and that they might >be called upon, as set out in the regulations, then we could follow what they do in Great Britain, and likely what they will do in the United States. But we go further, .and do not ask the House'to trust to regulations. We set out the divisions in the Bill, not that we feel we will get the men from one division at all, because we want to comb the available men at all events from the first three divisions, and if we find that we do not get enough from those divisions we will have to comb from the married men, tout if we group the three classes the hon. gentlman from South Oxford will see it will mean the bringing in of all these men to report at once, the withdrawal of them from their avocations, and the bringing in of all who seek exemption, to make their applications to conduct the prosecution of their appeals, and so on. It will cause an unnecessary disturbance of. industry and withdrawal from ordinary pursuits.


Mr. ROSS:: Can my hon. friend tell me the number that would be lost by raising the age from 20 to 21?


Arthur Meighen: I discussed that before.
I do not know that I can add anything to 
what I said the other day. I am not anxious to make the age 21, even for the sake of following American precedent.


George Perry Graham: Following our advice.


Arthur Meighen: The American precedent has been urged. I think we will do well to keep within two years of the British precedent, and one year of the American precedent, rather than to get three years away from the British precedent, in order to get into line with the American procedure. Regard has been had to the fact that each and all of us have been endeavouring to get men of 18 and 19 to enlist voluntarily, and those who have responded have gone to the front at those ages, but there were others, who were equally able to go, living alongside of them who did not go, and there was some element of fairness in the argument that vie should not, at all events, exempt too far down, out of consideration for the fact that boys of younger age had gone.


George Perry Graham: Those that went at 18 are now 21, if they went at the beginning of the war.


Arthur Meighen: Those who enlisted at 20 under this, will be nearly 21 before they go.


George Perry Graham: The object of this Bill is to get the men.


Frank Oliver: No.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says he does not agree with me. I am assuming that is the case. The little inconvenience which the Solicitor General refers to, in having all these men called out at once, should not interfere, even if it does exist, but, for the life of me, I cannot see where it exists. If only the men who are asking for exemption are really to be interfered with, it makes little difference whether they are interfered with on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And the putting of these three classes together might make some little difference in the manner suggested by the Solicitor General, but so little as to be unobservable, or practically no difference at all in comparison with the magnitude of the work in hand.


Arthur Meighen: It just means three times the delay at the tribunal offices, and three times the crowding at the recording offices.


George Perry Graham: I do not think that is a serious objection. If necessary, there can be a greater number of tribunals. I think tftat would be one solution. I do not look

at it as my hon. friend does. I do not anticipate a mighty throng coming before these tribunals to seek exemption. I believe that the majority of young men will not seek exemption unless there be some real, tangible reason why they should do so; the number who ask for exemption will be comparatively small. But if what the Solicitor General apprehends does occur, and there is a little congestion, that circumstance sinks into insignificance when compared with the advantage of putting these three classes in on?.


Arthur Meighen: We get the same results in the end.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend gets
the same results he will get the same congestion, but he will spread it over a few days longer.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, n.o.


George Perry Graham: The Solicitor General
thinks that he is not going to get the required number of men from the first , and second classes; that he will have to call out all three classes. If that be the case, I see no reason why they should not be all called out at once. 'I do, however, see a reason why all the eligible young men in Canada between the ages of 20 and 24 should not be taken while the others are left. If, as the Solicitor General argues, it' will be necessary to call out classes one, two and three in order to obtain the required number of men, then he has presented no argument to the committee why the three classes should not be combined in the first instance and called out in the same draft-unless it be that of congestion or of taking men from our industries, But it will not take a single man from the industries for a day or for a minute-only the men who are asking for exemption.


Arthur Meighen: What about the reporting of the men? They would all report on the same day if they were all called out at once; there would be just three times as much reporting, and it would take days to look after that part of it. . When I rise in the morning I am reasonably sure that I will require three meals on that day, but I do not on -that account argue that I ought to take the whole three at breakfast time because, although some congestion n)ight occur, I would get the same result. If we do nothing else, we avoid inconvenience by following the plan suggested in the Bill. Hon. gentlemen do not seem to realize that we can under the Bill obtain
the same result, because we can 10 p.m. see that all three are called out and that different dates, perhaps not far apart, are fixed for the hearing by the tribunals and the reporting of each of the three classes. In that war not one single object is lost that would be gained by having all report at once and the tribunals sit on all at once.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend is
wrong in saying that the whole three classes will have to be called in order to secure the required number of men, under the Act as it stands he will denude Canada of the younger men and not touch the others at all. If he gets the required number of men between the ages of 20 and 24, he will not call out the others. I do not want to quote Germany as an example, but Germany, perhaps the greatest fighting machine in the world, calls out her boys last.


John Allister Currie: Excuse me. Germany's
first army consisted of men under 24 years of age. The hon. gentleman should know that if he knows anything at all about it.


George Perry Graham: I know that my hon.
friend knows everything-in his own mind -and that is just as good to him as really knowing. He will allow me to disagree with him ; there are many things even about the Canadian militia that he has yet to learn. If he will read the newspapers he will see that during the last few months Germany has resorted to calling out her boys.


Arthur Meighen: Under, the military age.


George Perry Graham: That depends on what
the military age is. But, whatever the military age is, I was referring to boys. No matter what my hon. friend says about the age of 24, I was talking about boys of 20. Germany calls out all her 'boys last; unless the cables are untrue she has called them out during the last few months.


John Allister Currie: I have a book here, the
Here is what this year-book says, page the facts. I do not ask the hon. gentleman or the committee to accept my word for it. Here is what this Year-Book says, page 945, with reference to the German Empire and its state of defence:
Military service in Germany is compulsory and universal, with the usual exemptions. Liability commences at the age of 17 and ends at 45, hut actual service begins at 20. The term of service in the First Line, or active army, is seven years, two in the ranks and five in the reserve.

So that the first army in the trenches would consist of men from 20 to 22 years of age.


George Perry Graham: That does not follow.


John Allister Currie: We will agree, then, that the age goes up to 27. Rut the reason why boys are called out no.w is because every year a certain number of them reach the age of 17, 18 or 20, as the case may be. Every year the Auistro-German army gets over 800,000 additional men because that number of men become of age to enter the army. Tihe young men may be called out at 19, at 18, or at 17-because they become liable to service.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: At wharf, age are the
men of the German Empire put in reserve?


John Allister Currie: At the age of 23 they go into reserve and serve there for five years. The army comprised of men from 20 to 23 was the First Line army that fought the British at Mons. The reserves were called out and embodied while the first army was marching across the frontier. Then the first army was embodied for a month, or, say, two or three weeks. Then the second army or reserve was embodied, now1 ready for the field, bringing all the men between 23 and 27 into the army.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has said
lot of things that are not stated in that book.


John Allister Currie: I am merely stating what I know to be the facts. I happened to meet some of the Germans over there, and I realized that the first German army was composed entirely of young men. Indeed, the German writers claim that men from 20 to 23 are the best soldiers.
When the First Contingent went over, a great number of men went who were under age. I do not say this to disparage the men under 20 who went to the front; no braver men ever fought for our King and country than the boys of 18. One who was a page on the floor of this House and who enlisted when the war broke out-he was then 16 years of age-is now a veteran who has seen service during two years and a half. The young men under 20 fought just as well as the men of 35 or 25. Moreover, they recovered their strength and spirits after a long day's march much more quickly than men 30 years of age. There is no reason why a man could not be enlisted to serve at the -age of 18 and be just as good a soldier as the man of 25. I should not want the committee to say that these men do not
rMr. Currie.]
fight well; many of them died bravely, standing their ground just as well as the older men. I have in mind oneyoung man who was 16 when the war broke out. He lied about his age, went to the front, was wounded in battle, came home, re-enlisted after recovering, assisted in recruiting a battalion, went back to the front with his battalion, and is being held in England for another six months until he reaches the age of 19. Further, if you are going to call out no men younger than 21, what about the number of volunteers, who are in the Old Country waiting until they reach the age of 19? There is some force in what the minister says. Germany, Austria, Russia, all the great nations, consider actual service in the field should begin when a man reaches the age of twenty years, and 1 do not see why we should not follow their examule.


George Perry Graham: In the United States,
the age is twenty-one.


John Allister Currie: In the United States, the young men do not mature so fast as they do in Canada, and they are not as hardy. There is much .in the suggestion of calling out the three classes together. I have been endeavouring, since I have read this Bill, to visualize what will happen when it goes into force. I thought I had the right animal by the ear when I concluded that every man who belongs to the class concerned and who reads the proclamation, when he finds that he has to go and serve, immediately reports himself to somebody.
I thought I was right when I said that that somebody was the local tribunal. I was informed, however, that it was not. The man must report to some person who will take his name, address and so on, and who will make out his papers. Possibly there is a section providing that where nothing else applies, the Militia Act applies, and the Militia Act will apply with reference to enrolment. I think that is really what occurs, although the Solicitor General did not seem to be clear upon that point. As soon as the proclamation is issued, the man reports to some militia officer in his municipality or to the mayor, if there is no militia officer. The proclamation could appoint the mayor.


Arthur Meighen: Look at section 13.


John Allister Currie: Subsection 1 of section
13, says that the Militia Act will apply where nothing else does. LTnder the Militia Act, the Government could appoint men in all parts of the country, and the conscripts could report first to these offi-

cers, and then, if they desired to apply for exemptions, they would have to go before a tribunal which would be similar to a court of revision. I was not clear on that point before, but I am very glad to understand it now, and I think the House will understand the matter from what the Solicitor General has said. The man must first of all report to some person, officer, or non-commissioned officer, appointed under the Militia Act, give his name, address, age and other particulars, and then get his papers. If he wants an exemption, then he must make application or have somebody make application on his behalf to the local tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: He does not report
through that officer.


John Allister Currie: No, but he can certainly state his objection to the officer, and he will he told to go to the tribunal with any objection he has. Is that corrects


Arthur Meighen: It is likely that the tribunal will sit before the day for reporting, so that the man can have his application in before he reports.


John Allister Currie: I think it would be better to have all the men report first, and then you would have a complete record of them.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. member has been giving explanations about the Bill. Perhaps he might explain what class the divorced man would come into. Would he come into the class of unmarried men or widowers? What class would the man judiciously separated as to bed and hoard come into?


John Allister Currie: I am not in charge of the Bill, but I would say that the divorced man would come under the category of unmarried men, because the Divorce Bills passed in this House state that a man, once he is divorced, is unmarried.
I wish to discuss the case of the married man who has a young family. I think the older married men, that is those from thirty-five to forty, should be taken before the married men from twenty to thirty. The younger married man generally has a very young family dependent upon him. His children are not of such an age that they can take care of themselves. Therefore, if you are going to take the married men, you should take first the married man who is likely- to have a grown-up family. A married man of from thirty-five to forty will usually have some children who are old enough to take care of their mother in case something happens.


John Hampden Burnham: That depends upon
when the man gets married.


John Allister Currie: Men get married fairly young these days. Every commanding officer within the sound of my voice will agree with me that one thing that touches us all is that sometimes we have in the ranks fathers with three or four small children at home dependent upon them. The separation allowance does not provide sufficient for those children. The State could well afford a certain amount monthly for each child instead of stating a lump sum. There should be a lump sum for the mother and then five or ten dollars a month for each child. We are not, however, discussing that; we are discussing the categories. I trust the minister in charge of the Bill will give very serious consideration as to whether the Bill had not better provide that when you are going to take a married men's class you should take, first, men over thirty instead of men under thirty. In regard to the marrying section, I would like the minister to consider whether it is exactly according to Hoyle that no one who is going to 'be conscripted is to be allowed to get married. That is virtually what happens, because it is stated that unmarried men who get married after a certain date will not be considered as married within the meaning of this Act.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will not that be against morality and public order?


John Allister Currie: I do not think this Parliament should put any obstacle in the way of a man getting married. At Valcartier I was strongly against any young man who was going to the war getting married, and I would not allow many young men to get married. After I reached England I found that the people there held different views, and they were endeavouring to encourage every young man who was going to the war to get married. I came to the conclusion finally that that was the correct idea,


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is the practice in Prance?


John Allister Currie: The same as in England. Every young man, before he goes to the war, is supposed to get married. The matter is one of the protection of the race as well as anything else, and it was discussed pro and con in the English papers. The people there finally decided to encourage and permit all their young men to get married before they went to the war. As I said before, I changed my views on the subject, and I subsequently permitted every young

man under my care who wished to- get married to do so. I hope this measure will not throw any obstacle in the way of any man getting married, and if he gets married I hope he will be put in the married men's class. There are not enough men getting married nowadays.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: In view of the objections that the Solicitor General has raised to merging the first three classes, and in view of the .possibility of igetting sufficient men in the first class, I think the suggestion offered by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) was a very good one, that is, that class 2 should be called first, and either class three or class 1 following class 2. In the event of enough men being called out under class 1, I can hardly imagine that battalions of mere youths would be as desirable as would battalions in which older men were intermingled with younger men. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out, the older men would add some ballast to the younger men.
And I am sure, from) what I have seen my-' self, that older, men placed alongside the younger men would be a very great advantage indeed. 1 do not think it would be advisable to call out those under 23 ,or 24 years of age first, if there was any possibility of getting the required number of men from that class. I can hardly help feeling that the first call of say 50,000 men would be met in that class. I think there are surely a sufficient number of men in that class who -are eligible, and who have no claims to exemption, to bring the number up to at least 50,000, and personally I would not like to see battalions of mere youths drafted, and older men left at home.
I think the suggestion of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. IMorphy) that class 2 should be called first is a very good one, in view of the objections the hon. the Solicitor General has put forth to merging the three classes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would like to Tepeat my question to the Solicitor General although of course the member for North Simooe (Mr. Currie) gave me an answer. Take the case of a man in the province of Quebec who is separated as to bed and board, where the wife is given entire charge .of the children. Would such a man, if he remains married, be placed in the category of married men, and exempt in cases where married men would be exempt, or would he placed in the category of widowers?


Arthur Meighen: I should say that is not a -matter of administration, but rather a matter fpr the interpretation of the judiciary. To my mind the man referred to by the hon. gentleman is still married. A judicial separation does not dissolve a marriage.


George Perry Graham: Should not the Act -be amended to include him?
Mr. iMBIGIHEN:	I do not think so, because his domestic obligations, may exist just the same. I do not think we should keep refining the Act for the sake of two, or three, or even half a dozen men. I wish to draw this to the attention of hon. members-let us not be worrying ourselves too much by the fear that there will be a .tremendous and immediate result from any cause. If suc-h should be the case, it would be very different frqm what took place in Great 'Britain, and I do not know of any reason why we can expect such a very pronounced and enthusiastic response and absence of application for exemption in Canada, in contrast with what took place in Great Britain. It would appear to me to be rather likely on examination of the conditions there, as to nearness to the war, and conditions here as to that and many other things, that the contrast would likely be the other way. Most earnestly I hope it will not be so. Still, let us not worry ourselves in this House by the dream of possibilities that are not warranted by the experience of countries which have tried the selective draft system. In Great Britain, the experience was that the number of applications for exemptions far exceeded all expectations, and the number of exemptions exceeded the expectations by a large percentage. Only by a. tightening up of the Act, by regulation and by amendment, and by a strict and severe system of appeal, were they able to obtain the men they expected to obtain (from the beginning. Here' in Canada, have we reason to believe from the record of our voluntary enlistment, as compared with Great Britain, that we are going to get results far more favourable and far more satisfactory than they achieved there? Grand though our record is, I am afraid we cannot boast it is better than the experience of Great Britain.
That being the position, we have every reason in the world to anticipate that we will require all the available men in the first three classes. "Available" is a term which has no very exact meaning. It is a term that may mean one thing or another. We want the 100,000 best available men.

We think we can get the 100,000 best available men under the provisions of this Bill, consequently the working out of the Bill and the getting of them, believing that we will have the whole first three classes to comb through at all events, is to divide them into classes in order that the machinery which we here provide may not be unnecessarily congested. We may call them out just as quickly as we like, and we may call out class 2 ahead of class 1, if we wish.


George Perry Graham: Then, why not do it?


Arthur Meighen: Because the Act is all right as it is. There is no sound reason for it, and what reason there is would be against it. At least, that is my judgment. But, supposing I am wrong, it will come to the same thing in the end. The classes will be called in such order as will be most expeditious and consistent with the efficient working of the machinery, and we hope to get the best available men out of each of these first three classes. I would ask the committee not to refine unnecessarily in this matter. We will'undoubtedly need all the men we can get.
What new spirit has come over the House which makes it feel that we can come to the conclusion there are far more men in this country than we will need for the war? We will need them all. We will need this 100,000 men, and we will need them as quickly as we we can get them. I hope we will never need any more. When w-e come to get 100,000 more, after the voluntary enlistment we have had, we will not find them coming to us pell-mell. Our experience will be the experience of the older countries, and we must unite, and try to get the men, or at least have the machinery to get them in the most efficient way.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to be considered too obtrusive in this, but I rather made up my mind to-night that the invitation of the Government to this committee to' make suggestions was merely a play upon words.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me to get from this clause to some others, I will convince Mm by actual acceptance of suggestions that it was nothing of the kind. I am sure I do not wish to impose my will on the committee, but I do not want the Act to be altered for no purpose in such a w.ay that it will result in the unfortunate working of the machinery of the Bill. We get the purpose that hon.
gentlemen have in mind under the Act as it is. There is no other object that can be served. Consequently, it becomes a .matter of the smooth working of the Act, nothing more and nothing less. Suggestions have been made which have been found very valuable, and I propose to recommend their acceptance to the House.


George Perry Graham: I was'dealing with this one just now, and this will be my last word on it. Taking every word the Solicitor General has said, and it is an argument in favour of the proposition made by other members of this committee, if he is right that it will take the three classes then no difference will be made in this selection by combining them. If he be right in saying that it will take the three, there is no reason why he should not take them at once except the little inconvenience if any, that will be caused. If he is wrong, then he is going to call out boys from 20 to 24 before be calls out the others.	'	.


Arthur Meighen: We could not take
them altogether in any event by calling out the three at once:	It will be the appeal tribunals, who, by the severity or leniency of their interpretation of the exemption clauses, will decide just how many we get. Secondly, we hope we shall get on with a not too severe application of the Act. We will apply it equally everywhere. That will be the controlling idea. We are going to utilize the whole three classes.


George Perry Graham: If you are going to take the whole three classes why do you not do it at once? The Solicitor General argues from my point of view every time he speaks. If it is so that he will take the three classes he has not presented any argument at all for not taking the three classes at once except that of a little inconvenience. He might do away with that by calling them out at 9, 10 or 11 o'clock . or Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays.


Arthur Meighen: They have to report at different times.


George Perry Graham: That may be so but at the most it is only a little inconvenience and I do not think the committee takes that argument seriously. It is not a serious matter compared with the result of denuding the country of its boys of from 20 to 24 while these other men are not required to go over.


Arthur Meighen: There is no possibility of that. .


George Perry Graham: That is the hon. gentleman's -opinion, and he is entirely free to express it, but he is wrong.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a matter of opinion at all. Whether I am right or wrong, the Government can call out the whole three classes and take the most available men of the three. That is the intention.


George Perry Graham: The Solicitor General
says for the first time that that is the intention. He contended all along that that could not be done. He never said that it was' the intention to use the whole three classes for the first 50,000.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that I have said it half a dozen times.


George Perry Graham: I have been trying during the three or four times that I was on my feet to get the hon. gentleman to say that. If he does that he can put them into one class. There is no reason for not putting them into one class.


Arthur Meighen: Except the matter of convenience which is very important.


George Perry Graham: The matter of convenience enters into it very little, if at all. We are leaving it in the hands of the tribunal or the Government to say whether they will call out class one first and get the whole
50,000	out of that class. The refusal of this suggested change by the Solicitor General does not give us the guarantee that we would like to have that they would treat these three classes as one. I will not vote for that clause in the Bill as it stands now because there is no reason, except the paltry excuse which has been given by the Solicitor General, for leaving it there.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to ask the Solicitor General to take a totally different view. I cannot understand his view when he says that it is for convenience that the classes have been placed in this way. Convenience would be furthered by combining the three classes from 20 to 34 years of age. Doing away with two classes would simplify the Bill.
Mr. MEIGHEN >
The Bill would be simpler but the working out of the Bill would be much more difficult. If they were all in one class they would have to be called together; consequently they would have to Teport together supposing they did not get exemptions. That would congest the reporting and cause unnecessary delay on the part of those waiting for their turn for per-

haps days. Consequently, it would congest the local tribunals before whom applications for exemptions were being made and heard. Hon. gentlemen may entertain the opinion that there will be no inconvenience. On this matter the officers of the Militia Department have been consulted. They regard very seriously this matter of convenience. The question of compensation to applicants for certificates of exemptions pending the determination of their cases has been under consideration. It has been decided that it be not granted; otherwise it would be in the Bill. The introduction of anything which will create inconvenience is opposed very strongly by those who have to do with the working out of the Act. There will be delays, men will be kept 10 or 20 miles away from their avocations and if we have the three classes apply at once there will be unnecessary inconvenience to the individual and unnecessary expense to the country. That is the argument as to convenience. There can be no question about that, at all events, to my mind. Of course, I would agree with my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) that that would be met just as well by putting crass two where class one is. There would be ho difference one way or the other, but the congestion which would be caused by calling the three classes together is to be avoided.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is difficult to speak
very specifically on matters dealing with the man-power of the country, but as plainly as I can speak, I want to do- so. The reason that moved me to suggest that the classes toe reversed and that the- older unmarried men and widowers without children be taken before the boy of 20 is that I can point to town after town where the pool rooms and picture shows are filled with young men from 24 and 25 years of age, while the boys of 18 and 20 have gone to the front. I want to reach that class. If the Solicitor General will utilize his undoubted ability in some way to- reach that class he will give great satisfaction to the country. I do not think -it is fair to put through a Bill which on the face of it calls from a good home the young fellow who has reached 20 years of age and forces him into the limelight as a conscript, when men of the class that I have mentioned all over the -country, men who drive -their motors, frequent pool rooms-, go to the picthre shows-, enjoy all kinds- of amusements and have no patriotic spirit, are left at home. These are the men that I want to get after and they are the ones that I want to get

after first. If there is to 'be any class singled out, it should 'be the men who should have gone to the front at first and not the young fellow with green bones who is growing up and who, will be taken out of . a good home while, these fellows are going around in idleness and making fun of the war.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: There is a part of the community that we should not forget, and that part is represented by the pedlars. I refer to the pedlars 'who have gone from Canada to the United States, the pedlaTS Who have come from England to Canada, and the pedlars who are- in the army. We see them in Montreal and elsewhere. They pass from one regiment to the other. My hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) says that he wants to get after the young fellows who go to the picture shows, I would like to get after the deserters from the army. We have had a wastage of 73,000 in the army, half of which is due to unavoidable causes and the other half -to deserters.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred to an editorial in a Detroit newspaper welcoming 17,000 Canadian boys. Where did these boys -come from? They came from Canada. We have heard a lot about slackers. I shall never give the name oE slacker to a man who has not enlisted, but who has remained in Canada. But the man who has gone from Canada to the United States 'in order to evade military service I would call a slacker, and if we are honest and sincere in our desire to get after slackers why not get after the 17,000 in Detroit, and, perhaps, another 17,000 in other cities not far from the boundary. What are they doing there? They are not working; they have some one to pay their board; they are well-off people from Canada, rich men's sons. We have some slackers here from England to be found in insurance offices in Montreal. Going into these offices one would think he was in the city of London, from hearing their language. They do not ask for a salary; they are supposed to be working on commission, but they do not care if they put on one, or two, or three insurances per month, -as they receive their cheques from home. These are slackers. But -we have something more. I have here the immigration report of the United 'States. In 1913 the emigration from Canada to the United States was 43,000, in 1914 it was
43.000,	in 1915 it was 59,000, an increase of
16.000,	and in 1916 it was 85,000. It is no wonder that the Detroit paper speaks of
17,000	Canadians when you have in two
209i
years an increase of 58,000 over the normal emigration from Canada to the United States. Are we going to let these boys stay there, these pedlars men who go from one regiment to another, or from one country to another? These young men will not serve in the United States or in Canada. They are beautiful boys, 'strong and healthy. Why not take some stepis to get them back? The man in -Canada to-day should not he called a slacker, but every man who went to the United States to avoid military service deserves that name, and the difference in the immigration figures before and since the outbreak of war shows conclusively that these men went there for the purpose of avoiding military service. The day after the Prime Minister announced conscription there were 73 applications in one office in Montreal for passports to enable boys to go to Mexico. They were not going thqre to work. These young men have stayed in our country, but this incident shows that we have a part of our population who will go anywhere to avoid military service. These Canadians who have gone to the United States1 retain all the rights of British citizenship, and when -conscription is being introduced into .Canada -the first duty of the Government should be to bring these men back. The Government should also go after the deserters who make up a part of the shortage of 73,000 men. I kiy>w that some of these men are in some of o-ur parishes, and notice should 'be given that they are liable to punishment.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In- what way -could this Government bring these men back from the United States?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: By an arrangement
similar to that entered into between the United States and Great Britain, or that between the United States and France by which thousands of Frenchmen are being sent back to France. An arrangement could easily be made for the exchange of such men.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know of no process of law that will run in a foreign country, and I want the hon. member t,o explain how they could 'be brought back under this Bill.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: It would require the
consent of the United States Government to send them back.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is another matter entirely.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I would strongly urge that these slackers who have gone to the United States should be brought back.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Solicitor General in arguing -against the combination of these three classes quoted the British Royal Aviation Service as taking men under twenty-five. That is quite right, but the reason given by them was that the young man under twenty-five was likely to take greater-chances. Besides that, he had to have an intricate knowledge of a certain kind of machinery, and everybody knows that the younger a man is, practically speaking, the -more apt he is to pick up knowledge of machinery, because he is not so set in his views, or he has not had a training in some other line of business. He is apt to learn more quickly the organism of the m-a-chine he has to manipulate, and is much more apt to take hazardous chances, I understood from the men who were recruiting that_ that was why they wanted younger men. In addition to that, younger -men were lighter. Anybody familiar with -athletics knows that the younger a man is the better athlete he generally makes, provided he- is over 18 years of age, because his bones are not so hardened, and he can be trained into greater activity. I refer tp the foot runner -and the field -athlete. They are more amenable to training and can be more serviceable for that reason. Any one who has had experience in training in any walk of life knows that the man who has his growth, and whose bones are set for every day plodding work, is- more matured than the young man from 20 to 23 years- of age. 'My hon. friend from West Sim-coe told us what -the regular army in Germany was. I have seen a great -many people from Germany in my time, and I have read a great deal about the German army, but I do not believe anybody else has ever said that the first -German army was -composed, of men from 20 to 22. I am quite sure I never heard it before, although my hon. friend read it out of a book. That was their ages when they were enlisted, hut are not retired till they are 45, and I have no doubt the German guards, the greatest of the German soldiers, is -composed of -men of more mature years. The hon. gentleman from North Simcoe also stated that these young 'Canadians were br-ave and made good soldiers. There has- been no suggestion or hint that they are not. We all agree that they have done nobly, but there is no possible doubt that they are not as safe, when exposed to the temptations of -military life, as the imen of more mature years, -and there is no doubt there was more sickness, according to Dr. Bruce's report, among the younger men than among the older men.
I absolutely agree with my hon. friend from 
New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) who has had the experience, apparently, that if these three classes were combined they would make a steadier army. The -Solicitor General asks, what reason have we to suppose that there would -be 50,000 men to be got from the first class? I ask, what reason have we to suppose that there would not be 50,000 men obtained from the first class? Suppose there were a great many applications for exemption, what reason have we to suppose the tribunal would allow those exemptions, because those are the very class ihat are not in a fixed avocation? I do not believe that the tribunals would allow those men to be exempted to such an extent as they would perhaps exempt the older men. No reason has been given by the -Solicitor General, from start to finish, why the three classes should not be combined, except for convenience of registration and convenience of exemption. I have not the slightest idea that the registration will have to be done in one day, no matter how many classes are-called out. I have no hesitation in thinking that whoever makes the regulations will have sense enough not to make them all register in one day, but will give a number of days for the registration, -and a number of days for applications for exemption. There is no need whatever to have all the men apply on the one day for exemption or registration.


Arthur Meighen: Assuming there would be seven days allowed, why should we -have all the men waiting around, during that time?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is no necessity for that. The advertisement can easily state that the men of certain ages will register between certain days.


Arthur Meighen: Then my hon. friend is dividing again?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


Arthur Meighen: The result is the same as if the whole three classes were to be called, in any ev-ent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I beg pardon, it would not have the same result. They would all be called at the same time, but the notices would state that men between certain ages would register between certain dates. If the Solicitor General will tell us definitely that some system of that kind will be provided in the regulations such as he suggested a few days ago, it will be quite satisfactory, but why not have it in the Bill and let the regulations provide, as they do a great many other things in the Bill, how

they shall he called out, and make them all one class. The Solicitor General may know more about law than the ordinary man, but other people have just as good ideas as to the number of men that will be called out, under these classes, as he can possibly Rave, and he will be more than surprised at the number of men who will be liable to be called in that first class in every town and city in this country, and if they are all exempted, of course he will not get the desired number. However, I take it for granted the tribunals will use common sense in theiT exemptions.


Arthur Meighen: It can be done as my hon. friend suggests, by grouping the three classes, and leaving the regulations to divide them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Only for registration.


Arthur Meighen: That, in effect, is the same as it is now. It is the intention of the Government, as I have already stated several times, that the whole three classes shall be resorted to, because we believe that will be necessary in order to get the
100,000	men, without interfering unnecessarily with industry. I am very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Oxford; because I know he is sincere, and he believes _that the 100,000 men can be procured quite easily without interfering with industry at all, and without taking any of those who, in the national interest, are better , at home, but he must remember that for days, for weeks and for months in this House, hon. members who sit not very far from him have told us over and over again, in language of more or less menace, and very much verbal force, at all events, that we could not get more men in this country without denuding our population of its productive element, without interfering with agriculture, and without interfering with industry of every kind to a serious extent, from the point of view of prosecution of the war.
The member for North Oxford is more nearly right than were those hon. gentlemen. 'I was glad ,tb hear that expression of opinion from him. I myself think that we can get the 100,000 men without any diminution of production, but I do not see that we will get them so very easily without more applications for exemption than the hon. gentleman anticipates.


William Pugsley: It is surprising that
the Solicitor General should inform the committee to-night that it is intended to call out the three first classes.


Arthur Meighen: I have said that from the beginning.


William Pugsley: Not at all. But we have a still higher authority than the Solicitor General. We have the authority of the Prime Minister, who made an entirely different statement to this House on July 7.
I took the liberty then of saying that it was most injudicious that the young men from 20 to 23 should be first called out for service, and it was argued by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General that that was the class of men that could best be spared. The inference to be drawn from their argument was that it was in the best interests of the country that these young men should be first called out. It was contended that they would make the-best soldiers, that they could best be' spared from the industries, that they were-not settled down in various occupations. What did that mean,? It meant that if the-number of men required could be obtained: from the men of the first class, the second class would not be touched, nor would the third, the fourth, or any of the remaining classes. Let me read what the Prime Minister said on that occasion. Referring to some remarks which I had made, he said:
If my hon. friend has any better suggestion which will commend itself to our judgment we are prepared to consider it. Would it be worth while to place all those between 20 and 35 in one class, call them out at once, and, perhaps, get 300,000, or 400,000, or 500,000, when we really only want 100,000? We may get 100,000 men in the first class.


Arthur Meighen: He did not say he expected to.


William Pugsley: He did not say he expected to? When the Prime Minister, who is responsible for this Bill, who has presented to the House figures with reference to our population, says: we have established ten classes; we purpose taking them in the order in which they are placed on the statute, but we may get the whole! 100,000 from the first class; are we to assume that he meant what he said? Yet the Solicitor General says: Oh, he did not say he would be likely to get the required number from the first class. The statement of the Prime Minister meant that all the men required would be taken from the first class if they could be got. Yet, the Solicitor General, after the strong arguments presented tonight by members on both sides, says: Oh, we will get over that, because we may at 9 o'clock in the morning call out the first class, at 10 o'clock call out the second class.

and at 11 o'clock call out the third class; it is only for convenience that we have arranged these different classes. His statement is a surprising one, and entirely at variance writh the statement made by the Prime Minister a few evenings ago. The Solicitor General says that to adopt the suggestion of the member for North Oxford would be doing the very thing that this Bill allows to be done. But what the member for North Oxford says is this: the call would be upon all these three classes if they were united in one, and for convenience those of a certain age might register in one booth and those of another age in another. That does not mean that the men would be in three separate classes; it means that they would all be called out together, but that, for convenience of registration, or reporting, they would be allowed to report at different places, according to their age. The same result might be accomplished in another way, perhaps more conveniently. Those whose names begin with certain letters, say from A to G, could register at one place, those from G to M in another, and so on-speaking, if you like, of the same village or parish. Notwithstanding what the Solicitor General has said, this Bill imposes a first obligation upon the young men between the ages of 20 and 23 years inclusive. The second obligation is upon those from 24 to 28 inclusive, and so on up to 40 years of age. It seems to me that the three classes should be united in one, just as was wisely done under the Militia Act, and that the unmarried men should also be united in one class. This should be insisted upon until the Bill is amended in order to meet the view of the majority of the committee. If this Bill passes, the Solicitor General will have no power by regulation or otherwise to avoid imposing the first duty upon the first class. Upon the first class will rest the call to active service. If an insufficient number of men are obtained by that call, then the second class would !be called upon. As the Prime Minister said, it might not he necessary to call upon the
11 p.m. men of the second class; that class could be divided into two sub-classes, one of which could be called first. No power on earth-central appeal judge, Solicitor General, Governor in Council-can alter the meaning and intention of the Bill if it is allowed to pass in its present form; that is, that the first obligation shall rest upon the young men between the ages of 20 and 23 inclusive.
[Mr. Pugsley.j


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has exercised his much-practised talent of sufficiently misstating the case in order to give a wrong intention. The first obligation is not on the young man; the obligation is on all, and is fixed on all by this Bill. The order of call is all that is fixed, there is no order of obligation. The order of call is fixed in England by regulation on the very same principle as that upon which it is fixed here; it could be done that way here with the same result. Our statute gets the same result as obtains in England by grouping the men together and dividing them afterwards by regulation for the purposes of the call.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are not these divisions made for the purpose of calling the classes out in their order?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it not true that you call the first class, and that if you do not get enough men from that class you go to the second, then to the third, and so on? Is that not the purpose of the Bill? .


Arthur Meighen: It is worded so as to
enable us after we have called out sufficient classes-it is the intention to call out three at least-to subdivide in such a way that we wall not get more than 100 000 men. I think the Prime Minister stated at one point-I say this subject to correction-that- there was no possibility-and he added the words "or likelihood"-that we could get this number from the first class. It was never so contemplated.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister's
exact words will be found on page 3252 of Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: I thank the minister.
That was just what I was going to ask him to do.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is my duty
to bring those matters to the *attention of my colleagues and to ask that this section be considered when the committee meets again.	,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is one thing
about this Bill that so- far I have not been quite able to understand. This measure is called by the Government and by the people throughout the country " Selective Conscription." I have not been able to find the selective element in the Bill or in the machinery that is about to be put into force. The term " Selective Conscription " as understood in the United States means that the men are selected for their physical attainments and other reasons, and the Government secures, out of the men who have registered, a selective class to fill up the number they require. As I 'understand this Bill, on a certain day, a call goes out for all the men of class 1 to register at certain places. They come and they register. Every man who registers is supposed to be [DOT]drafted into a battalion and go through the necessary steps until he reaches the front. Up- to that stage, there is no selection at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is in the United
'States?	. '	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, here. The man who registers, has enlisted, practically the same as if he has volunteered. That is the end *of the matter. Unless he .appeals to this tribunal, he goes through the various steps until he reaches the front. I cannot find any selection so far. The only selection would be if the, man appeals. If nobody appeals, there is no selection. Where does the selective element come in? Perhaps the minister will tell me what he understands by selection. I do not regard appealing and the decision by the Court of Appeal, as selection at all. That is merely the result of a man protesting in a certain way against going, and appealing to the court and the court sustaining his protest. I fully agree with the views put forward by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) as to the class of men that we .should first select. I do not take all the
grounds that the hon. member put forward, such as that many of them are idlers. That may be. I argue on the ground that we get the better class of men from the ages mentioned by the hon. member for North Perth, and that we should leave the others for the present until they reach a maturer age. What I particularly want to point out to the minister is in regard to the idea that-the Government by their own act shall select the men who should go and leave out the men who should not go. So far as 1 have heard the discussion, there is no machinery per se in the Act itself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am assuming that after this measure becomes law, there will probably be a short opportunity for voluntary enlistment. On that assumption I wish to put a suppositious case to the Solicitor General for the purpose of inquiring whether the point has ever been before him for consideration. Suppose the Act is enforced to-morrow, and a call for 50,000 men is made. Suppose the Government sta-. tistician informs the Solicitor General or the Minister of Militia that the proportion which my own province, for instance, would be liable to contribute towards that call, would be 2,500 men. Suppose, immediately after the call was made, two men of military experience advised the Minister of Militia that they could each recruit a battalion of 1,250 men, making a tptal of 2,500 men, the proportion assignable tb Nova Scotia under that suppositious case, what would be the policy of the Government in such circumstances? Would the voluntary enlistment of 2,500 men be	regarded as	the equivalent ofthe	call which	might have been
made under the Act? Would the province have credit for the number s.o voluntarily enlisting, and would the call under the Military service Act be postponed or abated or discontinued altogether until the next call was issued. Such a condition might possibly arise, and if so, there should be some provision in the Act to meet it.


Arthur Meighen: The Act, of course, does not allude to provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know that.
Mr. MEIiGHEN: And there is no intention of discriminating between provinces at all. The Act does not deal with the Dominion as so many provinces; it deals with the Dominion of Canada as a nation. The contingency that my hon. friend presents is not something that has to do with the purpose, spirit or details of the Military Service Act; it would he a matter of policy on the part of the Government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I admit that. The question I .meant to put tp the Solicitor General was, if it would not be wise to provide in the Bill for such a contingency. Possibly, that provision should be in another Bill.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill provides that while voluntary enlistment is authorized, any one can voluntarily enlist, and if the men to whom the hon. gentlemen refers, who claim they could raise battalions in Nova Scotia, presented evidence to convince the department that they could do so, then undoubtedly if voluntary enlistment was still authorized and was not stopped by specific Order in Council or specific statement pf policy, those men, or one of them, would be authorized to recruit. It would all depend upon the same considerations that now determine the department in authorizing battalions.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand the minister to say that once a call is issued there would be no variation from that call because of a proposal of voluntary enlistment?


Arthur Meighen: I have no reason to suppose there would be. I do not suppose there would be. Once a call is issued, it is the intention to carry the call out, and to get the men.


William Folger Nickle: I would like to add a word of entreaty to those which have already been addressed to the minister in charge of this Bill in reference to the advisability of some change being made in the order in which the men are to be called. I had no intention of saying anything in regard to the subject, as I had hoped that what had been said by other members might have moved him to the acceptance of the principle that boys of twenty would not first be called. I have not one word to say in disparagement of what the young fellows of 18 and 20 who enlisted early in the war have done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: 
Sir HERBERT AMES:: Those statistics are six vears old.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) says those statistics are six years old. That is quite true. Still the Government statistician who prepared the figures isays: " the figures of the table are those of the census of 1911, and it is estimated that the increase since 1911 in the male population of Canada of ages 20 to 45 lies 'between 300,000 and 400,000. As approximately this number has been already recruited, the figures of 1911, it is thought, reflect rather closely present conditions in the Dominion as a whole." It therefore seems to me it is not unreasonable that I should take these figures as a basis for my argument. When the young man of twenty applies for exemption he will be met by the question: " Why should you be exempt?" The only reason he can give as to why exemption should prevail in his case would toe this: " in the national interest I am entitled to be exempted." The tribunal will say: " on what particular grounds should you be exempted?" The young man of twenty has not chosen his avocation in life, his proclivities have not been determined, and he will find himself ' in this embarrassing position that because he has not had an opportunity of selecting some definite line of work in which he is perfecting himself, the tribunal will likely say: " the work you intend to undertake, or the work you have undertaken, is not of such a character that it should be considered as in the national interest. You need not continue in it, you must be considered a recruit."
If the figures I have read are 'an approximation, and I think they are if the statistician is correct, it is possible the whole
100,000	men may be taken from the first class, and the second class not called up at
all. In my judgment this would be radically unfair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: It is unfair for this reason, the young man who has not left home is entitled to the protection of home until such time as he has attained stability of character. The young man of 20 to 22, unless he has had to leave home to earn his own living, has not attained the age at which he should be deprived of the protection of his home, and I sincerely trust the Solicitor General will endeavour to look at it in the light in which I think it is looked ut by many of the fathers and mothers in this country.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend has probably overlooked tbe fact that his figures are wrong, inasmuch as the figures in the Bill are four years, and the census figures are five years.


William Folger Nickle: My figures are an approximation.


Albert Edward Kemp: But the census figures are for five years, and the first class ' is from 20 to 23, inclusive, four years.


William Folger Nickle: I thought 1 was reasonably generous when I took twenty-five per cent off that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would call the attention of the Solicitor General to another point in section 4, page 3, of the Bill:
The Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation call out on active service as aforesaid for the defence of Canada, either in Canada or beyond Canada, any class or sub-class of men described in section, 3 and all men within the class or sub-class so called out shall, from the date of such proclamation, be deemed to be soldiers enlisted in the Military Forces of Canada and subject to military law for the duration of the present war.
Assuming that the Bill goes into operation and the Governor in Council, under that clause,- calls out by proclamation every one of those 303,000 young men between the ages of 20 and 24 who were referred to iby my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), is absolutely fixed by section 4 of this Act unless they can show reason for exemption. What justification would there be for calling any other class if the number were there? The law fixes them iu the military service of Canada and there is no power that cab get them out. Yon cannot call any other class. Your limit is 100,000, and they must undoubtedly be taken from among these young men.


Edmond Proulx: According to the Militia
Act single unmarried men are called first up to the age of 45. I see by clause 4 that married men and widowers with children from 20 to 34 are called before single men and married men from 34 to 45. The calling out of married men imposes a heavier burden on the country, -because it has to take care of their wives and children. Would it not be possible to take unmarried men up to the age of 40 before touching the married men and widowers with children?


Arthur Meighen: That, as almost all
other suggestions, was debated in the committee when this clause was first up. The reason for the classification which has been made is that the best military age is broadly from 20 to 35. After 35 there ie a marked deterioration; consequently, it urns felt that all below that should be accepted first.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I put a question to the Solicitor General in respect to this selective element that is in -the present Bill, I did not get an answer because my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), by reason of his superior right intervened. Now that the point mentioned by my hon. friend is over -and done with, possibly the Solicitor General would answer me.


Arthur Meighen: There may be a measure of correctness, speaking from the point of view of the philosopher, in the point of my -hon. friend. The selective clauses are the clauses which relate to exemptions. The operation of those clauses will be of itself the selection. It is quite true that with respect to those who enrol themselves and do not themselves make any application or suggestion to the local tribunals that in the national interest they be exempt, or in respect to whom no such application is made, there is no specific operation of any selective clause. But that -proceeds on the principle that if the man himself does not suggest by way of application to -the local tribunal that he should be -exempt, and if no one does it on his behalf, there is a fair and reasonable assumption that the selection would not exempt him. Consequently, practically speaking, the selective principle permeates the whole Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand the hon. gentleman's answer, there is no selection at all. The Government accepts everybody who comes along, everybody who will write his name down as being within a certain class. The Government do not reject anybody but take everybody..


Arthur Meighen: Clause 3 stands. Now, we are at clause 4. As to clause 4 a suggestion was made by the leader of the Opposition and also it was made independently by hon. members on this side of the House and pressed, I remember, by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) that there should be a diversion of jurisdiction between the Militia Service Act and the Army Act on one hand and this Act on the other, that the line should be clearly fixed where the Militia Service Act ceases to operate, as it were, in regard to prosecutions and penalties and where the Army Act commences to operate. It was urged that there should not be -an alternative jurisdiction and it was further urged by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) that there should be a more severe penalty. Careful consideration has been given to the proposals and I wish to suggest .to the committee that the suggestions be met in this way: That sub-clause 4 of section 4 of the Bill be amended to read as follows:
Any man who is called out, and who without reasonable excuse fails to report as aforesaid, shall be guilty of absenting himself without leave, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years with hard labor.
The result is that we create here only the offence of absenting -himself without leave as committed by the man who fails to report and who is made liable to report under this Bill.


John Allister Currie: Why use the term "absent without leave" because "absent without leave" under the Army Act is a different thing altogether. Why not say "refuses to report? Absence without leave is treated by the commanding officers constantly and a man^ is fined for a few days' absence. A confusion of terms might arise.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the name is very important; in fact, it might be just as well to call it an offence. It seems to me to be fully the same offence as that committed by the man who, having enrolled, absents himself without leave. Consequently, I think the name is quite appropriate, but if we simply called it an offence the effect would -Be exactly the same.


William Pugsley: That leaves out paragraph (a) altogether?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it leaves o-ut the
creation of the offence by this Bill that he who-, having reported, does not remain o-n active service where placed, leaving that offence to- be taken care of by the Army Acit. There is another alternative jurisdiction. He is between the civil and military t-ri-

b,imals/ and the line is clearly drawn between the operation of the Army Act and this 'Act. The punishment for absenting himself without leave is made five years with hard labour. It was thought that as no one could commit the offence except a man who wias physically fit for military service that punishment would suit him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You increase the penalty from three years to five years?


Arthur Meighen: On the well-known principle of making the punishment fit the crim-e. It is hoped that this will have a greater preventive effect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does failing to go and
register constitute the offence with which the minister is dealing?


Arthur Meighen: Failing to report if it
is his duty to report under this Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is another matter involved. There should be the greatest certainty that the individual has had notice before he is subjected to punishment. This is similar to the offence of contempt of court in the case of a juror or witness, and in such a case the-judge requires very clear evidence that the individual has had notice. The mere proclamation of the Military Service Act would not be sufficient to justify us in treating ias a criminal a man who did not obey all its provisions.


Arthur Meighen: The effect would be that the Government would have to assume responsibility for that notice reaching every man in the country. I do not think if my hon. friend were a member of a Government he would -cane to assume that responsibility. If it should be shown to- a judge that the person charged was n-o't aware o-f the proclamation or had no notice of his duty, that fact might be pleaded by way of excuse, and it would be for the judge to decide.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where must he report,
to the military authorities?


Arthur Meighen: Under the Militia Act.


John Allister Currie: In the administration of
the l^w, I think that these -men should be compelled first to serve in the army and then to serve their term in prison. If a man wanted -to avoid going to the war he might prefer to take his chance of getting two or three years in the penitentiary, with good food and -clothing and perhaps a little stone breaking, which is not as hard as trench work, to going to the front. I had a letter from a 'Canadian who got into trouble of this kind in the Old Country and
who was finally given two years; but he had first to join the -conscript army and go to the trenches. If a -man is capable of service he should not be relieved of his obligation to serve simply because he stays away and a magistrate sentences him to a year in prison.
Then account should be taken of the large number of men who are enlisted in the militia and the Canadian defence force. They claim exemption under this Act. These men have enlisted under a valid contract for three years, and under the Militia Act are exempted from service abroad. I know a number of men under these -circumstances who say they are not liable under this Act. How is that condition to be -met under the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: Unless they are -also
members of the -Canadian Expeditionary Forces they are liable. Every one is liable except those who are exempted, and they are not exempted.


John Allister Currie: How can the Government void that valid contract unless th-ese men are specifically mentioned. There -should be some clause distinctly stating that these men are not exempt. There was the same trouble in England. The territorials would not serve abroad, saying they had enlisted for three years for service at home and would not seTve abroad. The -Government had to disband the territorial regiments, and that threw these men back under the ordinary Act. It should be made clear that this Act applies to all men enlisted in the Canadian militia. 'The hon. member for St, John (Mr. Pugsley) said that this Bill will be interpreted not by this Parliament hut by the cpurts. A man will make a claim in the court, and unless the Act is clear on every point, the judges may rule against him. It is not the first time Parliament has passed a Bill and the judges have decided that it was not good law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As has been stated over and over again during the debate, our militia men, under the Militia Act, can serve beyond Canada. Therefore, our militia men can serve overseas.


John Allister Currie: Yes, but the proclamation under the Militia Act has not been made yet, and they are not liable to serve abroad until the proclamation has been made.


Arthur Meighen: The amendment I propose will make subsection 4 read as follows:
Any man who is called out, and who without reasonable excuse fails to report as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprison-

ment for any terra not exceeding five years j with hard labour.
That is the maximum penalty. It may he less.


John Allister Currie: Would the Solicitor
General consider the advisability of inserting a provision that the mere fact of a man being sentenced under this section shall not release him from liability to serve under this Act? I think common sense would tell us that that would be a proper provision.


Arthur Meighen: A man once ma4e liable by an Act is not released until the Act says he is released. Consequently, a man does not release himself by violating the Act. In my opinion, the Act, as it stands, renders a man liable, after he commits the offence and serves the punishment, just as he was before. If, however, I should change my mind, I will bring the matter before the committee.


George Taylor: Subsection 2 of section 4 reads:
Men so called out shall report, and shall be placed on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
In the case of a man who does not report, and is Sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he is not in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, not having reported, and they have no claim on him. In order to compel that man to go overseas, we must first make him a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Under the present practice, a man who deserts, and is brought back, tried by a magistrate, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, does not by that procedure, evade service with the force, but, when his battalion leaves for the front, he is taken from, prison, overseas, and compelled to, enter upon his military service there. It seems to me we should provide in this Bill that those who seek to evade service by getting into prison may be taken out of the prison, on the occasion of the first draft, and taken overseas.


George Perry Graham: Unless he is entitled to exemption.


Arthur Meighen: Those men do nut get exemption. Section 4 reads:
4. (1) The Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation call "out on active service as aforesaid for the defence of Canada, either in Canada or beyond Canada, any class or subclass of men described in section three and all men within the class or subclass so called out shall, from the date of such proclamation, be deemed to be soldiers 
enlisted in the military forces of Canada and subject to military law for the duration of the present war, and of demobilization thereafter, save as hereinafter provided.
Whether he reports or not, the moment the proclamation issues that man is a soldier in the military forces of Canada, and subject to military law, and consequently, being a soldier, we can apply the hand of the law to him, just as much as we could to any other soldier, and if he does not report when it is his duty to report, it is the duty of the proper authorities to apply the physical hand of the law to him.


Mr TAYLOR (New Westminster):: There is this difficulty in the reasoning of -the hon. Solicitor General: that this man was a member of the military forces of Canada only, and the military forces of Canada are not, by this Bill, sent overseas. It is only the Canadian Expeditionary Force that goes overseas. This man, not having reported, is not a member of that force, according to subsection 2 of section 4.


Arthur Meighen: The subsection does not say that no one shall be placed on active service except those who report. It is the duty of the authorities to place these men on active service, and it is their duty to report. They will 'be placed on active service, whether they report or not, or whether they are brought to the proper place by the military authorities.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: These men not reporting may be tried in a summary manner, which means that any ordinary justice of the peace could send a man to the penitentiary for five years. I would seriously suggest of the minister that no less a personage than a county court judge, under the Speedy Trials Act, khould have authority. I do not think it is right that an ordinary magistrate, no matter how well meaning he may be, who knows very little about law, should be entrusted to the very serious duty of trying men, in circumstances of this kind. ,1 think they should be tried before a county judge.


Arthur Meighen: The summary convictions clauses of the Act provide for an appeal to a judge. It is true that, in cases involving intricate law, or substantial cases of law, the general scope or spirit of the legislation is to entrust that to the judges, but this will not involve consideration of law to .any very great extent. It would be a simple matter to decide whether the man was of the proper age, and if he was of the proper age, whether he had an exemption.

Then it is a mere matter of judgment as to tlie proper punishment. Of course, if a county judge tried all these eases it would, in one sense, be better. But we want to take care not to add too much formality or chance of delay or congestion to the enforcement of the Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman at least provide that these cases be tried before county court judges or stipendiary magistrates in cities and towns.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that we deal with this clause as we have dealt with some other clauses: that it be allowed to pass, and I will promise consideration myself, as well as to bring-it to the consideration of my colleagues. It can be spoken to later in the House.
Subsection 4 of section 4 agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Edward Kemp, the House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.
Wednesday, July 12, 1917.