1917-07-07

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Progress Report Manitoba Hydrometric Survey for calendar year 1915.-Hon. Mr. Roche.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 103, concerning the payment of salaries or wages of employees of railway companies.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which arises out of some observations made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), on the 6th of June, in connection with a certain investigation of the affairs of the Central Railway Company of New Brunswick. These remarks were made upon a motion which was made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). The right hon. the Prime Minister alleged that I had made an infinitely stronger attack upon Mr. Justice Landry than the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) had, in a letter to the Prime Minister, made upon Mr. Justice Galt. The Prime Minister also made some remarks with regard to the course which he said had been taken to prevent proper inquiry at that time. My statement will take some little time and I have no desire to delay the House upon the discussion of the Military Service Bill; but I realize that if one delays too long he is not allowed to bring up a question of privilege. If it could be understood that there would be no prejudice from the delay, that my rights would stand as they are now, I should be willing

to let the matter stand until the Military Service Bill is out of committee.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I think that is a very reasonable request, and it should certainly be granted.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service.-Sir Robert Borden (Resumed from Friday, July 6.)
Mr. RAINVILLE in the Chair.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I beg the indulgence of the committee while I refer to a statement which was made in my absence from the House yesterday by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). On page 3200 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
The Finance Minister also on one occasion asked me if I did not think it proper that we should let up. He thought Canada had done her full share in sending men to help England. I pointed out that we were not helping England, but helping the Empire and the cause of human liberty. Thjs conversation was not conducted in the presence of the Prime Minister, but witnesses can be had in large numbers in the city of Toronto to whom the Finance Minister made the same statement.
I am sorry I was not present yesterday afternoon in order that I might have given a prompt and emphatic denial to that statement. I desire to say that it is fiction pure and simple, that it is wholly and absolutely untrue in every particular, and without the slightest foundation in substance or in fact.
I desire to say further that no such conversation ever took place or could have taken place, because the sentiments attributed to me are entirely incompatible with my known 'views with regard to the war, and my official conduct during its progress. During the fall of 1915 and the early part of 1916, it was brought to the attention of the Government-I should say to the attention of nearly all the members of the Government-that in certain districts in which recruiting had been brisk, vital industries such as coal mining, iron and steel, agriculture, and the munitions industry, were suffering by reason of the fact that the recruiting was not in any degree selective; that is to say, that skilled mechanics were being recruited, and that it was not possible to replace them because of the long training required to qualify a man in those trades. I received many communications upon the subject, both orally and by letter, and in order that this matter may not
[Mr. Pugaley.l
depend upon the statement of the ex-Minister of Militia upon the one hand and of myself upon the other, I desire to read a letter which I found this morning among my correspondence of the early part of 1916, which substantially sets forth the views I had at that time respecting recruiting. Before reading it I desire to say- although I do not think it is necessary that I should say it to this House-that I have always been in favour of this country putting forth the utmost of her effort in recruiting, in order that our military strength at the front should be as great as possible, that we might play our part with increasing vigour until this war was successfully concluded.
The letter which I shall read is as follows:
Otta-wa, February 19th, 1916. Dear Mr. Harmer,

I am obliged for yours of the 17th instant enclosing a copy of your letter to Mr. Flavelle, which I have read with much interest. The questions raised have been before us for some time but are exceedingly difficult of solution as you will, I am sure, realize. According to the British authorities the great need is for men and more men. If we discourage men in one or more callings from going to the front would it not tend to discourage recruiting generally? I am aware of the force of the arguments presented as I have canvassed them many times during the past few months. There is a point beyond which over-recruiting weakens the strength of a nation for a long drawn-out struggle. On the other hand, if an early and complete decision could be obtained it would appear better to sacrifice production to a certain extent and make the strongest possible effort in the field. I have great confidence in the situation adjusting itself with the exercise of reasonable discretion on the part of the Militia Department. You may depend upon it we shall do what we can here to keep the nation strong and at the same time put forth our best efforts in the field.
Yours very truly,
W. T. White.
R. Harmer, Esq.,
President, Sawyer-Massey Company, Limited, Hamilton, Ontario.
I had the view, during the concluding stages of voluntary recruiting, that the essential industries were being crippled to a certain extent by the enlisting of skilled mechanics, some of whom-I do not say all of whom-could have rendered better service, or as good service, in 'connection with the prosecution of the war, possibly, as if they had enlisted, although I am the first to say that I .admire above all the man who enlists and goes forward to the front. Nevertheless in certain industries which are vital it is necessary, in my judgment, that a certain selection should be
\

exercised; in other words I have always had the view that the proper course for a nation to pursue in time of war is to adopt selective compulsory military service, such as is provided for in this Bill?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Always?


William Thomas White: My right hon.
friend asks, " Always." I said the other day in this House that while I had realized that the voluntary enlistment system was unjust, in that it cast the burden of the war upon the most patriotic, at the same time, I had desired that we should not resort to compulsory service until the national need was clearly apparent, as it is at the present time, as I desired that we should maintain national unity in this country and the appearance of unity before the world. That is all, Mr. Chairman, that I desire to say upon the subject.
On section 1-Short Title:	Definitions.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: It is only made part of this Act in so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, but the part that is applicable ought to be made public. There is one part of the Act which is part of the law which we are going to enact, and I think it should be printed with the Act itself. In the meantime we should have it.


Robert Laird Borden: I might say that the Army Act has for many years been applicable in this country, just in the same way; the Militia Act has made it applicable.


Wilfrid Laurier: But my right hon. friend will remember that the Militia
Act was not resorted to, hut this Act is to come into force and very lively too. If there are provisions in the Army Act applicable to this Act, it is only right that all should go together.


William Pugsley: 1 quite agree with the right hon. leader of the Opposition that it is very desirable that we should have the Army Act before us. I think we ought also to have the regulations which were referred to by the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) yesterday. He made a statement which surprised me very much- that under those regulations, if a man enlisted was able to pay $50 he would be able to purchase his discharge. I should like to see those regulations. We ought to have them. I understand there are certain provisions for the punishment of deserters. I believe the Army Act provides for the execution of a deserter. I am not sure and perhaps my hon. friend can. tell me as to that. Looking at this Bill, I find there are different provisions, and one is that a deserter may be tried by court martial, and punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. The subsection reads:
On summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three years.
It is important to determine whether that would over-ride the provisions of the Army Act, which provide for execution'-a deserter is liable to he shot, under the provisions of the Army Act. I do not know whether this would over-ride the Army Act, but it is a matter to be considered quite carefully.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The King's Regulations and Orders for the Army for Canada, approved in Canada, are the regulations under which a man, heretofore, has been able to purchase his discharge for $15. More recently the amount was raised to $50. It is the intention that the provisions that deserters are punishable by imprisonment for three years shall over-ride the provisions of the Army Act which provide a much more drastic punishment. The law heretofore has made desertion punishable by the very extreme penalty mentioned by the hon. gentleman from St. John (Mr. Pugsley).


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it the intention that this regulation, which allows a conscript or a recruit to buy his discharge, shall he applicable under this Bill? Will the conscript he able to avoid conscription 'by paying $50 and getting a substitute ?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the regulations are included, I understand, and under the regulations, as stated by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), a recruit can purchase his discharge for j}50. It was $15 when the war began, but it has now changed to- $50. It is provided here that these regulations are part of the law. This means that undeT this regulation the conscript can purchase his discharge and hire a substitute for $50. Is that right?


Arthur Meighen: Even to-day a man is
not entitled as of right to purchase his discharge. There are certain conditions under which the purchase of a discharge may be allowed, which conditions provide for the payment of $50. Under this Bill he has no right whatever to enforce the purchase of his discharge for $50 or any other sum.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under the
regulation he cannot claim his discharge as of right on payment of $50. But he can apply for it, and his application can be granted or refused on conditions which are dependent, I suppose, on the will of the minister of the department. It would be the same under this Bill, I suppose?


Arthur Meighen: There is no provision in this Act for it. It is a question whether the regulations and orders bearing upon such cases would 'be applicable under this law. A man is entitled to apply for discharge, but he would not be entitled to get it as of right. Until I am familiar with the conditions which apply to such a case and which have heretofore enabled a man to get his discharge, I cannot say whether it should be possible to grant such a discharge under this Act. I do not see that the matter is of any force.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is of great force.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a matter of right; it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the militia authorities.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a very serious matter.


Arthur Meighen: It would be serious if a man could purchase his discharge as of right; fbut he is not able to do so, and certainly will not be able to under this Act.


Mr. DEVLIN:: What are the conditions under which he may purchase his discharge?

Mr. MEiGHEN: I cannot name the conditions under which he has heretofore been able to purchase it. If those conditions were such as to enable the purchase under this Act they would not apply, because the regulations would prevent their applying. I myself do not know any reason why the same condition should not obtain in one case as in the other, because in neither case is it a matter of right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Can the Minister of Militia or any member of the Government not inform the House as to the conditions under which a man may purchase his discharge?


Robert Laird Borden: These matters will come up for consideration when we take up the clause which adopts the Army Act. They do not properly come under the clause that we are now considering.


William Pugsley: I think it would properly come up for consideration now, in view of the statement of the Minister of Militia yesterday that quite a number of those who had enlisted purchased their discharge for the sum of $50. W-e should be informed with regard to that. My own view is that the regulation that applies to those who have already enlisted ought to apply to those who may be taken under this Bill. I abject most strongly to any kind of discrimination against those who are to be taken by force. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) some little time ago stated that members of the Civil Service were to be discriminated against; that those who had not enlisted were guilty of non-recognition of their duty and were to be paid on a different basis. In other words, they were to be treated as if they were members of a degraded conscript army. Perhaps that is a necessary result of having voluntary enlistment for two and a half years or more and then resorting to compulsory service. The Government ought to treat those who will go to the front under this law no less favourably than it has treated those who have already enlisted. I am surprised, therefore, that the Solicitor General should say that the regulation providing for discharge on the payment of $50 will not apply to those who are conscripted. The Solicitor General says that the obtaining of discharge upon pay- ' ment of a certain sum is not a matter of right. If that is so, it is all the worse, because under previous regulations anybody-who was permitted to have his discharge might be released from the service on the payment of $15. Many a poor boy might

be able to raise $15-but the Government raised the fee to $50. I suppose the intention was to make it more difficult for a man to obtain discharge and to make those who desired to obtain their discharge feel the burden of the payment of $50. Whoever explains this matter to the committee ought to be able to state why the fee was raised from $15 to $50. It strikes me that this was a most extraordinary action on the part of the Government. However, under that provision a certain number of men who had enlisted were allowed to purchase their discharge. The committee ought to be made acquainted with those regulations and to have some information as to the conditions under which these men were allowed to buy their discharge and the general conditions which governed the actions of the Militia Department in that respect,


Mr. ROSS:: There is a provision in the
Militia Act which gives a man who is subject to its terms the right to buy a substitute. If the Militia Act is to read in conjunction with the present law and there is nothing in the present law which is inconsistent with that provision in the Militia Act, I assume that that provision will still remain the law of the land. The result will be that a man of wealth will be able, under the Militia Act, to buy his freedom from service to his country. It seems to me that that should not be permitted. I should like to know whether the Solicitor General interprets the law as I have pointed out.


Arthur Meighen: If this clause of the
Militia Act is not one of those which are specifically negatived in this Bill, it is because it does not apply undeT the Bill as it stands. At all events, it is the intention that it shall not apply.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would it not be just as
well to insert in the Bill a clause to that effect, so that there would be no doubt about the matter?


Arthur Meighen: My impression is that the section of the Militia Act which provides for this is one of those specifically negatived in this Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Militia Act is made part of this Bill and if the Militia Act provides that a conscript oan buy his discharge, a man should certainly do so under this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so, because the Militia Act is made part of the
Bill only in so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent, therewith. This Bill specifically says that a man in a certain class on a certain date becomes a member of the militia. It is utterly inconsistent with that provision to say that a man may make another instead of himself a member of the militia. I know that it was contemplated in the preparation of this Bill that that clause of the Militia Act should be specifically negatived. I understand now that it is not one of those specifically negatived; that is because such a clause is clearly inconsistent with this Act and could not apply.


William Pugsley: I think it is not inconsistent, because under the Militia Act a man had to be drafted before he could purchase a substitute. So, under this Act, he would have to be enrolled, and the provisions of the Militia Act enabling him to purchase a substitute would clearly apply and be in no way inconsistent with this law.


James Hamilton Ross: I cannot follow the Solicitor General's argument; I do not think it is logical. A man who comes under the provisions of this Act becomes enrolled under the Militia Act, and it is not inconsistent to say that under this Act after he has become conscripted he can buy himself off. There is no inconsistency at all.


Robert Laird Borden: We are discussing the definition of certain expressions used in the Act. When we come to section 13, which deals with the application of the Militia Act, it may be proper to include this among the sections specifically negatived. It is not the intention of this Act that substitution by payment shall be allowed.


Wilfrid Laurier: quired by a proclamation of His Majesty in pursuance of this Act to continue in army service-
This is made part of the Bill, and therefore we should have before us the Army-Act and the regulations when we come to discuss section 13.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not made part of this Bill in the way in which my - right hon. friend suggests; it is made part of this Bill in so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, it is made part of the Bill in so far as recruiting is concerned. Suppose you make the levy, and men are recruited, the Army Act is quite germane to the subject. The recruit might say:	Under the Army Act I
can purchase my discharge; I do not want to serve; here is my mqney; free me. I do not see that there is any inconsistency.


Robert Laird Borden: We will take
that into consideration. I see by the Militia Act, as revised by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and re-enacted in 1904, this provision:
The Army Act for the time being in force in the United Kingdom, the King's regulations, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this Act or the regulations made thereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of Canada for the government of the militia.
That is section 74 of the Militia Act as it has been in force since 1904. I do not recall that my right hon. friend printed the Army Act at the time that Bill was under discussion. But I will take into consideration his request, as he is naturally more concerned about the matter now than he was then.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. I
do not recall that we printed the Army Act then. I do not know that my right hon. friend asked that it be printed. But the circumstances in 1904 were different from those in 1917, because now we are passing a law which must be of immediate application, as my right hon. friend said it would be applied.


Arthur Meighen: The British Military
Service Act makes applicable their Army Act and does not specifically negative the provisions referred to by my right hon. friend. At the same time, no man can purchase his discharge under the British Military Service Act. But, coming to the point raised by my hon. friend from West

Middlesex (Mr. Ross), if the section of the Militia Act to which he refers were to apply, it would clearly be inconsistent with this Act. Subsection 2 of section 27 of the Militia Act, says:
Any man balloted or notified for service may, at any time, be exempt until again required in his turn to serve, by furnishing an acceptable substitute, on or before the day fixed for his appearance.
The men here are not balloted or notified for service; a man could not release himself from his liability.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that an
answer, that under this measure men are net hallotted?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, because the section I have quoted applies only to men balloted.


Wilfrid Laurier: By this Bill you do not ballot, but every man is made a conscript, or he has to prove that he is exempt.


Arthur Meighen: How could a man
come forward and say he is entitled to furnish a substitute under this Bill, because the Militia Act says that he may furnish a substitute? Under this measure fct is not balloted.


William Pugsley: Under the present law, on the payment of $50 the Government has granted discharges to men who have enlisted and sworn to serve the King. The Solicitor General says that that provision will not be applicable to those who are hereafter enlisted under the Military Service measure.


Arthur Meighen: I have not said that.


William Pugsley: I understood the Solicitor General to argue that discharges would not be given.


Arthur Meighen: I never said that at all.


William Pugsley: Did not the Solicitor General say that because, under the Militia Act, men are balloted for and, by reason of being balloted for, they become liable to service, therefore the provision for hiring a substitute, or the provision in the regulations allowing a marr to buy his discharge for $50, would not apply to a man who enlisted under the Military Service Act? If that is so, we would, as I said before, have one law for those who have enlisted voluntarily and another law for those who are conscripted. That would be very objectionable. If it is the intention not to allow the procuring of a substitute, or dis-

charge on, payment of a certain sum, there should he a section in the Bill clearly covering those matters.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already pointed out that that will come up under section 13, and, if it is not perfectly plain, it will be made so. The matter does not come under this section which deals with definitions.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The Solicitor General distinctly said a few minutes ago that a man, not as a matter of right, but under certain conditions, could purchase his discharge. Now he says that he cannot do so because the law is changed and there is no ballot. Which statement is correct? Can. a man purchase his discharge conditionally, or can he not?


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend will read the remarks in Hansard, he will understand the matter.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
mixing the two cases up. What I referred to was the furnishing of a substitute. That applies only to balloted men.


Mr. TURRIFF:: From the present discussion, it is not at all clear Whether a man will have the right to purchase a discharge or not, or whether he will have the right to furnish a substitute or not. If the Bill does not make the matter clear, will the Solicitor General have the Bill amended so as to make it clear?


Robert Laird Borden: I have twice
said that we would make that clear when we came to section 13, if it is not already clear.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take it on trust till then.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would suggest that section 1 should stand in the meantime until we have considered section 13.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not see any occasion for section 1 to- stand; it deals with definitions.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There is a great deal of doubt as to the meaning of the section, and as it is a defining section, it should be perfectly clear.


Mr. MARCIL:: The Minister of Militia stated yesterday that in the early stages of the war 1,248 men had been discharged by purchase, at first for $15 and later for $50. He gave no reasons why these men were discharged after having enlisted, and the committee is entitled to, some explanation on this point.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Militia gave the only fexplanation that was possible, I think. I am informed that the reasons in each case were of a special character; such a case, for instance, as that of a man with a family who has had the misfortune to lose his wife-they were chiefly cases of a compassionate nature.


Charles Marcil: Would a man be permitted to purchase his discharge under this Act under similar conditions?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there should be any general provision of that hature, but we can discuss that under section 13.


Mr. OLIVER:: Yesterday we were discussing the administration of the Militia Department. I do not know that the discussion was altogether in order, but it having been begun, I for one am prepared to continue it. At the same time I do not wish to interfere with the discussion of the clauses of the Bill. I observe that neither the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) nor the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department (Mr. McCurdy) is present, so I presume the Government do not wish to have a discussion of the administration of the department at this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would hardly be well to have a discussion of that kind on a clause which deals purely with definitions, but there is probably some other clause in the Act on which my hon. friend could take this matter up. The Minister of Militia is unavoidably absent. He is, of course, much more familiar with the administration of his department than I am and I should like him to be present when my hon. friend takes the matter up.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate that. Personally, I did not think the discussion was in order yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not think so, either.


Frank Oliver: But it having been begun, I feel that we have the right to continue it, and if we drop the discussion now I should like it to be understood that we shall have an opportunity of resuming it at a later date on some other clause of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope that can be arranged. I will speak to the Minister of Militia about it.


John Gillanders Turriff: I wish to discuss, on some clause of the Bill, the matter of sending parcels to prisoners of war in Germany, and



the unsatisfactory handling of this business by the Red Cross so far as Canada is concerned. 1 do not wish to discuss this question now, unless it is quite convenient to the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be better to discuss it on some other occasion. It would be proper to bring the matter up, for instance, oiva motion to go into Committee of Supply, .if that would suit my hon. .friend.


John Gillanders Turriff: I should prefer the Minister of Militia to .be present.


The CHAIRMAN:: This discussion is quite irrelevant.


Robert Laird Borden: We shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter when the Minister of Militia is here. If it relates to postal facilities I think it would be well for the Postmaster General also to be present. We will see that they are both present at some time that will be convenient to my hon. friend.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would suggest that this section stand until we have considered section 13. I cannot conscientiously vote for this section without understanding it. I do not understand it, and the Government does not understand it either.


Robert Laird Borden: This .section will have no effect until section 13 is carried. I should be very glad to accede to my hon. friend's request, but I can .see no reason for it whatever.
On section 2-persons liable for service:
2. (1) Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section three of this Act, and who,-
(a)	is ordinarily resident in Canada; or
(b)	has been at any time since the fourth day of August, 1914, resident in Canada,
shall be liable to be called out as hereinafter provided on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada, either in or beyond Canada, unless he
(a)	comes within the exception set out in the Schedule; or
(b)	reaches the age of forty-five before the class or subclass to which he belongs, as described' in section three is called out.
Such service shall be for the duration of the present war and of demobilization after the conclusion of the war.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent any man from voluntarily enlisting in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, so long as voluntary enlistment in such force is authorized.


William Pugsley: The section says; "so long as voluntary enlistment in such force is authorized." Does that mean that the Government intend to pass an order preventing voluntary enlistment?


Robert Laird Borden: It is merely precautionary. There is no such proposal in contemplation at the present time.


William Pugsley: Why not leave the words out then?
Sir ROBERT BORDEN; It was thought desirable to include these words from the standpoint of good drafting.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the reason for the difference between the language of this section and the language of the Militia Act? This section says
Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section three of this Act and who,-
(a)	is ordinarily resident in Canada; or
(b)	has been at any time since the fourth day of August, 1914, resident in Canada.
Section 10 of the Militia Act says
All the male inhabitants of Canada, at the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service ifi the militia.
I need not say that it is always better to have uniformity in drafting except where something different is intended. Is this a better drafting than the language of the Militia Act? What is the meaning of this: "(b) has been at any time since the fourth day of August, 1914, resident in Canada?"


Arthur Meighen: There are two differences. In the Militia Act, the word "inhabitants" is used as against the term "ordinarily resident" in this Act. In the Militia Act only those who at the date of the putting into force of section 10 were inhabitants were included in its operation. Under this Act all who have been ordinarily resident since the outbreak of the war are included. The reasons are these: The term "ordinarily resident" has a well-established judicial meaning. It is the term used in the British Military Service Act and has been defined throughout the operation of the Act there. I think that is a sufldci: ent reason for the use of the words. I do not know of any special judicial interpretar tion of the word "inhabitant." But the main difference is that this Act is made to cover those who have been ordinarily resident since the outbreak of the war. It is felt that the Act should apply to all who have been ordinarily resident in Canada since that time, for the reason that if it were otherwise worded it would distinctly permit to escape some who were said to have gone from Canada for the purpose of avoiding anticipated military service. It was not thought well that the Act should not at

least apply to these persons, whatever means, if any, should be taken to enforce it as against them.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Why do you not use the word "domiciled?"


Arthur Meighen: Again I repeat that the words "ordinarily resident" are in the British Act. I am satisfied they are in the Mew Zealand Act. They have been interpreted in -many cases. Consequently we get the advantage of the interpretation in regard to exactly parallel cases in British countries. I quite agree that the word "domiciled" has a judicial meaning, but the term "ordinarily resident" has been found to be that used in such an Act as this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that every male British subject who comes witnin one of the classes described is liable to service. I understand that this would apply not only to born British subjects but to naturalized British subjects. Having regard to that circumstance, does not my hon. friend think an announcement should be made now of the policy of the Government in view of the statements made in this House, notably by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), that the Government intended to present to Parliament during the present session a new Franchise Bill by which even naturalized British subjects will be debarred from the exercise of the franchise?


Wilfrid Laurier: You would
not believe it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot believe it, but it has been stated in this House by one of the most prominent members of the ministerial party and I think by one minister- if I mistake not the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) gave us a broad hint to that effect. In view of the fact that all British subjects, whether born British subjects, as nearly all of us are, ot naturalized British subjects, are going to serve under this Bill, should the Government contemplate the passing of a law which will deprive those naturalized British subjects of their rights as citizens of this country?


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend's imagination has run away with him judging from his reference to what has been .said in this House on that subject. I can only' say in reply to his inquiry that the subject hae not been under consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: And will not
be?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: And will not.
be?


Robert Laird Borden: I speak for the-past, not for the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to be'
rude to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, but I heard distinctly-and if I had time I would lay my finger on it in Hansard-the hon. member for Calgary, in answer to a question which I interjected into the debate, declare that even French and Belgian reservists in Canada would be deprived of their votes by the new franchise law, and that all naturalized British subjects who belonged to countries where a military law could reach them from abroad should be disfranchised. So, my imagination is not at work at all, but my ears and imy memory serve -me well.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would advise my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) not to rely too much on what the hon. member for Calgary says, because he said, in the presence of the Prime Minister, that there would be no conscription law.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And it is said that he
eaid there would be civil war. Many things are said in these dog days.
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Solicitor General (Mr Meighen) that these words "ordinarily resident" are taken from some authority.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, from the
Military Service Act of Great Britain.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all
right; the moment there is an interpretation for them I am quite satisfied, because when this Act is to be enforced we shall have a precedent. But, I come now to another consideration. Section 2 provides that every male British subject who comes within the class as described and who
-reaches the age of forty-five before the class or subclass to which he belongs, as described in section three, is called out,
-shall be liable to service. I do not know whether my right hon. friend has heard of this ox not but it has been represented to me that the age of 45 ought to be reduced to 35. The old provision was 18 to 45, but my right hon. friend has altered the " 18 " to " 20 " and for good reasons.
I have been -told that for similar reaisons you should 'limit the age to 35. In the

olden time it was found by experience that -men between the age of 18 and 4 -p.m.	45 -oo-uhi bear the fatigue of
military service, but the conditions of war have changed and everybody knows that the conditions of service today are far more severe than they were in the time of the wars of Napoleon. To-day -a man is subjected to -a far more severe strain in training, and especially in service, and I have been -told-I give -the information for what it is worth-that, while a man could serve up to 45 in the old days, under the present system of warfare the strain is -more than Ihe can endure. I submit -the matter for the consideration of the Government. I should not be at -all surprised if my -right hon. friend has heard protests, as I have, ag-ain-st the 'limit being fixed at 45 'instead of 35.


Robert Laird Borden: I acknowledge
that there 'is a great deal of force in what my Tight hon. friend h-as said as to the capacity of a man above the age of 40 to endure the hardships of warfare -as it is carried on -at present. I agree that it is a -perfectly open question as to whether we should go to- the -age of 45 in -this measure. We thought it best to leave the Bill i-n this form for debate in the House. At one time I was rather inclined to think that we might -adopt -the very suggestion which my right hon. friend has made before we brought down the -Bill; bu-t there is no probability whatever, as I understand conditions in this country, of calling out the class- of 45. or even 40, in order to provide the number of men authorized to be enlisted under this Bill; there would be sufficient men in the lower classes to provide the required number. There is, however, the consideration th-at there are certain purposes other than combatant services

because my right hon. friend has -been, speaking of combatant services-for which a great many men have been required and will be required in the future. It was that consideration that led us to leave the age as it i-s in the Bill. I quite agree as to the inadvisability of attempting to send men above 40 into the combatant service. In England the compulsory provision o-f the Act fix-es the age at 41, but there is provision that men may be enlisted u,p to the -age of 48 for voluntary service. There are, of course, exceptional cases. I remember one man -from British -Columbia who has been at the front for over a year, and who, I believe, was well up to 60 when he enlisted. He was a vonderfuily well preserved man.


Wilfrid Laurier: He must have been.


Robert Laird Borden: He had been an athlete and was wonderfully well preserved. They said that he had endured the hardship of trench warfare better than men half his age.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope my
right hon. friend will reserve this clause.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought we
might pass it with the understanding that if, upon the discussion of the next section where the question will definitely eome up, we should reach the conclusion that an amendment should be made, we c.ould return to this section.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it is understood that we can take it up subsequently, I have no objection, but I would impress on my right hon. friend the advisability of limiting the age to less than 45, or even 35. I have had correspondence impressing -the advisability of reducing the age.


Robert Laird Borden: Has my right
hon. friend taken into account the consideration I have mentioned?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, the use of men for service of a non-combatant nature-in the fores-try corps, railway construction corps, labour corps, army service corps, medical service corps, and army transport. A man who is incapable of military service in the trenches may be able to perform one of these other services, as for example driving a motor, or performing work of a certain character in a lumber camp or in railway construction.


Wilfrid Laurier: What you
want is fighting men. That is the raison d'etre of this Bill. I understand that in these days the fighting man has to be trained as an athlete is trained; he is made to carry enormous weights and to march long distances, and unless he is in the prime of life and health he cannot stand it. This view has been strongly recommended to me, and I submit it for the consideration- of -the Government. I intend to pre-ss my views later on when we return to this section.


Mr. MORPHY:: In subsection A of section 2 we find the words: Every male British subject who
(a)	Is ordinarily resident in Canada; or
(b)	has been at any time since the fourth day of August, 1914, resident in Canada.

Has any provision- been made to reach the several thousands of young men who left this country since the war broke out? That is to say, is there any arrangement with adjoining governments whereby cooperation may be had and that class be reached? It seems to me it would be unfair to the young men who are here if the Government did not take some measures to get after those who left Canada, and also to prevent the manhood of Canada from leaving now.


Robert Laird Borden: An Order. in Council passed under the War Measures Act has been in force for several weeks to prevent people leaving Canada except with the consent of the authorities. No definite arrangement has been made with the United States Government pending the passing of this Bill. The subject, however, has been discussed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that by the
last paragraph it is enacted that such service shall be for the duration of the present war and of demobilization after the conclusion of the war. Has the Government any policy as to the mode of demobilization? I notice that in England Mr. Garvin, the well-known writer, has published a series of articles in the Observer with the object of calling the attention of the Government to the necessity of appointing a Minister of Reconstruction whose chief duties would be to look after the demobilization and the work resulting from demobilization. It may be premature to talk of demobilization now, but I mention it since my right hon. friend referred to it the other day in a way which I did not like, when he introduced his Bill. He really threatened those who are not in favour of conscription with the returned soldiers. I should like to know first if the soldiers are coming back to Canada with their arms, or if they will leave their arms in Europe when returning to Canada. To be serious, 1 shall read Mr. Garvin's views about demobilization. The article is as follows:
Mr. Garvin urgently demands that consideration be given the problem of "making work" for the vast army of discharged- soldiers. Daily needs make work, and this will continue while man fulfills his destiny on the planet. The returned men will continue consumers, will cease to destroy, and will become producers. In this connection Mr. Garvin seems to discern the economic paradox of want through too many able and willing hands ready to produce all things wanted-of destitution through overproduction. Many feel, clearly or dimly, the paradoxical fear that the turning of a great army from destruction to production will cause widespread want. Mr. Garvin's warning comes
none too soon. Men in authority who think something should be done must be supplanted at once with men who know what must be done and have courage to do it. There is a ray of hope in the resumption of coal mining in Alberta. In other industries, too, the attitude of stupid helplessness must be ended. The needs of the men in the trenches have been supplied by the men and women at home. The return of these men to industries in which they supply their own wants can be made a calamity by governmental stupidity or a great relief by governmental capacity. Preparations for peace have certainly been delayed too long. Paralyzing timidity regarding the money of the profiteers and the votes of those whom they let work must be ended. A minister with a reconstruction policy is an immediate need.
The other day I was reading a little pamphlet on the establishment of labour bureaus in the various British commonwealths, and I was struck by the remarks of Mr. Layton, of the British Board of Trade. Speaking on the aftermath of the war, he said:-
Clearly it is far easier to throw the industrial machine out of gear than to put it back in order again. Finally, history affords no precedent as to the immediate industrial aftermath of the war, but the destruction of wealth, the dislocation of markets, have been so general and on so large a scale that it is rash to assume on historical analogies, which are really inapplicable to the present situation, that trade will quickly be able to resume its normal conditions or that spending power in the form of either commerce or credit will at once be available for those who will have urgent need of material goods. Hence, the re-absorbtion of European armies together with the re-transference of those work-people who have been diverted to many occupations to produce guns and war equipment generally may be slow in process and will present our own, as well as European Governments with a problem in organization which will tax their utmost capacity.
Mr. Layton is speaking for the European countries, but, as we have an army which, in importance, is as much of an army as any of the Europe-an armies, the effect of their return to demobilization will be the same in Canada as in the warring countries. Has the Government taken any precautionary measures for the return of those soldiers? It is a well accepted fact that nearly all of our industries, fro-m one end of the country to the other, are producing for war purposes only. As soon as peace is concluded and demobilization begins, concomitant with the return of our soldiers to the industries of this country, the vast army of workers in the war industries of Canada will be out of work. Then what will happen, with soldiers returning by the thousands and hundreds of thousands to resume work, simultaneously

with ipen going out from establishment dedicated only to war industry? The reason I mention this is that I would like to have a declaration from the Government of their policy on this question. I think it is very important. No two men meet on the street to-day without speaking of the effect of demobilization on the Canadian industries and Canadian labour.


Robert Laird Borden: The question
which my hon. friend has brought up has engaged -the attention of the Government. More than that, it has engaged the attention of the Imperial War Conference. Some of the resolutions which have not yet been made public relate to the two questions which he has mentioned and which might be summed up as the demobilization of the soldiers from military activities, and their mobilization to civil life. So far as the military side of it is concerned, I am under the impression that the Minister of the Overseas Service has appointed a board to deal with it. Certain principles were laid down-I cannot refer to them at the moment-and were accepted by the Government of all the overseas dominions as embodying the right course to adopt with respect to demobilization; with respect to the activities of the troops during the period which may intervene after the conclusion of the war and before they can be transported to the country from which they came, and with respect to the places from and to which the should be conveyed, the manner of their conveyance, and the probable time that it should occupy. I hope hon. gentlemen of this House will realize that it is going to be a very great task to brine-300,000 men, with all their equipment, across the Atlantic. If a ship capable of conveying a thousand men could sail every week day for a year, it would just about accomplish the task, and the capacity of the railways of Canada to convey them to their several destinations must also 'be taken into account. They must not arrive so rapidly that they cannot be transported. Referring to the difficulty to which my hon. friend alludes, of converting this country from war conditions into peace conditions, that question has, of course, engaged the attention of the Government. There is a resolution already before the House with regard to land settlement, upon which we hope to make some progress as soon as this Bill is passed. Measures are also being taken for vocational training of men. Many other activities have been contemplated, which I need not allude to more particularly at 
present. I am not at all sure jthat, in the two or three years immediately after the conclusion of this war, the difficulty as to industrial occupation will be as great as my hon. friend has suggested. That subject was very fully gone into in the Imperial War Conference and in the Imperial War Cabinet, and the question arose as to whether or not the industrial capacity of the world would be capable, within the desired time, of making the . restoration that will be necessary in Northern France and in Belgium. Those who have not had statistics placed before them, and have not given close attention to the subject, will probably fail to realize what an enormous task it will be to restore Belgium and the ' northern districts of France to the condition in which they were before the war. I believe, the effort to bring that about will pretty fully occupy the industrial capacity of the Allied nations for two or three years after the war. It may .be that, after all, the condition after the war will not be of the character my hon. friend suggests. I only desire to say, for the moment, that these matters have been under consideration. Referring to the particular portion of my hon. friend's remarks relating especially to demobilization, the subject has engaged the attention of the Government, and has engaged the attention of all the dominions of the British Empire, and I think arrangements are being made which will be found satisfactory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since the subject has been broached, 1 might call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that in 1915, before his death, Lord Kitchener and the War Office entered into an arrangement with the Board of Trade Labour Exchange Department for bringing the soldiers back to civil employment after peace is declared.
The following are the chief terms agreed upon:
Insurance policy against unemployment valid for a year.
Working furlough on full pay and allowance for four weeks during which separation allowance will continue to he paid.
Travelling warrants from place of disbandment home.	[DOT]
Money gratuities for services and awards on a scale to be fixed by Parliament.
Help in finding work.
The same applies to the men serving in the British navy. In the United States since the beginning of the war the Department of Labour have for the same purpose made arrangements for the establishing of labour bureaus and also in view of the

large immigration which is expected from the warring countries when peace shall have been made. The Government have received on this question a petition which is signed by the most prominent persons and the most prominent associations in the country. The question is being discussed all over Canada to-day: what will become of our soldiers and the workers in the various industries in Canada which are engaged in manufacturing munitions and war supplies when demobilization takes place? I am glad to say that all creeds and denominations have taken hold of this matter. Last year I attended a meeting, presided over by the Lord Bishop of the Anglican church in Montreal, at which I represented the. Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal. This matter was discussed at that meeting and a petition was sent to the Government. I have here a copy of that petition, which I will read if my hon. friend thinks it is proper to do so under the clause that we are now considering.


Robert Laird Borden: There are some phases of this subject to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and the Minister of Labour (Mi. Crothers) have given special attention. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested to me that he would like to say something on [DOT] the subject when it is discussed, and perhaps my hon. friend would be good enough to let his remarks stand for the moment. We can find him a suitable opportunity of discussing it later.


Charles Marcil: Many more than 100,000
men will come under the provisions of this law. How will you select the required number?


Robert Laird Borden: They are called *out by classes.	.


Charles Marcil: Suppose there are more
men in those classes than are required?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has, perhaps, not observed a provision in the Bill which is designed to meet that difficulty. If we called out two or three [DOT]classes we might get more than the necessary number of men. There is a provision that in calling out the classes regard can be had to age, so as to. prevent any possibility of securing a number in excess of that which is authorized by the Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my right hon. friend will allow me, I wish to proceed with a few remarks that I have to make on the subject to which I have just referred. The Minister of Trade -and Commerce and the
Minister of Labour will, by reading the document that I am going to place on Hansard, be in a position to answer me later. At the meeting presided over by the Lord Bishop of the Anglican Church in Montreal, the important question of the effect of demobilization was discussed. As a result, the following petition was addressed to the Governor-General in Council:
Sir:-
The undersigned petitioners respectfully desire to lay before you and the members of the Government certain facts and reasons why it is desirable In the interests of the nation that a national system of labour bureaus be organized immediately. '
According to the best authorities, the present devastating war will create in all belligerent countries, and even in neutral countries, new conditions for which there are no historical analogies that offer precedents for their solution, particularly in the readjustment of the commerical and industrial dislocation which will inevitably follow; the I roblems being national and interprovincial in character.
This Dominion of Canada, up to the summer of 1915, has been suffering from an increasingly acute period of unemployment, with consequent heavy congestion of the larger centres of population, which has been largely caused by the lack of a national organization for providing efficient machinery for distributing labour and immigration.
In addition to our present industrial and agricultural problems, conditions will beset Canada at the close of the war, that must be fully met if she is to take her proper place in the councils of the Empire; they are:
I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Coimmerce especially to this:
1.	Provision must be made for the employment of our soldiers on their return to civil life, who will number at least 200,000.
2.	It is generally recognized there will be an influx of immigration when hostilities have ceased.
I must take exception to that statement. I do not see how immigration to Canada will be very large.'after the war. It will take some years to get the same influx that we had during the years preceding the war. (Reading):
3.	The displacement of over 100,000 war equipment workers will accentuate the situation.
I think the number there should be greater than 100,000. I have heard it stated in this House that about 300,000 men were working in munition factories and other .places where war supplies were being turned out. (Reading):
As an indication that to meet these new and complex problems our present -machinery is lacking in completeness, we point out:
There are no standing records of the labour market, and no place to obtain them. The

statistics sent out by the Labour Department are largely made up from volunteer reports from labour unions and charitable societies, and we have no reliable knowledge of the amount of casual labour and seasonal work, the amount of wage earning time, and of idleness and its effect upon the worker; practically nothing is known of the dovetailing of trades, or how workers, either agricultural or industrial, carry over the dull seasons.
There is no co-operation between the education authorities and the Labour Department for the intelligent direction of the technical and industrial training of children with the consequence that thousands of boys and girls are sent out annually into the unskilled market of this country.
While the Government gives a bonus for the securing of agricultural and domestic workers no provision is made for their settlement, with the result that our cities are crowded each winter with a large body of immigrant unemployed.
Canada presents the anomaly of the immigrant mechanic not being recognized by the authorities, and no reliable information as to conditions and openings is procurable by him, though the Dominion has in the utilization of her natural resources become a manufacturing country, and the industrial worker is as essential to her progress as the agricultural.
No successful attempt has yet been made for the distribution of our large foreign immigration which has concentrated in large communities, both in the town and country, to an extent that it is well nigh impossible to in^ culcate principles of Canadian citizenship, and unless this is remedied, assimilation of British standards is impossible.
To meet such conditions Government Labour Bureau systems have been established in Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the reports covering their administration and expansion indicate their great and growing usefulness in dealing with national problems.
It is believed by your memorialists that the cost of the system would be comparatively insignificant compared with the benefits realized from it by the workers, and the economic advantages gained by the whole nation.
Therefore we respectfully beg to suggest :
1. That legislation be enacted this session of Parliament providing for a permanent commission which will be responsible to Parliament to organize and administer a system of Labour Bureaus, the salient points to be:
(a)	A commission or authority at Ottawa, with executive power over the whole Dominion.
(b)	In the chief municipalities, a small local board representative of the city council, employers and labour, with power in the agricultural districts to co-opt a member of a Farmers' Association, with the agent of the central authority acting as secretary of the Board.
(c)	A strict neutrality on the part of the Bureaus during strikes and lockouts.
(d)	Co-operation with the educational authorities, for the better vocational and industrial training of children.
(e)	Co-operation with all Government departments working towards the control and direction of labour and immigration, particularly the post office, in the franking of letters and the distribution of Bureaux literature.
(f)	The officers appointed to carry out the system to be tested as to business efficiency and vocational fitness by a board of examiners.

(g)	Where necessary separate waiting rooms shall be provided for men and women under proper supervision.
(h)	Owing to the number of women engaged in industry, it is recommended that a woman be a member of the commission and local boards.
2. That your Government take such steps as they in their wisdom may deem expedient, in order that some immediate action be taken to ameliorate our present conditions and with greater efficiency and success meet the new conditions arising after the war.
This partly applies to immigration, it is true, but I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of the Minister of Labour to the particular section of this petition which concerns the returned soldiers. This petition which was sent to His Royal Highness and to the Government is signed by Winnipeg Builders Exchange, Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council, Winnipeg Ministerial Association, Winnipeg District Board Sons of England, Boards of Trade for Timiskaming District, Fort William Board of Trade, Fort William Trades and Labour Council, Fort William City Council, Fort William Patriotic Fund, Port Arthur City Council, Port Arthur Board of Trade, Port Arthur Patriotic Fund, Port Arthur Trades and Labour Council, Guelph City Council, Guelph Trades and Labour Council, Hamilton Trades and Labour Council, Toronto Board of Control, Toronto Board of Trade, Toronto Builders' Exchange, Ottawa City Council, Ottawa Board of Trade, Ottawa Builders' Exchange, Montreal City Council, Montreal Board of Trade, Montreal Cham-bres de Commerce, Montreal Builders' Exchange, Toronto Social Service Council, and various similar associations in the western provinces. It is also endorsed by the Imperial Dominion Royal Commission which assembled at Vancouver in 1916. Several of the Prime Ministers of the different provinces have signed this petition, and it has also been endorsed by various public associations. I would like to know from the Government if any action is to he taken with a view to meet such a contingency. As we are speaking about demobilization, it is time for the Government to give us its policy. I notice with pleasure that my hon. friend stated that the question had been debated at the Imperial Conference, but unfortunately the discussion at the Imperial Conference relating to the question of returned soldiers is not made public. I hope it will be made public very soon, because public opinion is agitated at the present time as to what shall be done with the returned soldier and in Tegard to .the dislo-

cation of industry when the soldiers do re-*turn.
I am asked to put this question to the Government. Do the words " after the war and during demobilization " mean that conscription and recruiting will be continued, and will conscripts be liable to be called to the colours after the war and during demobilization?


Robert Laird Borden: It merely defines the term of service. The term of service includes the war and demobilization after the conclusion of the war. Until the men are discharged from service, they must , be subject to discipline.
On section 3-divisions int.0 classes:


Robert Laird Borden: I will ask that this section stand for to-day in view of what my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said, but if there are any suggestions which any hon. member desire? to put forward in regard to it, I shall be very glad to have them.


William Pugsley: As this section should
he generally discussed, my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) should explain to the committee the reasons for making such a radical departure from the provisions of the Militia Act in providing for ten different classes. In the Militia Act, there are only four classes. First there is the distinction between unmarried men and married men, and there are only two classes of unmarried men and two classes of married men, so that, apart from the question of marriage there are only two classes. Section 15 .of the Militia Act says:
The male population liable to serve in the militia shall be divided into four classes:
The first class shall comprise all those of the age of eighteen years and upwards, but under thirty years, who are unmarried or widowers without children;
The second class shall comprise all those of the age of thirty years and upwards, but under forty-five years, who are unmarried or widowers without children ;
The third class shall comprise all those of the age of eighteen years and upwards, but under forty-five years, who are married or widowers with children;
The fourth class shall comprise all those of the age of forty-five years and upwards, but under sixty years.
The Militia Act provides for only two classes of unmarried men, those from 18 to 30, and those from 30 to- 45 years of age. This Bi'll creates ten classes, some of them married and some unmarried. The first class is from 20 to 24; the second from 24 to 28, and the third from 28 to 34. It seems to me that the committee should be apprised of the reasons for this very grave departure
from the provisions of the Militia Act. I myself am unable to see why there should be a distinction between boys from 20 to 24 and young men from 24 to 28. There may be some very good reasons for it, but there would seem to be less justice in calling out first of all boys from 20 to 24 years of age, for they were mere boys when the war broke out and never had the opportunity of voting for members for this Parliament. But they are to be the first ones called out to serve the State, and just why they should be [DOT] called upon to bear the first burden of military service I am unable to understand.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to understand a little more distinctly what my hon. friend has in mind, perhaps he would state just what he would suggest.


William Pugsley: I am merely asking for the reasons which have induced the Government to make this very wide departure from the Militia Act. My right hon. friend woulfl not expect me to make a suggestion. It might be considered presumptuous for me to do so until I have heard the reasons which have induced the Government ito make this change. Under this Bill the first burden of military defence will fall upon boys who are at school or college, young men attending high school o,r at work in banks, students in law offices, dental and medical colleges-young men who are just preparing for the work of life.
I cannot see why they should be taken before young men between the ages of 24 and 35, who are in the vigor of manhood and likely to be stronger and to .possess a more mature judgment. There may be some excellent reasons which have induced the Government to place the first burden of the defence of the State uipon these boys of from 20 to 24 years of age, and if so, I am sure the committee will be very glad to hear those reasons, because in this Bill the Government are making a very grave departure from the provisions of the Militia Act.


Robert Laird Borden: The request which my hon. friend has preferred is a very reasonable one indeed; although I might be permitted to observe that he is more modest about offering suggestions than I have usually found him. This Bill is designed to the selective-selective as to age, physical fitness, the service that any individual may be required to give to the state.
and	selective in other	respects.	ifwe	were to embrace in	one	class	allthe	men, say, between	the	ages	of
20 and 35, we should run into the difficulty of calling out a very much larger number of men than is contemplated by this Bill. We therefore thought it best to divide the men into ten classes. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has suggested that some of these classes might be omitted. That is an arguable question as to which I have a perfectly open mind, and as to which I shall be glad to get the opinion of hon. members either now or at a later date. We thought it best that we should call out in the first instance those who had no family ties.


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend
.says "those who have no family ties." Several of the following classes are for unmarried men. A young lad of twenty might have family ties, a mother, sisters, and so on, just as great as those of a married man of thirty with no children.


Robert Laird Borden: When I said
those who have no family ties, my hon. friend will understand me to mean that we were endeavouring to exclude those who had become settled in life through marriage, who had to support a wife and possibly children. We desired to call out the unmarried men first, and we made the first class from 20 to 24 years of age because there would probably be a greater proportion of unmarried men in that class than amongst the men of more mature years. My hon. friend speaks of young men of from 20 to 24 years of age as not having been capable of exercising the franchise. I am quite unable to appreciate the relevancy of that observation although possibly my hon. friend may make it clearer later on. He says that only a few years ago these young men were at school or college. Yes, and if you go a little further back still, 20 or 24 years ago they were infants in arms. But we are not dealing with conditions of 24 years ago, but with the conditions that confront us to-day.


William Pugsley: I said that boys of from 20 to 24 are to-day very largely at schools or colleges, attending high school or the universities, preparing for the work of life; that is what I intended to say at all events.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend's appreciation is correct in that regard there would possibly be some ground for his suggestion, but it comes to me as a very great surprise that the young men of this country from 20 to 25 years of age are

chiefly at school, high school or college. 1 do not for one moment believe that any such condition obtains in this country.


William Pugsley: In the province from which I come .students at law cannot be admitted until they are twenty-orie. I venture to say that you will find in New Brunswick scores of young men who are engaged in the study of law and who are not yet 21.


Robert Laird Borden: Whatever injustice this may inflict on that portion of the population of New Brunswick which is engaged in the study of law, and , has not yet reached the age of 21, I think will be cheerfully borne. I do not imagine we shall have any protest from them. I have no other explanation of the mode of division than that Which I have mentioned. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable, and I should think even convincing, reason for the course the Government has taken. But, as I said, the Government is open to suggestions. 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, or the first two classes; I do not know how it may turn out. It may only require two classes, or three classes-you cannot tell. It is for that reason that the classes have been so selected. I think the selection is a fair .and reasonable one. But, I repeat, the Government are open to suggestions on this point-


William Pugsley: Does my right hon. friend think that the fact of a young man being 25 or 30 years of age, not a widower, and therefore having no wife or children, should relieve him of equal military service with the young man between 20 and 24 who is exactly in the same condition? I can understand that there might be a reason given for calling unmarried men first, but if a man is unmarried I do not think my right hon. friend has given .any reason for taking the young unmarried man between 20 and 24 and leaving the unmarried man between 24 and 28 unless it may be that my right hon. friend feels that as young men get a little older they get more responsibility and more influence than the young boys between 20 and 24. I can conceive of no other reason. It may be that by reason of their increased years they are more needed by the country than the young lads, but as far as family

ties, next of kin and family relationships are concerned, the boy between 20 and 24 is likely to have these ties to an even greater degree than the boy between 24 and 28. Indeed, when a boy gets to be 28 or 30 years of age, in most cases, the family ties begin to be broken, because he gets out into the world. He ceases to remain in the old home, but in the ease of the young boys of 20, 21 and 22 years of age, they, in most instances, are still .at home, and therefore the break and the hardship caused by their separation from their mothers and sisters may be, and is likely to be, infinitely greater than is the break and the hardship which would result, so far as mothers and sisters are concerned, in the case of young men who have attained to a greater age. I regret that I am unable to see any reason for the distinction which has been made by the Government. I think the Solicitor General had better try to give us some stronger reason than has been afforded by the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I can give the same reason in another way, and, connecting the two questions of the hon. members for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and St. John (Mr. Pugsley), answer them together. Inasmuch as only the enlistment of 100,000 men was contemplated by this Act, it became necessary to make such a division as would enable us in the working out of the Act to see that more than 100,000 were not obtained, and as far as possible not render necessary the release of any who were obtained, because in the releasing difficulties would arise. Consequently, divisions had to be made, and the best basis of division possible had to be resorted to. Now, inasmuch as divisions have to be made, we must have regard to the best principle that can be found upon which to make those divisions. We provide against over 100,000 being obtained by having different classes. It is not contemplated that the 100,00(5 will be obtained on the first call of those from 20 to 24. Possibly they may be, but it is not contemplated that they will be. But the machinery of the Act will be based upon that call, and a very good estimate can be obtained from the number received as to how many may be expected from class 2.
After the call of class 1, if it appears likely that class 2 will provide more than 100,000, then class 2 may be divided into such subdivisions as will make it tolerably certain that practically the right number will be obtained. The necessity for the divisions is there, and the necessity for a considerable
number of them is also there, because we want to be as certain as possible that the machinery will not be clogged. How should the division be made? We chose the line of marriage and the line of age as the two principles that were to obtain. Marriage is a domestic restraint, but it is not the only one. It is the most general one. You never could reach each and every individual case and make a law that would of itself, not left to the discretion of tribunals, work out absolute and exact justice to every man. But, broadly speaking, the line of marriage is the boldest line of domestic restraint. We take unmarried men between the ages of 20 and 35, and we make them liable to call first. Any within that age, of course, can plead any domestic restraint other than marriage which they are under and that binds them when they come before the tribunals-any obligation of any kind-and they may obtain exemption. However, if we took from 20 to 35 alone, it is by no means impossible that we should secure much more than 100,000. Consequently a division was necessary. The division of age then became the only available principle to follow, and we have thought that we certainly should not start at the top, at 35.


William Pugsley: Why not?


Arthur Meighen: I will explain that to the hon. gentleman, but I will assume that he thinks we should start at 35.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend think that a man of 35 will make as good a soldier as a man of 20?


Arthur Meighen: No. If my hon.. friend will read the words of the head of the British army in France, he will find that that authority has stated that, generally speaking, the best-equipped man for the field is the man between 18 and 25. The air service perhaps 'requires the severest physical test of all, and from 18 to 25 is the limit within which men are accepted for that service. It requires physically a perfect man, not only from the mere point of view of health, but the point of view of nerve-strength, which is a fundamental requirement.
There is another reason, although I think that reason is forcible enough to bring any man's mind to the conviction that we ought to start at 20 to 24 instead of 30 to 35. As a man advances from 20 to 35, he becomes more and more fixed in the community, more and more an essential factor in production; not, of course, in eveTy case, as

many a man is more useful at 20 than another would be at 40 or 50, but, speaking generally, a man's usefulness to the community as a civilian increases between 20 and 35; and that affords another reason for first taking those from 20 to 24 instead of those from 30 to 35.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the Solicitor General to mean that boys between 20 and 24 have not as much at stake in the country as men of 30 and that they should go to protect the men who have a larger stake in the country?


Arthur Meighen: No. The hon. gentleman may have been anxious that I should say something like that-


William Pugsley: Pretty near it.


Arthur Meighen: -but I did not say anything of the sort; I said nothing close to it. I did not say that the country was more use to the man, but that the man was more use to the country; his powers of production become greater; he becomes more and more a fixture in the community, and more essential to the country.


William Pugsley: But you exempt the essential man whether he is 25 or 35.


Mr. EOSS:: I suggested the night before last that the age limit be raised from 20 to 21. The arguments advanced by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to a man of 35, more especially apply to a man of 20. The nervous strain of this war in the trenches is greater than that of any war -the world has known, and a man of 20 is not as well able to stand that strain as a man of 21. The man of 20 is not mature, he has not had the experience that a man of 21 has; and that there is something in this argument is shown by the fact that the Government, of its own motion, raised the limit from 18 to 20. If the limit is raised from 20 to 21 it does	not prevent	the
boy of 20 enlisting, or the boy of 18 if he wishes to do so. The Government are going to present this to the country as one of their measures. The Franchise Act says that the boy of 20 shall not have a right to say whether he shall go or not go, but the man from 21 on has a right to coerce the boy of 20, who has no say at all. You are virtually striking a man whose hands are tied. I do not think the right should be given to any government to compel a boy of 20 to go and fight in Europe unless be is given the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship and the right to vote, whether he shall go or stay at home.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister
said that on the point raised by the right hon. leader of the Opposition whether the application of the Bill should be restricted to men under 35, he had an open mind, and was ready to hear any opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is as well that this point should stay in the same position. I do not see that the franchise affects the point at all, because a man has not reached the age of 20 and consequently is not entitled to that one privilege of citizenship, the franchise, it cannot be argued that his country is not under those obligations to him of protection'of life, of liberty and of property which entail on his part a corresponding obligation to his country. It is a fact that although a man does become a member of the forces at 20, he is not' likely to reach the battle line until he is 21 or close to it. For three years this war has been going on. The young men of Canada have flocked to the colours from the age, not of 20, but of 15 up to the age of 45. I know of one young man, who I believe gave his wrong age and consequently, being large of stature, reached France before it was observed that his parents had the right to demand his return, who actually was killed in France at the age of 15.


Arthur Edward Ross: A volunteer.


Arthur Meighen: Of course. Others have gone from the age of 16 on. A call has been out for three yehrs for the young men of Canada to voluntarily enlist from the age of 18 to 45. That call has been responded to. Many a family has had sons enlist from 18 to 20, others next door have still sons at home between 18 and 20. It might reasonably be objected on the part of those who have felt it their duty to go, that it was scarcely fair, -now that compulsory enlistment was coming in, that an age too far in advance of 18 should be fixed. I do not advance any one of these considerations as final; I simply say they have to do with the subject, and that it should stand in the same position as the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the Opposition as responded to by the right hon. the Prime Minister.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the United States they have, no doubt, watched the progress of the war and the experience of the nations engaged in it as we have in Canada, and they have fixed the age limit at 21. Can the minister advance any reason which would induce them to do that which would not equally apply to Canada?


Arthur Meighen: They had not, up to the time of the going into force of their Act, enlisted any men. Consequently the proportion of their population that their Act calls for is very small compared with the proportion that this Act calls for, added to those who have already enlisted, of our population. We have had an appeal out all over Canada and the more virile, forward and patriotic class have gone forward, many at the ages of 18 to 21. In the United States that was not the case, so that no element of unfairness could possibly be argued there, where it could here. I do not say that it can be argued with final force, but it could be argued with some force that, inasmuch as we have already appealed to the parents of Canada to have their sons enlist at the ages from 18 to 45, now that we have applied compulsory enlistment, we should apply it to the same ages as the voluntary enlistment applied to before.


Mr. PARDEE:: It appears to me that, in .calling out men under this Act, the first class should 'be the unattached-that is men with no dependents. In the first six classes married men or widowers who have children are included. Class 7 is made up of those older ibut unattached. Why should not the first call be on men from 20 or 21 to 45 who are absolutely unencumbered, instead of taking the married men or widowers with children?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman suggest to call them all at once, or by
classes?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: By classes.


Arthur Meighen: That all the unmarried should be called before the married?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That has been considered, but we must have regard to the fact undoubtedly established, in this war above all other wars-I do not know whether it was ever established before or not-that men between 20 and 35 are much better fitted for the conflict than men over 35. It was felt the married men of that age should be taken 'before the unmarried over that age were called out. That was one consideration. While marriage is a general line of division, as to domestic responsibility and obligation, still, by the time a man get to be 35, the line is not so clearly marked. Men of 35, still unmarried, have many more domestic .obligations upon them as a rule, although they are unmarried, than young men below that age. I do not know that it would be too much to say that their domestic obligations are very much greater than the obligations of those who are below 35 and married. Those are the two reasons. The first one has the greater force.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It is a very great change from the Militia Act, and I can hardly agree with the Solicitor General when he says that a man of 35 ordinarily will have as many dependents as the younger man who is married. As a matter of fact, when you come down to the last analysis, it appears to me that the class of men who should primarily be drafted under this Act are those who have no dependents. If a man has reached the age of 35 and has not taken upon himself the full duties of citizenship, to my mind, he should be one of the first to go. Production of course is aimed at. It is quite true-I say it in all seriousness-if you are to take the married -man of 25 before you take the unmarried man of 35, you are lessening the productiveness of your country in a most material way, because a man does not often marry after the age of 35. I want to impress this question on the committee, because my view is strong that before any draft is made on married men -with children, or widowers with children, the first men that should be drafted are the unmarried, non-productive men without dependents, between the ages of 20 and 45. I think that is well worth the serious consideration of the committee. As I understand it, that is the present militia law, -and it appears to me that in making such a radical change as this Bill makes, the Government is taking rather a laTge -step, if the premises I have stated are correct.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
gentleman think of the physical fitness of the men over 35?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am quite willing to
admit, with the Solicitor General, that it has been decided by experts that the men between 18 and 25 in this war are the best men. But you must take some other things into consideration. Even on the assumption that men between 18 and 25 make the best soldiers, yet there is no question that a man between 25 and 35, physically fit, cannot be beaten on earth. If -a man between 20 and 35 presents himself, or even up to 40-


Arthur Meighen: Over 35, it is a different matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Take it up to 35. If that
man is physically fit, there is no reason why he should not go anywhere on earth.


Arthur Meighen: We take him first.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No. Some classes of married mesa go before that.


Arthur Meighen: We take married men under 35 before we take unmarried men over 35.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so, but I do not think you should.


Arthur Meighen: Because 35 is the dividing line.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am giving you my own view of the matter. Take a man up to 40 years of age, having no dependents and physically fit, ini my opinion he should be taken before the man who has a wife and children, or a widower with children is taken.


Robert Laird Borden: My bon. friend's observations are entitled to. every consideration. We want to get the best selection in the public interest. He will remember, however, that my horn, friend the leader of the Opposition, .urged very strongly some time [DOT]ago, with .a good deal of force, that under the very strenuous conditions of warfare which have to be undergone, men over 40 years of age, and possibly over 35, are found to be not capable of standing the strain for *any considerable period. So that we take .all unmarried mein between the .ages of 20 and 35 in the first three classes. I think we are agreed with my hon. friend up to that point. The question at issue is this; is it better that we should next take unmarried men from 35 to 45, or whether we should revert to married men- within the ages of 20 to 35. Rightly or wrongly, we took the latter course, for the very reason which my hon. friend has urged this afternoon, that it is not safe to go beyond the age of 35 for combatant service. We thought that, having exhausted the first three classes, namely, the men between 20 and 35 unmarried, then in .order to obtain those who are most fitted for this warfare, we should resort to married men between the same ages. I admit that there is good ground for argument on both sides. I should like to hear the opinion of members of the committee. Those are the grounds, however, upon which we made the classification set forth in the Bill.


Mr. GRAHAM:: If the required number of men can he obtained from the unmarried classes, the expense of the war will be very materially reduced. When you select for military service a married man

who has a family, you at once increase the expense, because separation allowances have to be paid, aid has to be given from the Patriotic Fund, and so. on. If, there' fore, the men can be obtained-I am not inclined to think that they can-without drawing upon those who have families, it will mean in the years to come as well as at the present time, considerable relief to the taxpayers. I am not sure that this selective method is better than the method of selection by lot which is provided by ' the Militia Act. The Solicitor General said that the somewhat large number of divisions was provided lest a greater number of men should be secured than were required. I think that men between the ages of 20 or 21 and 30 are physically fit, so far as age is concerned; I would suggest that men between those ages constitute the first class. I am not now arguing the merits of 20 or of 21 as a minimum age; I -simply suggest that the maximum age for that class should be 30 years. If the maximum age of the first class were 30 and a greater number of men than were required was secured when that class was called out, I would suggest the adoption of the Lincoln system: obtain the required number through selection by lot. That would be an easy and fair way of getting over the difficulty which the Solicitor General seems to apprehend: the securing of too many men.
The remarks of the Solicitor General brought another point to my mind. Many boys 18, 19 and 20 years of age have re-. turned to Canada from the trenches. I have in my mind a young man who went over when he was 17 and who returned recently wounded and gassed. Is this suggestion not worthy of consideration: that in making this new selection of men, the boy under 20 who has returned from the trenches under such conditions as I have mentioned, be not asked to return; that he be releaseed from duty? His place could be taken by another man secured under this proposed law. Perhaps not very many of them would desire to take advantage of such a provision; but it seems unjust that these boys, whom the Parliament of Canada declares to be too young to serve, and who, having served, have been wounded and sent home, should not be allowed to stay home if they so desire.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend has said; I shall take that suggestion into consideration.
JUI/X 7, 1917


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I agree with the Prime Minister that the effectiveness of a man commences to deteriorate after he reaches the age of 35. As I understand it, howeVer, this is a measure of selective conscription. Although it is designed primarily to o'btain combatants, it is true that certain men employed in other branches of the service in France are just as important as the combatant men. Men froim 35 to 45 years of age might well be employed as motor drivers or assigned to some arm of the service where they would be quite as useful as the combatants who, because of their age, are fit. to go to the front and take up the harder work. I repeat that for economic and other reasons we ought to keep at home the men who have wives, children and dependents, and send to the front in some capacity-even to the extent of having them replace those who are in the capacity of non-combatants, but who are within the age of combatants- those men who have no dependents. I want to impress upon the committee my conviction that every man who has no dependents and who is between the ages of 18 or 20 and 45 should go in some capacity before the men who have wives, children, or other near dependents are called upon to serve.
Mr. MARCH,: I agree with what the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) has said. In the committee which had to deal with the matter of returned soldiers, we had a great deal of evidence of the hardship suffered by the dependents whom some of our men left behind in Canada. I think that in every case where a man can be sent without leaving anybody behind him in Canada, he should be selected. In a note which I have recently received, a definition is requested of the exemption which is made with regard to the clergy. The member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) pointed out that those who study law are not admitted to the bar until they are 21. In the province of Quebec persons are not fully ordained to the priesthood until they reach the age of 25; the age used to be 21, but it has been raised to 25. The inquiry which I have received is whether a student in theology, wearing the cassock, or soutane, as we Call it in French, denominated as ecolesiastique, who has received minor orders, but who does not receive the ' full orders of the priesthood until he reaches the .age of 25, is included in the exempted class. Does he not become a clergyman in the full sense, within the meaning of this law, until he has received the full orders of the priesthood?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to answer my hon. friend at the moment. I will take his query into consideration. My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) might take this into consideration in connection with the argument which he has made. He suggests that we should leave classes 1, 2 and 3 as they are, and then, for classes 4 and 5, we should substitute those classes which are no" numbered 7 and 9. If the classification were adopted, and classes 1, 2 and 3, did not produce the number of men sufficient to fulfil the infantry requirements, which are the chief need at the present time, then, as the Government has no discretion except to call out in the order enumerated in this section, we should be obliged to call next those who would not be suitable for combatant service. There is that objection which strikes me at the moment. As the section is to stand, however, we will take all the hon. member has said into consideration.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Might I repeat the question which was put a few moments ago by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). The moment this Bill passes, all men who are called out under section 1 become conscripted unless exempted. If more than 100,000 men are conscripted, what is going to be the test as to the selection of 100,000 men? Will they be taken in proportion to the population of each province or by provinces, or what system will be followed?


Robert Laird Borden: We really did not expect that contingency would occur under the provision contained in subsection 4 of this section:
The Governor in Council may divide any class Into subclasses, in which case the subclasses shall be called out in order of age beginning with the youngest.
We hope in that way to avoid any possibility of exceeding the number mentioned in the Bill, and it is our expectation, therefore, that the contingency to which my hon. friend alludes, will not occur.


Charles Marcil: When a man has been conscripted, can he choose for himself whether he will go into the infantry or into the artillery? Who is to decide where he is to go? The volunteer selected the service he desired.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill would not be a compulsory service Bill if it gave a man, after he is taken on, the absolute choice ,as to the service he goes to. He has to go where he is placed, but in placing him, I have no doubt regard will be had to his own individual wishes, particularly to his own individual qualifications.


Charles Marcil: He ha6 a right to ask
that he may he placed in some particular *service.


Arthur Meighen: He has a right to ask, and his wishes will 'be considered', hut he [DOT]will not have a right to say finally where he will he placed.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is any registration contemplated under the Bill to ascertain what men are over twenty years of age?


Arthur Meighen: The necessity of registration is avoided by the provisions of the Bill. The objects of registration axe served by the man reporting foT duty on the day set forth in the proclamation.


James Hamilton Ross: How is the Solicitor General going to get at the proportions each province or district or county is to supply? Is he going to take into consideration the .heavy enlistments that have been made in many districts? There is nothing in the Bill that indicates what shall be done.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill is no respecter of persons or provinces. This is not a selective conscription by provinces at 'all. The Dominion is considered as a whole, and there is no special levy of so many from any province. The provisions of the Bill are such that every district will, under the Act, supply the available men of that district of the class called out; that is to say, the numbers already enlisted from any *special district or province will only have to do with the number called for by this [DOT]measure in this sense; if more have not gone, there will he in the district or province more to whom the provisions of the Act will apply. In eo far as more men are available, more men will be called out.


James Hamilton Ross: Might one imagine a situation in which all would come from one province, or all from seven provinces and none from the other two?


Arthur Meighen: That woidd. surpass my *imagination because the hon. member will agree that in every province in Canada, *and in every township and county, there *are men who are most obviously of all entitled to go to the front who stay at home, just as obviously entitled as could possibly *be the case in any other province. Consequently the law will undoubtedly be applied to such men in every province in the Dominion. The most extreme cases can be fpund everywhere.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister intend, in a rural constituency, to require the men
fMr. Meighen.]
called out to report at the county seat, or may they report within the confines of [DOT]their own municipality or district? The distances to the county seats are, in most districts, very great and communication is *not always easy.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member refers to reporting for duty?


Charles Marcil: Yes, when a man is
called out.


Arthur Meighen: He does not refer to
*applications for exemptions? Both, however, will be taken care of by regulations. No policy has been mapped out as to the *best way in which reporting for duty may be done, but I presume regard will be had to the convenience of those reporting for duty.
On section 4-calling out by classes:
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.
(2)	Meh so called out shall report and shall be placed on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force as may be set out in such proclamation or in regulations, but until so placed on active service, shall he deemed! to he on leave of absence without pay.
(3)	Any man by or in respect of whom an application for exemption is made as hereinafter provided, shall, so long as such application or any appeal in connection therewith is pending and during the currency of any exemption granted him, be deemed to be on leave of absence without pay.
(4)	Any man who is called out and who, without reasonable excuse, fails to report as aforesaid or to remain on active service where placed shall be guilty, according to the circumstances, of desertion, or of absenting himself without leave and shall he liable
(a) to he tried by court-martial and convicted and punished by imprisonment, for a term not exceeding three years, or
(h) on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three years.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I presume that the first subsection, means that all men called ont axe soldiers, unless exemption is granted?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Wihat is the
meaning of " leave of *absence without pay " in the subsection 2?


Arthur Meighen: It may take some time to determine in just-what branch of active service a man 'should go. In the meantime it is not desirable that he should be kept from his ordinary vocation. He reports for duty, and until he is actually placed he is on leave of absence without pay. Again, in ease he applies for exemption, it may be that his case is not decided upon in time, and -until it is actually decided that he is a soldier and he is placed, he too is on leave of absence without pay. But he is a soldier all the same, and is liable to military discipline and liable to punishment if he deserts. * It is not wise to put him on the paylist in the meantime, for the reason that he is not actually on service.
Sir WILFRID*LAURIER:	That is, he
remains at home?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When a man of 21 is
conscripted by law and appeals before a tribunal, and from that tribunal to the central appeal judge, I understand that by this section be is considered as a soldier without pay?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend considered the length of time these processes of law should occupy before the' courts? Are special rules pf practice going to be framed to deal with these cases?


Arthur Meighen: It was though t wise not to cover this by regulation for this reason. A member of the Supreme Court of Canada is to be made the central appeal judge, and he will have the final decision of all appeal cases. Consequently, it was thought vise that he himself should have the framing of regulations concerning appeals which will come ultimately to himself. The machinery is here in general, but no details are worked out as to time or otherwise, because the services of that Supreme Court judge will be utilized in w.orking them out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A case may he pending tor days and weeks and months. A rich man could keep the judicial machinery in motion as long as he liked, unless some limit were fixed. The central appeal judge of whom my hon. friend speaks may for good reasons be silent for a long time before adjudicating on a special case. That does not seem to me to be fair or just. It just comes back to what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said very aptly
the other day, that the Bill seems to favour the rich against the poor. The madhineTy of law may be put in motion by the rich man, and an appeal may be pending for weeks and months, and although under the law he will be a conscript he will ibe considered as a soldier on leave of absence and wil be able to stay at home. It seems to me that if my hon. friend is not willing for the central appeal judge to frame those regulations, the Department ,of Justice should frame rules which would put a definite limit upon the time a case shall occupy from its inception to its close. Otherwise, the rich man who is unwilling to enlist could keep the wheels of justice rolling and rolling for. months and mpnths.


Arthur Meighen: If the regulations were poorly framed, that might be the case. I did not hear the address of the hon. member for Pictou, but I say now with all the emphasis, in my power that any one who can see in this Bill any attempt to favour the rich over the pooT is labouring under a very dangerous hallucination. How could any one get an advantage over the other under this Bill that he could not get under any Bill that human ingenuity might frame? The provisions for appeal are simple: We do not even go to the extent of stating the terms and conditions of appeal, but leave them to be framed by the central appeal judge, who is to be a member of the Supreme Court of Canada, none of whose members, I might point out, were appointed by this Government. Consequently, unless one imagines that that central appeal judge is going to frame such regulations as will allow the rich man by the use of money to prolong his appeal indefinitely, one can never imagine that this Bill is intended to favour the rich.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not make that suggestion. I understood my hon. friend to suggest that the Supreme Court judge might not take upon himself the framing of these regulations.


Arthur Meighen: I do not anticipate that. I do not think there is a member of the Supreme Court who would not be glad in this crisis to- render any service in his power, and when it comes to framing rules of practice, that is clearly within his power; no one would be more capable of doing that. Let me say with all the finality in my power that it will undoubtedly be the design of those regulations so framed and to be approved by the Governor in Council, that no possible advantage shall be given the rich over the poor, and provision will



be made for expeditious and easy practice m appeal such as will put every man on an absolute level, as far as regulations can. The regulations, as I said, will be formulated by the central appeal judge, who is to-day a member of the Supreme Court. I can only repeat that any one who sees in this Bill anything designed to favour the rich over the poor is under a very dangerous hallucination.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who will pay for the service of the subpoenas required by a person claiming exemption.


Arthur Meighen: That will be a matter to be covered by regulations to be framed by the central appeal judge, who is a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. Inasmuch as very grave and heavy duties will be imposed on the central appeal judge, he is permitted, by a later clause, to name other judges at different points in Canada to perform the duties delegated to the central appeal judge. The great object, of course, is to ensure that it will be possible for the central appeal judge to efficiently execute the duties that are imposed upon him, but another object will be to enable him to see to it that such convenient methods of carrying out the appeals are made available as will enable the poor man to take an appeal as well as any one else. Regulations may be provided to meet all such conditions as to costs as they may at the time present themselves. It may be provided by the regulations, if deemed wise, that any one who is not in a position to pay his costs of service can have them paid for him. I do not say that will be done, but the Bill provides that if that is deemed wise by the central appeal judge it may be.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt that the Government has no sinister design in this Bill. I am quite prepared to believe that my right hon. friend is filled with good intentions, but he knows there is a place which is said to be paved with good intentions, to which I might compare the Government with regard to this Bill but I shall not do so. I want to understand the meaning of this clause. The moment the proclamation issues calling out the men of a certain class, say between 20 and 25, they become soldiers, and they continue to be soldiers from that moment unless they are exempted from service. It will work out in this way: A man will have to report at a certain point, and then he will be obliged to present his reasons for exemption. If a father comes with his son and saysMy son is exempt because he is not of age, he

will be required to prove that before the tribunal. It may take some time; he may have the proof or he may not. In the province of Quebec it will not be very difficult, of course, because we have a very complete system of registration, but in other provinces it may not be so easy. Then there is an appeal from the decision, and from that appeal there is a second appeal. In the meantime, I presume, the father will be told: Take your boy home and keep him there until it is decided whether he is eligible or ineligible. I suppose it will work out in that way?


Arthur Meighen: That is it. I do not know that I can find any fault with my right hon. friend's understanding, except this: It is contemplated that the local tribunals will sit before the day for reporting; that is to say, the consideration of the application for exemption may'be completed bef ore the day for reporting, but if a case is not concluded on the day for reporting then the boy will be considered to be on leave of absence pending the decision upon his case.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose he does not report at all, who prosecutes?


Arthur Meighen: He has offended against the law of the land and he is liable to prosecution in the ordinary way.


John Howard Sinclair: Whose duty is it to prosecute?


Arthur Meighen: That is to be covered by the regulations also.


William Pugsley: Ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers); he says it is the duty of the provincial governments.


Arthur Meighen: That is to be covered by the regulations which will be drawn up under the general clause providing for regulations. Officers may be appointed for the purpose of prosecution.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Could we possibly by Monday get a copy of those regulations so that we shall know what we are talking about?


Arthur Meighen: No, the regulations are not made. If my hon. friend will look at the Bill he will see that it provides for the framing of regulations. General principles are laid down and the machinery is provided, but the details are left to be worked out by regulation. This will be one of those regulations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that section 10 provides that:

Any person aggrieved by the decision of a local tribunal, and any person authorized by the Minister of Militia and Defence, may appeal against any such decision.
Does that mean that the Crown may appeal from the decision of the tribunal, or that a person who has been before the tribunal and who has lost his case may get authority from the Minister of Militia and appeal from the decision?


Arthur Meighen: Virtually; he will receive an authorization to enter an appeal against the decision of the tribunal in such cases as he may see fit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As for the Crown?


Arthur Meighen: As for the Militia Department.


Mr. KYTE:: In reference to the return setting forth the number of those who have been exempted from service, as this matter will be discussed in connection with the consideration of clause 13, will the Prime Minister be able to get a list of those who have been so exempted, giving the names, ranks and residences?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether that will be possible or not; I will make inquiry.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest that the committee rise and that we adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend thinks we had better adjourn?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence bring down some information which was asked of the Minister yesterday? I would like to get a statement of the number of Canadian officers who, having reached British headquarters, were told that they could not keep their commissions but that they would either have to return to Canada and not serve or accept inferior rank.


Mr. McCURDY:: That information is
not available in the Militia Department, and will have to be obtained from overseas. Overseas will be communicated with and the information got at as early a date as possible.


Frank Oliver: Would it be possible for the department at this date, or at some later date during the consideration of this Bill, to give the answer that it was unable to give some little time ago in reply to a question on the Order Paper? I asked bow
199|
many men had gone overseas up to a certain date, how many were on the strength of the force in Canada and how many men had been returned from overseas to Canada as being physically or otherwise unfit-The first two questions were answered, but. the third was not; that is as to the number" of physically unfit men who have beem returned to Canada from overseas. I should be glad if it would be possible to place that information before the House at some time during the consideration of this Bill.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Does my hon. friend
mean to include in that list only those men who have served in France?


Frank Oliver: No. The question was as to the mien who had not served in France, who have been returned from England as physically unfit.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have no personal
knowledge of the matter, but to the extent the information can be obtained, it will be submitted to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Some men are returned as .physically unfit, after having served in England. For instance, forestry corps are employed both in Great Britain and in France, and a distinction might have to be borne in mind in regard to these classes.
Progress reported.



CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION FORMS IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden for the [DOT]adjournment of the House.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to [DOT]a grievance which the exporters of Montreal have against the Department of Customs, and a grievance which the travellers between Canada and the United States have against the department of my genial friend, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche). The French-speaking exporters on different occasions have applied at the customs house for blank forms in the French language, which forms are required in their business. Last year, or the year before,
I called the attention of the Minister of Custom's to the matter, and he promised me at the time that he would see that the forms were provided. They have not been provided, and the exporters of Montreal . resent this condition very much. As to the other grievance, I placed a question on the Order Paper, asking if the hon. Minister of the Interior would see that the immi-

*gration agents on the several trains between Canada and the United States were provided with forms in French and English. Sonne forms in English were .presented to French-speaking travellers .and they could not fill the blanks. They are entitled to a form in .the French language. It is very easy to provide the agent with those forms in the French language, and I hope that my ihon. friend, who has always been very , courteous and considerate in these matters, will see that they are provided in blank forms in French and English.


Mr. ROCHE:: I authorized that to be
done immediately after the hon. gentleman brought it to my attention, and the instructions were so issued, but I will see that it is done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will see that the
instructions are carried out?


William Roche: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. Prime
Minister see that the blank form's are supplied to the customs house in both languages for the convenience of the exporters?


Robert Laird Borden: I will bring it
to the attention of the Minister of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
Monday, July 9, 1917.