1917-08-18

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for the year ended March 31,	1916.-Hon. Mr. Roche.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I wish to make an inquiry of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is not in his place, in regard to a notice appearing in the Montreal Gazette this morning respecting the limitation of the price of wheat. Recently an order was promulgated fixing a maximum limit of $2.40 a bushel on wheat of last year's crop after August 1. The statement in the Gazette, as I read it, is that the price of wheat is absolutely fixed at $2.40 a bushel until August 31. I do not understand whether it is stated that the provision has application particularly to last year's or to this year's crop. I wanted to ask the njinister if the provisions of the order are correctly stated.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I do not know whether I can give my hon. friend the information that he desires. There has been no recent Order in Council, so far as 1 recollect at the moment, with regard to the price of wheat. There has been, however, a regulation of the commission in regard to the exportation of flour. When the Minister of Trade

and Commerce is present I shall direct his attention to my hon. friend's inquiry and endeavour to give him the information that he asks for.


Frank Oliver: 1 wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to what appears to be an inaccuracy in the statements made by him in the House in respect to a question of mine on August 16th. On that occasion, the minister is reported as saying-page 4746 of Hansard:
At the present moment the price of grain, grade for grade, is less at Minneapolis than it is at Winnipeg.
I have looked up the market reports in the Montreal Gazette and I find that on Thursday the Gazette reports that at Minneapolis, No. 1 Northern was $2.60 to $2.65. Those who are acquainted with the grain trade know that No. 1 Northern at Minneapolis is not better than or worth more than No. 2 Winnipeg; so that there was a very marked difference in the price on that day, according to the report in the Gazette. I think that it is only fair that the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be drawn to that fact. I should like to draw attention also to the further fact that in this morning's Gazette the Minneapolis price is given, No.
1 Northern, as $2.40 to $2.45. Again I say that No. 1 Northern Minneapolis is no better than No. 2 Winnipeg; therefore there is, even to-day, a marked difference between the Winnipeg and Minneapolis prices, in favour of Minneapolis.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@Minister of Trade and Commerce: The other day my hon.
friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) either made a statement or left the impression on the House that the allied producers of wheat in the United States were paying more than was being paid under the fixed price of $2.40 in Canada. I think I expressed, at that time, my impression that that would not be true. I have since received official information, and perhaps it is well that I should give it to my hon. friend and to the House. Since July 1, the highest price paid by the Wheat Commission for export to the Allies in the United States was $2.50 for No. 1 Northern, f.o.b. at Atlantic and Gulf ports. The price quoted on August 17, was $2.27 f.o.b. When my hon. friend takes into account this statement of price and the further consideration that from fifteen to twenty cents is required to carry wheat from Fort William to Atlantic ports, he will see that there was no foun-
dation for any impression he might have or for any statement he might make.


Frank Oliver: Before the minister came in, I drew attention to the feature of the discussion in which the remarks alluded to now occurred. If I am not out of order, I might perhaps repeat my remarks, now that the minister is here.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Perhaps my hon. friend will let the matter lie over until Monday.


Frank Oliver: Very well. The minister will see my remarks in Hansard.



PENSIONS TO CANADIANS IN IMPERIAL FORCES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I
notice a despatch in this morning's papers in regard to a query put in the Imperial House of Commons relating to a matter upon which we might have a statement from the Minister of Militia. A Canadian enlists in the Imperial forces. Is he entitled to receive pension, in the event of being wounded-or in the event of his death, are his relatives entitled to receive pension-from the Canadian Government?
I was under the impression that the report of the committee last year, which was incorporated in an Order in Council, provided that pensions would go to Canadians enlisted in any of the Allied forces. However, in a letter written to me, a young sailor who enlisted when the war began on the other side said that he was anxious to get into the Canadian forces, because if he should be wounded, being a member of the Imperial forces, he would not be entitled to receive Canadian pension. This is a matter of some importance, and if the Prime Minister Gannot give me any information on the subject to-day, perhaps a statement could be made on Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall be glad to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to my hon. friend's inquiry. Whatever recommendations were made by the committee last year-I have not a precise recollection as to this particular point- were embodied exactly in the Order in Council that was passed. There will be a distinction, I think, between the case of a Canadian who actually enlisted in the Imperial forces and that of a Canadian who enlisted in the Canadian forces and was subsequently transferred or attached to the British forces. However, I shall obtain

exact information in regard to the matter and see that it is given to my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When is the resolution with regard to pensions to be introduced? Instances have been brought to the attention of many hon, gentlemen indicating the desirability of giving wider discretion to the Pensions Board to deal with cases that could not have been anticipated when the Pensions Act was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's inquiry is a very reasonable one. I shah make an announcement on the subject early next week.



WESTERN COAL SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['Mr. Speaker-\nMr. SPEAKER; Under this motion it is not competent for an hon. member to address the House more than once. I have relaxed the rule in the case of the Prime Minister, for the reason that in the absence of the Minister of Justice it seemed reasonable that some explanation should be forthcoming.\nAmendments concurred in.']
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated on Thursday that he had received a report from' Mr. Magrath. Would he be averse to bringing down a copy of that report?


George Green Foster: I am not sure
about bringing down copies of those reports. They are made to me, and I would have to look them over. To convey all the information my hon. friend and, no doubt, the House would like to have on the subject of provision of coal for Canada during this season would require more than an answer to a question. I do not say that the House is not interested in that information, nor that it should not have it. I think that on Monday or Tuesday, if the House so desires and will permit me, I will make a somewhat extended statement so as to show the existing conditions of things and the present possibilities of securing supplies.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The House
will certainly be glad to have such a statement.


George Green Foster: Then I shall be very glad to make it.



[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved concurrence in certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service. He said:	The amendments will
be found on pages 885 and 886 of the Votes and Proceedings for the 9th of August. The first amendment is the insertion of the definition of the word "tribunal" in section 1. The amendment is merely this:
Tribunal means a tribunal constituted under this Act.
The next amendment is to section 7. Section 7 makes provision for appeals of tribunals. By inadvertence, when the Bill went through the House of Cdmmons, there was no appeal tribunal provided for the Yukon Territory. The Senate has accordingly amended section 7 by the addition of subsection 2 in these words:
The Judge of the Territorial Court, or the person appointed in the place of the said judge under the provisions of the Yukon Act, shall constitute the Appeal Tribunal for the Yukon Territory.
The third amendment is one that was suggested in this House by an hon. gentleman on the other side, I think, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and which it was intended to insert before the Bill went through this House. It is an amendment to section 16 which provides penalties for certain contraventions of the Act and of the regulations. The amendment, which is by the addition of subsection 4 to section 16, is in these words:
No conviction in a court of criminal jurisdiction for an offence against this Act or the regulations made thereunder shall be had, unless the prosecution has been consented to or approved by the Attorney General of Canada.
It is not necessary that the approval of the Attorney General should be obtained before the prosecution is commenced. It is necessary, however, that that ' approval should be obtained before there is a conviction. -
William Erskine Knowles: I wish very respectfully to ask the Prime Minister why the consideration of these amendments has been delayed foT so long, namely from the 9th to the 18th of August?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that there is any particular reason, except that other business has been engaging the attention of the House, from time to time, and in any event, there is really no delay as the Bill cannot go into operation until it receives the assent of the Governor General.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not expect this matter to come up to-day, and therefore I will ask my right hon. friend for information in regard to a matter with which he is perhaps more familiar than I am. What is the effect of the amendment in regard to the word "tribunal" so far as habeas corpus and the right of prerogative are concerned?


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment is merely a definition of the word "tribun-

al," which definition the word would bear in any case. The word "tribunal" is used throughout this Act everywhere in that sense in which it is first mentioned, that is, a tribunal created by this Act for the purpose of this Act. The Senate, in the definitions, has provided that the word "tribunal" shall be used in that sense. I think it would he understood in that sense in any case.


Wilfrid Laurier: The definition is quite proper and I do not object to it. It is an improvement in the Act that we should know exactly what is meant by the word "tribunal." By this Act a special tribunal is created. I cannot, however, find the provisions as to the application of habeas corpus or the right of prerogative. Do they apply to this tribunal or not?


Robert Laird Borden: No. I think
that was fully explained when the Bill went through the House. I do not think the amendment affects that particular point at all.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Permit me to point out to the Prime Minister that the word "conviction" does not seem to be the proper word. Would not "prosecution" be better? Would it not be possible under this provision to start a prosecution, to issue a warrant and to take certain proceedings against an, offender prior to conviction, without securing the approval of the Attorney General? I think it would meet the case if we said that no prosecution shall be had.


Robert Laird Borden: I would hardly agree with my hon. friend. For this reason: it might be most important to apprehend an offender immediately, and that could not be done in some instances, if the local authorities had first to obtain the consent of the Minister of Justice. As I understand it, the word " conviction " is used purposely in order that an apprehension may not be interfered with, and so that, on the other hand, before a conviction can be obtained, the approval of the Attorney General shall be procured.


Wilfrid Laurier: Which means that the defendant can say to the judge:
" You cannot convict me because the suit has not been authorized."


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: There can be no conviction unless the suit is authorized, and that is what the defendant could say when he was brought before a court.


Robert Laird Borden: That is it precisely. Before there is a conviction there must be approval of the proceedings by the Attorney General of Canada.


Frank Oliver: This reminds me very strongly of the proceedings in the Macdonald election in Manitoba, where men were arrested without charge, and after being incarcerated for a period, were released without trial. Of all the remarkable provisions of this Act, I think this is the most remarkable.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this amendment was suggested from the other side of the House. I do not regard it as remarkable at all, and I do not see the slightest analogy to the proceedings to which my hon. friend alludes, of which I have no knowledge. It merely amounts to this: that proceedings can be commenced against an offender under this Act without the approval of any person, but before a conviction is obtained it is necessary that the matter should be submitted to the Attorney General in order that he may determine according to his best judgment whether the case is one in which the proceedings should be carried to conviction. I am pretty sure that the amendment was suggested by an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, and I know the Minister of Justice promised at that time to give consideration to it, but it was overlooked before the Bill went through, and the amendment was made in the Senate.


Frank Oliver: If the suggestion came from this side of the House, may I ask if it was not in the form suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair)?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend may be correct about that; I am not sure. But if the suggestion was made in that form, it seems to me that it would not lend any weight to the argument which my hon. friend has just made.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: I had occasion once to look into a similar provision. I had not thought of the matter until I heard it discussed the other day, but the Supreme Court has held that it would be necessary for the Attorney General to sign that consent in person and not by deputy. It would certainly be putting a heavy burden on the Minister of Justice to require his personal consent. I had this question under consideration in setting aside several convictions that were made against an

offender under the Lord's Day Act, which has a somewhat similar provision in it, and it was held by the Supreme Court that unless the Attorney General signed the consent in person the conviction should be set aside. I think this amendment would prove to be very cumbersome in practice.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was going to suggest the very same thing, namely, that under this provision it would be possible to have people all over the country apprehended and put in jail and held there until the Minister of Justice could personally deal with each particular case, when it might be found there was no reason at all for the apprehension in the first place. I have no recollection, although I listened to the debate very closely, of any such amendment being suggested from this side of the House, but if there was, I think it must have been in the form suggested by my hon. friend from Guysborough. If not, I should like the hon. member who suggested the amendment to explain what he meant by it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The Prime Minister was good enough to refer to me in connection with this amendment. The suggestion was made by myself to the Minister of Justice on the second reading of the Bill. There was quite a heated discussion in the House on the point that any person might lay an information and have a person arrested for some trivial reason, and I suggested to the Minister of Justice that it would allay the suspicions and fears of a great many people if it were provided that no prosecution could be commenced except with his consent, and Hansard will ishow that the minister said he would take that suggestion into consideration. That was the suggestion I made. I certainly would not think of proposing that you should go on up to the stage of conviction without getting the consent of the Minister of Justice. This amendment is certainly not what I proposed.


William Erskine Knowles: Regardless of which side of the House the suggestion came from, I think we all want to see the provision made Tight. If it is worth the form of an amendment, it is surely worth amending in the best form we can devise. The law recognizes that a man should be preserved and protected against something vexatious. The presumption is that the only vexatious thing would be the prosecution. If the conviction is a just one, no man should be protected against that, and all the Attorney Generals in Canada should not
forbid a judge from registering a conviction where a conviction should be registered; if the conviction be unjust, then we must presume that there will be no conviction, but the jury will say, "Not guilty." The thing on the face of it seems to me to be absurd. The principle is that we should not lead up to a conviction where no conviction is possible; it is those proceedings which cannot end in a conviction that it is desired to protect a man against. Wnera there is going tc lea conviction against a man, he deserves no protection. Therefore,
I think the amendment as it stands at present is an absurdity. There is something in what the Prime Minister says, that there might be exceptional cases where it would be necessary that the law should reach out its arm more swi'tly than could be done by going to the department at Ottawa. But even to cover those cases it is not necessary that the protection against vexatious proceedings should be withdrawn to the extent of protecting a man only against conviction. Surely it is not the intention of this legislative body to say that we are going to allow all the vexatious proceedings of a trial to go on when they might just as well be stopped. Therefore, to meet the Prime Minister it is enough to siay, that, barring the right of the law to keep a man under supervision or in custody, there shall be no prosecution against him without the leave of the Attorney General. This would avoid all the expense and delay of the preliminary proceedings. On the face of it, whichever ground you like to stand on, I think the amendment is an absolute absurdity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in the other way: "No trial shall be proceeded with until, etc."	,


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, .something along
that line, although I do not see much need of the amendment at all. It would be better, I think, to leave it to the local Crown Prosecutors, and the agents for the Attorney Generals. It seems to me it would Ibe very cumbersome to have to come to Ottawa for consent to proceed in these cases. I think the amendment should be redrafted, even from the standpoint of the Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot agree
with my hon. friend at all. I think he is conjuring up imaginary difficulties. For the reason I have already mentioned, it would be impossible to accept the section suggested by the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie)

because it might lead to failure to apprehend persons seriously offending against the Act or regulations. The administration of this Act is entrusted to the Minister of Justice, and it is thought desirable that his approval should be secured before any [DOT]conviction is obtained fox contravention of the Act or the regulations. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) have described a situation which I would [DOT]not think likely to arise. In case of a prosecution under this Act, that would happen? Immediately after the man was apprehended or the summons served upon him, as the case may be, the persons undertaking the prosecution would request the approval of the Minister of Justice, which would be given or withheld at once. There could not be any delay such as my hon. friend from Russell has described, because the proceedings against any person apprehended must go on according to the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act or the other enactments governing such cases, and it would not be possible to hold people in prison for a long time while the Minister of Justice was deliberating as to whether or not his approval should be given. It seems to me the provision is an eminently reasonable one, having regard to the fact that it requires the approval of the minister to whom is entrusted the duty of administering the provisions of the Act.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. SPEAKER; Under this motion it is not competent for an hon. member to address the House more than once. I have relaxed the rule in the case of the Prime Minister, for the reason that in the absence of the Minister of Justice it seemed reasonable that some explanation should be forthcoming.
Amendments concurred in.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr Rainville in the Chair.
G°verI?racnt-'3«ice of the Governor Hon S t ueCr*tary- To Provi(Je for the promo-orderly 5l o"oo ' l° dO0rkeePer aild Principal
Robert Laird Borden: This is merely to carry out the provisions of an Act passed at the present session with regard to the increase of salaries of men in the lower grades of service. Mr. Guy has been doorkeeper for a long time, and is entitled to the promotion.

Privy Council Office-To provide for the promotion of Arthur W. Merriam from Third Division, Subdivision A, to Second Division, Sub-[DOT] division B, at his present salary, $1,150.


Robert Laird Borden: This does not involve any increase in expense at the present time. fer. Merriam has Ibeen in the Third Division, Subdivision A, for six years. He is a very efficient official and is entrusted with fairly important dutes. I thought it was only reasonable to give him promotion at this time. *


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the increase $1,150?


Robert Laird Borden: No, there is no increase in salary at all.


Charles Murphy: I have no objection to the promotions provided for in those two items, but in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that they are to give effect to the provisions of some legislation introduced earlier in the session-


Robert Laird Borden: Not this one. The previous one was.


Charles Murphy: It strikes me that the
two gentlemen here provided for seem to be singled out for attention, while a great many others in the lower subdivisions of the Civil Service, whose cases were brought to the attention of the House when the Civil Service Act was under consideration, have been overlooked. There are men in the lowest division who, by reason of the application of the Civil Service Act and their inability to obtain the certificate provided for under the regulations, have been stranded-marooned, so to speak. They have reached the maximum of their class and Are unable to obtain further advancement. There are several hundreds of such employees, some of them in the Post Office Department, some of them in the Customs or other departments. There are anomalies presented in those departments of men being in charge of a room who are in lower grades than their subordinates. It seems to me if there was a provision made in the estimates for the relief of any of the civil servants receiving small salaries and discharging important duties, it should apply to this class of men.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will observe that item 411 provides a general vote for a number of them.


Charles Murphy: Yes, I noticed that Perhaps we will have an explanation as to

whom that item will apply to, when we reach it.
Department of External Affairs-To provide for an increase in salary to the assistant Under Secretary of State for External Affairs to $4,000, $425.	. .
To provide for one clerkship in Third Division, Subdivision A, $900.


Charles Murphy: Who is this assistant?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. W. H. Walker. My hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) who was Secretary of State for External Affairs probably knows this gentleman's qualities as well as I do. He is a highly educated man, who entered the public service many years
ago.	, ,
I have found him exceedingly diligent and very efficient. In the absence of Sir Joseph Pope, inevitable on a great many occasions during the past three years when he was called upon to discharge important duties elsewhere, Mr. Walker has fulfilled the duties of the under-secretary with marked ability. Sir Joseph Pope has brought_ his case to my attention on many occasions during the past three years and, haying regard to the extremely important duties that Mr. Walker has been called upon to fulfil during that period, it seemed to me that I could not delay the matter any longer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these appointments made under the Civil Service Act?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Walker has been there for thirty years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this a promotion by virtue of the Civil Service Act or by special vote?


Robert Laird Borden: By special vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Civil Service Act is not now sufficient to cover a case of this kind, or is not sufficiently comprehensive to meet each ease that may come up from time to time, I would suggest that the Act be amended.' This tinkering with the Civil Service, taking a man here and there, promoting him over the head of somebody else and coming here for his salary, does not seem to be satisfactory. If the machinery of the Act were so arranged as to provide for dealing with matters of this kind in accordance with the Act it would save a good deal of trouble and would avoid dissatisfaction amongst civil servants. Of course there cannot but he serious trouble and annoyance when two or three are singled out for promotion, while a great many others are of necessity left who are looking for promotion. I would seriously
suggest to the Government that sufficiently comprehensive and workable machinery should be provided under the Civil Service Act so- that the Government would not be obliged to come here for special votes to provide for special appointments:
Royal Northwest Mounted Police-subsistence, billeting, forage and dog feed, fuel and light, clothing, repairs and renewals, horses, arms and ammunition, stationery, medical stores, transport, water service, building repairs and contingencies-further amount required, $260,-
000.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the explanation of this item is given, I would like to give the information which was asked for when a similar item in the estimates was under consideration. The inquiry was as to the number of men in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who had enlisted for service for overseas. After the war broke out there were 56 Imperial reservists in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and they were allowed their immediate discharge, they having been called to the colours. There were a number of applications from the members of the force to proceed to the front, or failing leave of absence, for their discharge. It did not seem expedient at that time that in these cases leave should be given. On the 2nd February, 1915, an order was issued as follows :
That any non-commissioned officer or constable who has less than three months to serve to complete his present engagement, may be permitted to purchase his discharge for the purpose of joining any contingent being raised for war services, provided he produces certificates that he will be enrolled in a contingent as above stated, if he is permitted to purchase his discharge from the police. This privilege is not to be extended to men who engaged for one year's service on account of the war.
That relates to the additions made to the force during the first months of the war whereby men were enlisted for one year instead of the usual three years.. That order has never been cancelled, but it has recently been found necessary to temporarily suspend its application. One hundred and five men have been permitted to purchase their discharge, 75 of whom are known to have enlisted for service overseas and all of whom, with the exception of about six, have already gone overseas. In addition to those who have purchased their discharge, a considerable number of men whose terms of service have expired since the outbreak of the war have taken their discharge from the force, and, although there is no official record of these men having joined overseas units, the comptroller

of the Northwest Mounted Police is strongly of the opinion that the majority of them have done so. The loss of strength due to the release of men at the expiration of their engagement was so serious that I was obliged to address a special appeal to all ranks with the view of retaining their services in Canada. The present authorized strength of the force is 1,200, exclusive of officers, but the actual strength of all ranks on 3rd August was 742 only, and the commissioner is now actively engaged in an endeavour to bring the force up to the authorized strength above quoted.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: This vote of $260,000 is made necessary by the fact that on January 1, 1917, the Mounted Police were released from duty in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and on March 1 from duty in the province of Alberta. This meant a loss of revenue to the police, on account of the subsidies that were received from these provinces being withdrawn, as follows:
Subsidies from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the fiscal year 1917-18 not now available on account of the release of tile Northwest Mounted Police from the duty of the maintenance of law and order in those provinces	  $155,000
Refunds not now available for the cause* above referred to	 $92,50*
These refunds were on account of amounts paid for patrols and escorts, etc., of convicts and lunatics that were paid out of police funds and afterwards refunded by the provinces to the police. The balance is an item of $12,500, which, the commissioner states, is necessary for one hundred remounts.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not exactly apprehend the explanation. The House is asked to vote $260,000 additional to what has been voted already. As I understand the explanation, there is no addition to the amount of money really voted and to be expended, but that this is simply to make up the amount of money which was paid ty the three provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan for the protection of the police. This money, as I always understood, was paid into the consolidated fund and was not expended by the police themselves. I do not understand why we are called on to vote more money because we receive less revenue. That is not the spirit of the Act or of our financial system. The principle is that money is voted here and is expended here, and any revenues go into the consolidated fund. This year we shall receive less money and 
so we shall have less to expend, the expenditure will be reduced because the police force which was employed in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan will no longer be employed there, as the Provincial Governments will have to look after their own police work.


Hugh Clark: The amount asked for in the main estimates was $1,513,169. From this amount the sum of $355,000 was deducted, which represented the subsidies that we received from these three provinces as well as refunds, leaving a net amount required of $1,158,169. As I said, on 1st of January and 1st March, the police were released from duty by the provinces, and consequently the subsidies stopped, and a considerable portion of the $355,4 p.m. 000 that we used to receive will, of course, not now be available. In January, 1917, when the commissioner sent down his estimates, while these estimates were made after the change was made by the provinces. These figures did not reach the Minister of Finance in time to go into the main estimates, and the amount of $260,000 is required to make up the difference.


Wilfrid Laurier: But it does not make it up. My hon. friend asks for $1,300,000 in the main estimates for subsidies, subsistence, billeting, forage, dog feed, fuel, light, clothing, etc-that is, for the general expenses of the police. Now he asks for $262,000 more for the same purpose. He is authorized to spend by this not only $1,300,000 but over $1,500,000. It is no answer to tell us there is less revenue; that is no explanation at all. Whether there is less or more revenue does not matter. Do we require this amount for these purposes? I could understand my honourable friend saying that owing to the increased cost of all commodities this increased amount was necessary, but certainly it is no explanation to tell us that we have less revenue than we had before.


Hugh Clark: I am sorry I have not made myself plain. I said that the amount required was $1,513,169; but that, on account of this new arrangement, this had been reduced by the amount of $355,000 which we used to receive from these sources.


Wilfrid Laurier: That does not help the situation.


Robert Laird Borden: If there is any difficulty we shall let this stand so as to have a full explanation. It would appear

that the amounts which have been received from the provinces have been placed at the disposal of the Controller of the Royal .'Northwest Mounted Police, but he made his estimate up for each year to ascertain the amount which would be required, and he then 'deducted from it the amounts which were made available through the subsidies of the provinces. Then he came to Parliament and asked for the balance, whatever it might be. When those subsidies cease to be available for a portion of the year he finds it necessary to come and ask for an additional amount, which, in the first instance, would have been provided 'or except for the fact that these subsidies were available for the maintenance of the force.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is highly irregular.
;Mr. R. B. BENNETT: I think I have a little knowledge of the transaction in my province. There was an outstanding agreement between this Government and the Provincial Government. Under that agreement the province was to pay a certain sum to the Federal Government for the use of the police and to pay part of their cost of upkeep, etc. That sum of money was deducted from the total cost and this Parliament voted the difference, and what we passed in the main estimates was the dif-[DOT] ference between the total cost and the sum received from the provinces under the agreement. What we are now voting is that sum, which represented the payments made by the provinces under the agreement, and what the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says as to our voting the whole sum and then taking the amount received from the provinces into the consolidated revenue fund would, undoubtedly, be the proper course.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in practice this Parliament voted only the difference between the total cost and the amount contributed by the provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the explanation, but the practice is not regular. In my time it was not done. This conveys a wrong impression; it conveys the impression that we have been spending $1,300,000, whereas we have been spending $1,500,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I can assure my right hon. friend that I made no change in the practice. Whether the practice is right or wrong, I think it must have been in
force all along, as 1 never directed any change.


Wilfrid Laurier: The change is in the controllership. Is this not to be rectified?


Robert Laird Borden: There is nothing to rectify now, because the system has been changed. I shall ascertain whether or not the practice referred to has been universal ever 'Since the agreement was first made. I am inclined to think that under the Order in Council embodying the agreement between the provinces and the Dominion it was regarded as perfectly proper and regular that the amounts received from the provinces should go directly into the funds available for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.


John Howard Sinclair: Representing an eastern constituency, I should like an explanation why Parliament is assuming a liability that was formerly assumed by the western provinces,
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN:	The Commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, Mr. Perry, _ strongly recommended that during the war the force should be relieved from the duties which it had hitherto performed-duties of an ordinary police nature-and that its services should be retained for federal purposes. It has been thought expedient to establish a good many patTols that were not formerly necessary and to take other precautions in respect of contingencies for which the police are available. It was upon his report that the negotiations were entered into with the .provinces in question and that the present arrangement has been arrived at.


John Howard Sinclair: We understand, then,
that the Mounted Police are not doing the same provincial work that they formerly did.


Robert Laird Borden: They formerly
did alf the police work of the Northwest Territories before those territories were incorporated into provinces. They were the only police there at that time. After the provinces were established, I suppose local police forces were established in the cities and to'wns; nevertheless the Royal Northwest Mounted Police had detachments in all cities and towns and co-operated with the civil authorities whenever required; in fact, they were under obligation to do so. Conditions in that respect have changed a good deal in those provinces during the last ten or twelve years. Further, on account of

the exigencies of the war the commissioner thought that the services of the force should be reserved for purely federal purposes. I think that I sent my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the time a copy of the report of the commissioner in regard to the matter, before the negotiations were consummated.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. I understand the matter, after the new provinces were created in 1905 the Governor in Council made arrangements with the Provincial Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan to continue the services of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, $150,000 being devoted to that purpose. The Mounted Police performed provincial as well as federal duties; they acted as constables in matters purely provincial. In view of the conditions relating to the war, however, it was advisable that the Mounted Police should be relieved from provincial duties and enabled to perform duties at the frontier incidental to guarding against the danger, I will not say of an invasion, but of a raid, or something of that kind, from the south. I think, therefore, that it was advisable, under the stress of the times, that the Mounted Police should be available purely for federal purposes.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) know of his own knowledge that the provincial bonus was paid out without the vote of Parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was told that it was sent to the comptroller of the Mounted Police and by him deposited to the credit of the Mounted Police fund, and that against that fund they issued cheques without the matter being dealt with by Parliament at all. My information was the result of my making some inquiries in consequence of the termination of the, agreement. I may not have the full explanation.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not at all familiar with the rules of the Auditor General's Department, but it seems remarkable that he should authorize the payment out of such large sums of money without the authority of Parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Mounted Police Department handled their own cheques.


William Erskine Knowles: It ought to have been done through the Auditor General's Department. Suppose they decided to give $100,000 to the Liberal campaign fund?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think you had one.


William Erskine Knowles: Well, to start one with? Surely the Auditor General checks these payments out.


Robert Laird Borden: Every payment must come under the supervision of the Auditor General. The question is simply this: were the amounts derived from provincial subsidies paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or were they paid directly to the comptroller of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police as an amount which could be used by him, under the supervision of the Auditor General, in the maintenance of the force? I have never made inquiry into the subject, but the latter must have been the case.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not make any suggestion that anything occurred in connection with the matter that was not perfectly sincere and bona fide. Under either Government, no department has been more readily granted money by Parliament than the Northwest Mounted Police. The Prime Minister personally has always had charge of the department, the traditions and records of which have commanded the respect and confidence of the people. I understood the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition to approve of the present status of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I regard its present status as very unfortunate and very poor business indeed. We have 800 men there.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where?


William Erskine Knowles: In the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I am sorry to say that we have 800 idle men. Men are very scarce in Canada to-day, for fighting, for enforcing the law, for protection against crime, or for the performance of ordinary civil duties. The men of the mounted police are all ablebodied men; they are not lazy. Members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, officers and men, have more than once told me that for a while after this change was made they were very happy indeed, but that now they find absence of employment very irksome. Some of them fill in their time playing tennis or golf. These men formerly worked hard, and the change has been too radical to result in happiness and contentment. Besides, the men would naturally be happier if they had something to do. I cannot offer a solution of the problem, but I present it to the Prime Minister as a matter that is worthy of his consideration. At a time when we are so

anxious to organize properly our manpower, we should not have such a large number of men insufficiently or not completely employed. It is common knowledge in the West-confirmed, I understand, by the Prime Minister-that Commissioner Perry some months ago became very much impressed with the idea that there might be certain perils at our door, and that the men under him should be available for the purpose of meeting that alleged danger; that they should not be occupied with ordinary police work out on the prairie. I am not in a position to criticise Mr. Perry; his judgment in a matter of this kind should be a great deal more valuable than mine. But it is always possible for Mr. Perry or some one else to get a one-sided vtiew of his life's work. Mr. Perry may get an exaggerated idea of the military side, and unconsciously, and with the best conscience in the world, get away from the police side of his duty; and it is not impossible that Mt. Perry has got a little extra enthusiasm about the military side, and might be better pleased if he had a little army of his own as distinguished from a police force. He is, however, doing splendid work and is proving a very efficient head of that service. I know that because I am close to him geographically and have* had considerable opportunity of judging of his work. The present condition of affairs would not be satisfactory to the country if the people knew everything about it. I do not bring this matter up in a contentious way, but so that the Government may find a solution for it. I know those men would be happier if they were of more use to the country. Many of them want to go overseas and fight for their country. Since the United States has come into the war and is organized for protective purposes, the danger that Mr. Perry saw, that is, the probability of anything like organized hosilities against Canada from the country to the south of us, is reduced to a minimum and almost entirely eliminated.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do the Mounted Police do any patrolling now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I think they do some
patrolling, but it is a mere bagatelle as compared with the work they did in the early days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my province they do considerable work.


William Erskine Knowles: But not so much as before. There are some in Moosejaw, but I
do not know what they have to do there. There is certainly no country to patrol. There are no possible dangers there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many mounted policemen are there in Moosejaw?


William Erskine Knowles: I really could not say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them have been taken away from my province.


William Erskine Knowles: I see them on the street pretty often, and I know the officer in charge of them. He is there all the time; he has not been moved. My belief is that there are just as many of them there now as there were before. If they have been sent elsewhere, it is reasonable that we should have that information from the Government. Since the United States have come into the war, there is no need of patrol work, certainly not more than there was on the 1st of December last, and, at that time, we were able to get along with a limited number of men we had set aside. The Government should take advantage of this large body of man-power. If there is no police work for them to do, why not let the men have their ardent wish gratified, that is, let as many of them as can be spared go overseas?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has perhaps not an adequate realization of the apprehensions that were entertained about a year ago, not alone by Commissioner Perry, but by very important persons in the western provinces. The representations which were submitted to me from time to time and which were of sufficiently grave character to justify some action, were placed before Commissioner Perry who was brought down here and who was in consultation with the military authorities. Pretty careful arrangements were made. The whole question was discussed in every aspect, and my hon. friend will recollect that, at that time, we could not foresee that the United States would enter into the war in April of this year. I was Tn this position with regard to the matter-and I hope my hon. friend will appreciate my position- that if I disregarded the very grave warnings which came to me from important persons, and'if anything occurred in the nature of a raid, the character of which would be exaggerated throughout the world and would produce a great deal of apprehension amongst our people, besides the loss and damage that might result, I could hardly justify myself nor could the commissioner justify himself before the House and the country. The matter was taken into the most attentive and careful con-

sideration, not only with Commissioner Perry, but with the military authorities and with the authorities of some of the provinces, if I recollect correctly; and on the whole, we thought the circumstances justified the action which was taken. If there are men there who are doing nothing, who, as my hon. friend says, are simply tired from being idle, that is a condition to which attention must necessarily be given. I shall forward the observations of my hon. friend to the commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, invite his attention to them 'and ask for a report in regard to the matter. There is no disposition on my part to have men stationed or engaged where their duties are not of a useful character, but I would have my hon. friend bear in mind that any organized group of men employed by the people of the country for garrison or protective purposes cannot, in the very nature of things, be fully occupied all the time. It goes without saying that there are men engaged in the military service of this country in garrison and outpost duty whose time is not always fully employed. They are kept there waiting for a possible condition in which their services would be required. That, to a certain extent, is the case of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. Still, my hon. friend's observations are of a character which makes it desirable that I should communicate them to the commissioner and ask for his observations and report with regard to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think what my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has said, while it naturally is entitled to the utmost consideration with respect to the territory to which he alludes, cannot find very much application in the province in which I reside. There are not very many idle mounted policemen in that part of Canada. There are the officers commanding various divisions at centres; they have always been there, and they discharge more or less administrative duties with respect to those units of the force that are out on patrol duty. They have always done that while I have been in the West-before there were provinces, and since. Undoubtedly the conditions to which the Prime Minister referred were very serious. Nothing in my judgment will ever take the place of the red coat of the mounted policemen in Western Canada as regards the preservation of regard for order and respect for the law. I have seen nothing that quite equalled it with the newcomers who come to our west-
[Sir Robert Borden. 1
ern land from abroad. It is saying nothing that is not common knowledge to every member of this House when I intimate that Commissioner Perry reconsidered the whole question of the placing of his patrols, and located them throughout western Canada, having regard not only to border conditions, but to our foreign-born population of enemy extraction. I remember, not long since, looking over the points at which those patrols were located, and you will find that, in every section, there is a very strong and earnest opinion on the part of Englishspeaking citizens that the force is too small. I have received many communications urging that the force be increased because of the conditions that have arisen, and if my hon. friend is reading the newspapers, as doubtless he is, he will observe that ,in more than one case-aye, in more than half a dozen cases recently-barns have been destroyed in western Canada, and some of the crops have been threatened under circumstances that speak of very great activity on the part of the enemies within our gates. And the earnest appeals that have been made to some of us at least to insure, by taking timely warning, against a recurrence of these evils, especially having regard to the ripening of the harvest, have been very pressing. If there are'only 800 men in the force, when you come to consider that they are patrolling a territory a thousand miles in length and eight times the size of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, I do not think this House will be greatly impressed with the suggestion that 800 men are too many. They are preserving law and order 300 miles north of Edmonton. There is also a detachment at Fort McMurray, and a detachment further north, which, of course, is in the unorganized Northwest Territory. Part of these 800 men are also preserving law and order 100 miles south of Macleod, which is distant from Edmonton 300 miles. So, you have in Alberta detachments of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police carrying the gospel of observance of the law and regard for property and civil rights over a territory 700 miles in length. They are also preserving law and order along the boundary from Manitoba to the Rocky mountains, a distance of 800 miles at least. So, while there may be instances such as those to which my hon. friend has referred, it cannot be said that these men are in any sense idle. Most of the young men in the force have sought, and sought in vain, to get into the regular forces. Now and then

some of them have been released, but it was found necessary, I believe, to prevent discharge by purchase in order to maintain the efficiency of the force.
While men in garrison have duties to perform awaiting attacks, it may also be truthfully said that they are awaiting raids and attacks which we hope will never happen. Take for instance, the case of Gibraltar and Malta, where men are performing duties of the highest order, but it is always hoped that there will never be an attack against either Gibraltar or Malta that will necessitate calling the military activities of these men into service.
With regard to the report of Commissioner Perry, hon. gentlemen will remember that it was suggested that the provincial forces were established purely for political purposes, and quite a controversy took place in the newspapers as to whether the provinces would be better protected with a police force of their own. Most people, however, thought it better to increase the force of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and maintain the arrangement between the Dominion and the provinces. But the provincial legislatures met and authorized the establishment of provincial forces. It was contended, and not improperly it seems to me, that with the passage of prohibitory legislation in the two western provinces a burden was put upon the mounted police of what might be called domestic police duty that interfered with their usefulness in the larger sphere of the preservation of order and respect for constituted authority which .their uniform has always impressed on a new population. It was not in accord with the eternal fitness of things that those who were charged with maintaining that respect and reverence for constituted authority that always should be maintained in the midst of our new population, should have at the same time to go out and search for a quart of beeT or a pint of whisky that might be brought into localities in contravention of the law. That was the paramount factor, I believe, that influenced the mind of the provincial legislatures in passing the necessary legislation to bring into being a provincial force.


William Erskine Knowles: Is it not the case in
Alberta, as it is in Saskatchewan, that the provincial Governments appointed their own police to enforce liquor legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Erskine Knowles: I wish to explain what I said. I was not making any criticism because the change was made some months ago. I have no doubt it was done in good faith. I said the problem existed; I did not pass an opinion on it. My hon. friend says that his experience is different from mine as to whether the men are busy or not. I do not earmark my information as applying to Moosejaw only, for I have been

in a number of towns and cities in western Canada and I distinctly remember at the moment a city in Saskatchewan where an old-time friend of mine, a couple of months ago when I was there, was talking to me about the change and wishing the old days were back again, because now he had nothing at all to do. He happens to be between forty-five and fifty years of age. But my experience in different places has been that the police have very little to do and do not like it. If what my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) throws out as a suggestion is correct, namely, that they have added duties because of the existence of aliens in our midst, it would be only right for the Government to tell us so as part of their explanation, rather than leave that to be suggested by the hon. member. During all these years this force has been doing the great work of policing the prairies, and now that that work is not laid on their shoulders, it necessarily follows that they cannot be as busy as they were before. If you have one hundred per cent as many men and remove seventy-five per cent of the work, your men are not going to be busy. There is no need of my saying I concur in all my hon. friend has said as to the good work the mounted police have done. That is not the question. The fact remains we are very much in need of man-power, and we have 800 of the most stalwart, the more ready, the best trained and most hardy men in the country, and I submit there is not sufficient work to keep them busy at present.


Frank Oliver: I think I will have to go a little further than any of the speakers have yet gone in discussing this vote. There are two sides to this question of the mounted Police in the West; one is sentimental, the other practical. I might be considered to be 'exaggerating if I said that the sentimental side is more important than the practical side. All my hon. friend from Calgary has said in that connection is true and more than true. This force has been identified with the development, the settlement, the progress and the maintenance of law and order in the Northwest ever since 1874. It has been looked upon by the people as an institution in that country, and as one of the institutions upon which they could absolutely rely, upon which they were always able to depend. When that institution has been taken away, and set aside as though it were a broken can, it strikes the people of the West very strangely. It hurts their feelings to think that this institution which has existed so long should be

set aside simply by the turn of a hand, without any reason being given (to the public, and winout any sufficient reason being given to Parliament. It impresses upon them the idea of a disregard of conditions in that country on the part of those in authority-a disregard of the responsibilities which rest upon them in the administration of affairs.
'The practical side is that we are called upon to vote one and a half million dollars, a quarter of a million dollars more than we voted in past years, for the maintenance of a force which is not now employed in the work for which it was instituted. These are times when we are short of both men and money. My hon. friend from Mosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has drawn *attention to the fact that we need man-power both in Canada and on the fighting line, and if we can afford to withdraw the Mounted Police force from the work which they have done for so many years we can afford to employ them in something more useful than the work in which they are employed now. A burden has been thrown upon the Provincial Governments by this action. They have been compelled to provide police administration which they formerly received through the mounted police, and for which they paid at a certain fixed rate. It is a fact, I think, that in the payment they made for the services of the mounted police, they had the best of the bargain from a financial point of view. It was thought advisable by the Dominion to have a force of men in that country under military discipline and control employed in maintaining law and order. Those men were engaged in that duty, and were fulfilling it last year surely as much as they are to-day. They were also providing for the requirements of the Provincial Governments in the administration of their laws. Why they should be withdrawn from that duty of assisting in the administration of the laws of the provinces, and still be maintained in the country, at an additional expense, is something that no man in the Northwest can understand from any point of view of good business either for the provinces or for the Dominion. The Provincial Governments did not want this change. They were satisfied with the arrangement that was in force with the Dominion Government. They were satisfied to pay their share of the upkeep of the mounted police and receive the services of those police as they were being rendered. I am informed it was a shock to those

governments when they were notified that they would have to make provision for the maintenance of law and order in their respective provinces. They were compelled to enlist other able-bodied men, suitable for work in civil life-or, indeed, suitable for service at the front-in order to carry out the duties from which mounted police were withdrawn. The transaction seems to me to be as indescribable as it is unaccountable -that the provinces and the country should have an additional burden imposed upon them by the withdrawal of an efficient, able-bodied and ample force from their previous duties and assigned to other duties, or not assigned to -any duties at all.
I have not any information in regard to the circumstances or reports the /Prime Minister has suggested to the House he had received as to the need of withdrawing these men from the performance of the duties in which they were engegad-that is, that there was a certain possibility of danger. The change of status of the force has not reduced their numbers; nor did it ipcrease their efficiency in any way that I can see. They were there before, and they are there yet. They cost the country more now than they did before. The only difference is they are not now performing the duties they performed formerly, and other men have to be hired and paid for this work. The suggestion that there was a possibility of difficulty coming from the United States is, to my mind, absurd on the face of it-and I say this with all due respect to all parties concerned. If there was >any danger at any time, it was when the war broke out, and during the succeeding months there may have been very good reason for strengthening the forces in 1914 and 1915; but when the position of the United States having become settled, I cannot admit there was any reason, or any evidence of any reason, or any foundation for any reason, for doing so in the latter end of 1916. I cannot admit that such a condition of affairs existed as would warrant the withdrawal of these men from the useful work they were performing and the assigning of them to positions in which they did not have useful work to perform, thereby requiring the province to hire other men to perform that useful work. The hon. member for Calgary has spoken of the undesirability of this force being called upon to enforce the Liquor Act. They did not, as a matter of fact, take the responsibility on themselves of enforcing the Liquor Act. There was nothing to gain or lose in that. There was no difference in the arrangement. They had not enforced the Liquor Acts that were in vogue up to 1916 and they were not called upon to enforce those that were in vogue in 1917. If there is any question about that I might say that I was a resident of the Northwest Territories almost from the advent of the Mounted Police, and during the years when the great business of the police was the enforcement of the then drastic liquor law, and there never was a time in the brilliant history of the force when they stood as high in public esteem as they did then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no provincial organization or authority then. It was a federal liquor Act that they were enforcing.


Frank Oliver: It was a federal liquor
Act, but the administration of the law did not in any way derogate from the authority or prestige of the force at that time. So that, any ground of that kind that ds brought forward in support of the action taken by the Government in regard to this force is without justification from any point of view. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that it is the sentimental side that strikes the people of the Northwest even more than the practical side, something that hon. members of this House may not be aware of. But, dealing only with the practical side, I have been unable to find any reason for the action that has been taken and I am here to take the responsibility of absolutely condemning that action,.	.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that if this course had not been taken, and if any such event as was apprehended in the West had occurred, there would have been no one louder in his denunciation of the Government for its lack of foresight and precaution than the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. The course which 1 took was taken upon the recommendation of the commissioner and after very careful consideration with him and the military authorities. More than that, I submitted the reports which I had received to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (bir Wilfrid Laurier), both because he was the leader of the Opposition and more particularly because he had for fifteen years been the head of the force which is now under my direction. He concurred entirely in the course which I .proposed to adopt, and I took that course accordingly. Therefore, when my hon. friend suggests that there was not a /shadow or a tittle of reason for taking it, he is condemning not only



myself, but his own leader, who, 'as I say, for fifteen years had charge of the force, and who was very intimately acquainted with the duties that it was called upon to perform. My hon. friend is mistaken in some respects. We had a formal notice from the Government of one of the provinces-the province of Alberta-that they did not purpose to continue this agreement. They gave us notice some months before the occasion on which the agreement was last renewed that they proposed to establish their own police force, and that they would not continue the agreement. It is perfectly true that after that they did reconsider the matter, and, following the example of Saskatchewan, they did enter into a further agreement for a limited term. But it was perfectly evident that in both the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta there was an intention of creating a provincial police force and declining to continue further the arrangement which had been made between these provinces and the Federal Government for certain subsidies for the maintenance of the force. It is also perfectly true that from one of these provinces at least the commissioner received notice that the force were expected to undertake the enforcement of the enactments respecting the use of spirituous liquor. My hon. friend is not accurate when he says that no such proposal was ever made. The proposal was made and .made in writing. I remember perfectly well having seen it. The demand was communicated in writing to the Cbmmissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police.


Frank Oliver: That they should enforce the Liquor Act?


Robert Laird Borden: That they should undertake the enforcement of the Liquor Act. The commissioner had that in mind in connection with the other considerations to which I have alluded. In his opinion it was desirable and necessary that the services of the force should be reserved for purely Federal purposes under the conditions which obtained and which still con tinue.


Frank Oliver: In regard to this danger
which is supposed to have existed, the Prime Minister says that he has the authority of the commissioner of the police to say that there was such a dangerous condition as to call for the withdrawal of the mounted police from the performance of police duties. I would have to characterize the suggestion of the commissioner, with more or less re-

spect, as being absurd, from the fact that from -the outbreak of the war in 1914 until the present time, or quite recently, there have been thousands of men under arms in the Northwest Territories continuously, and whether there were a thousand mounted policemen doing police duties or not, doing police duties did not make -any difference in the absolute power of the military forces of the West to resist any aggression from any source from which it might come.
iSir ROBERT BORDEN:	I can tell my
hon. friend that his suggestion in that regard is not at all new. All these suggestions had careful consideration. A proposition that one battalion should be assigned from time to time to patrol work while in course of training was taken up but it was declared by the military authorities who were consulted to be absolutely impracticable for reasons which I could very well -state if it were necessary to do so.


William Erskine Knowles: Would the minister be good enough to communicate to the House any information which he receives from Commissioner Perry, or any other official, as to whether it is not possible to make some profitable use of the energies of the police force in some other direction?


Robert Laird Borden: I shall be very glad to communicate any such information as I receive it.


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask if the right hon. gentleman has the correspondence between the Provincial Governments and the Dominion Government with regard to the withdrawal of the police force and replacing it with the civil force?


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot recall that there is any correspondence. The negotiations were carried on by the commissioner himself with the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, I think also, with the Government of Manitoba although I am not absolutely sure as to that.


Frank Oliver: At what date would that agreement have expired?


Robert Laird Borden: I should think, in two or three years.


Frank Oliver: It would not have terminated within a very short period?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it had a substantial period to run.


Frank Oliver: In fact it had only recently been made.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it was made two years before, or more, and w>as for five years.
Arts and Agriculture-for the eradication or control of the white pine blister rust, $25,000.


Mr. BURRELL:: This vote covers the expenses in connection with the attempt at eradication and control of a very bad fungus disease threatening the life of the white pine in Canada. Early this spring the United States authorities became alarmed at the spread of this disease and we discovered its infection in Canada and realized that the $200,000,000 worth of white pine left in Canada would probably be destroyed unless we could control this pest. We therefore entered into arrangements to co-operate with the United States authorities and the Provincial Governments of Quebec and Ontario, where the infection has occurred. We appointed Mr. McCub-bin, one of our plant pathologists who had studied the disease for some years, to take charge in Ontario and make a general survey. There is some infestation, principally in the Niagara district. The disease was introduced through pine seedlings imported from Germany. The authorities on this continent were not aware that the disease was very general in Germany, in fact all throughout Europe, and that the American white pine cannot be successfully grown there on account of it. The European pines have apparently become immune to the disease. The fungus spends a portion of its life cycle on the red and black gooseberry and the raspberry plants. The measures necessary to eradicate the disease, apart from the general survey to watch for its appearance in different localities, include the destruction of infested trees and the cutting out of current and raspberry bushes on which the spores are found during June and July. It will be necessary to follow up each of
5 p.m. the shipments of these pine seedlings and to watch the plants.


John Howard Sinclair: As the forests of Ontario are owned and- administered by the province, why does the Dominion assume the duty of eradicating this pest?


Martin Burrell: There is some strength in that argument, but if it were carried out in all matters we would have to stop our work in connection with plant pathology. As a matter of fact, we have practically the only men who are skilled in these matters and the provinces are very glad to have us co-operate .in them.
296J


William Erskine Knowles: Where is Mr. Gussow now, formerly chief botanist?


Martin Burrell: Mr. Gussow is now doing some botanical work in the laboratory in connection with the Central Experimental Farm. It was felt that a civil servant of German nationality who had not become naturalized in Canada should not occupy the position of chief botanist, which would involve his travelling all over Canada. This gentleman was appointed by my predecessor, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, about eight years ago and is a very skilled man. He has a wife and five small children, and for humanitarian reasons, although many have taken the view that he should, be dismissed, his services were retained in the position I have mentioned. As a matter of fact he has been offered a position in one of the southern universities and I have told him that we shall raise no objection to his accepting it.
Arts and Agriculture-for the purchase of seed grain, Governor General's warrant, $500,000.


Martin Burrell: This is to repay the Governor General's warrant which was advanced. I think that, altogether, $1,200,000 was advanced, all of which has now been repaid and has gone into the hands of the Receiver General. We have been entirely repaid and have a little to the good, and have also a considerable number of bushels of oats still on hand. We thought of disposing of these oats but came to the conclusion that it might be well to hold them over, considering the character of the oat-crop in the West, until next year. We bought, cleaned, bagged and sold nearly 1,000,000 bushels of wheat and oats-largeljr wheat.


Frank Oliver: When and where?


Martin Burrell: Practically the whole of the wheat was sold in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was distributed among municipalities, farmers' organizations and farmers who chose to pay for it in carload lots. We have received a large number of letters from municipalities expressing their appreciation of the action taken by the department in this respect last year


Frank Oliver: Was that the season of 1916?


Martin Burrell: The spring season of 1917. The action was taken chiefly because the ravages of wheat rust last year, together with the conditions affecting frozen grain in some districts, were such that about thirty municipalities were afraid that they

would not be able to get any seed grain at all. Machinery was put in force under provincial statute enabling the municipality to advance money on behalf of the farmer who could not afford to pay. We sold to the municipalities about 600,000 bushels of grain.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was there not a vote last year for the purpose of purchasing seed grain?


Martin Burrell: No, that was in connection with a different matter altogether. This action was taken for the purpose of selling high-class seed to farmers who might not otherwise be able to get it.


Frank Oliver: Has this money been almost entirely repaid by the farmers?


Martin Burrell: The whole of it has been repaid.


William Erskine Knowles: Was it done in the same way that the seed grain was distributed in former years, by taking a'lease on the land?


Martin Burrell: No. Our expert officers bought the seed; it was re-cleaned, bagged and made ready for sale to municipalities and farmers.


John Howard Sinclair: Why was it necessary to advance this sum of money by Governor General's warrant? It seems to me that this was an extraordinary step to take, especially when Parliament was in session.


Martin Burrell: My recollection is that ihis action was taken either during the recess or before Parliament met. I think that it must have been dudng the recess.


John Howard Sinclair: It seems to me that . Governor General's warrants are resorted to with very little provocation in these times.


William Erskine Knowles: Is this a new expenditure, or is it supplementary to an insufficient vote made last year?


Martin Burrell: It is absolutely new
work, never undertaken before.


William Erskine Knowles: Parliament remained in session last year up to a time that must have been subsequent to the activity of the farmers in getting seed grain ready.


Martin Burrell: I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date. I hope that my hon. friend has not any suspicion in connection with this matter, because we have an absolutely clear record in it. The conditions were such that it was very desirable, especially in these times of needed production, that the farmers in the West should have a

supply of first-class seed. There must have been some obvious reason for getting the Governor General's warrant; otherwise we should gladly have come to Parliament for the money.


Frank Oliver: How did the minister buy the $1,500,000 worth of grain if he had only $500,000?


Martin Burrell: As fast as we bought grain and sold it, the money was turned in.


Mr. COPP:: Was this grain supplied generally throughout Canada, or only throughout the West?


Martin Burrell: The provisions for its distribution were applicable everywhere, but only oats were taken in the East. Something like 200,000 bushels of No. 1 grade oats were shipped from the West on order by carload lots to Governmental authorities, municipalities, individual farmers or dealers.


William Erskine Knowles: How much is now on hand?


Martin Burrell: I cannot give the exact figure; I think about 40,000 or 50,000 bushels.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is it?


Martin Burrell: In the Government elevators in the West.


William Erskine Knowles: Where was it bought?


Martin Burrell: It was bought through the Seed Purchasing Commission, the details respecting which I laid on the Table when the main estimates were under consideration. This commission was composed largely of our own expert officers in the seed department.


William Erskine Knowles: In the multiplicity of commissions, this one may have got lost. Personally, I never heard of this Seed Purchasing Commission. Will the minister tell us something about it?


Martin Burrell: Mr. Wilson was at the head of the commission; he is a very well known man in the West. The grain was bought all over the country, wherever the best grain could be secured under the best terms. It was sent to the Government elevators, cleaned and bagged; then it awaited orders from different municipalities and farmers.
Mr. KNOWLES; Was it bought in the prairie West?
Mr .BURRELL: Altogether in the West.


William Erskine Knowles: From individual farmers?


Martin Burrell: Yes, or from elevators- from all the sources from which grain is usually obtained.


William Erskine Knowles: Under what rules, instructions or limitations was it bought? To what extent was the public given information that supplies of wheat and oats were desired for this purpose?


Martin Burrell: The whole western country was thoroughly apprised, through the press and through circulars, of all the proceedings of the commission.
I am pretty sure that amongst grain men in the West, they were pretty thoroughly known. I am sorry I did not give my hon. friend the satisfaction of seeing the bunch of letters we received from various municipalities in the West expressing the utmost gratification at the benefits derived from this whole transaction. One letter, which went into the whole matter, was signed by the secretary of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers. If my hon. friend is really interested, I shall be glad to get from the department a complete report of the transaction.


William Erskine Knowles: How many bushels of wheat and how many bushels of oats did the commissioners buy in all?


Martin Burrell: Between 600,000 and 700,000 bushels of wheat, and between 200,000 and 300,000 bushels of oats.


William Erskine Knowles: They paid money for
the grain and then they would sell it and use the same money over again?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: The money did not go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Martin Burrell: It went in as fast as necessary. All the money has been paid back.


William Erskine Knowles: The money received
from the sale of this wheat did not go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund?


Martin Burrell: It went into the hands of the Receiver General.


William Erskine Knowles: I thought the minister told the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) a moment ago that a large sum of money was not needed, because the commissioners used the money as they went along.


Martin Burrell: I will not be positive as to the details, whichever way the money went, whether enough was got from time to time in order to buy grain, and then as the wheat was sold, all the money went to the Receiver General, or whether a portion was used again as the transaction went on.


William Erskine Knowles: Of course, $500,000 is not anything like sufficient pay for 600,000 bushels of wheat, and 200,000 or 300,000 bushels of oats.


Martin Burrell: About $1,200,000 was used altogether.


William Erskine Knowles: We are voting half a million. Was there a former vote?


Martin Burrell: I will not speak positively about that at the present moment.


William Erskine Knowles: We cannot honestly and conscientiously pass these Estimates until we know whether .this is the whole appropriation or not.


Martin Burrell: If my hon. friend wants to let the item stand, all right.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not want to dictate as to whether .the item should stand or not.


Frank Oliver: If the minister can buy
$1,200,000 worth of grain with $500,000, the sooner he is made Minister of Finance the better.


Martin Burrell: I did not say that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can understand
the Government entering upon a project of dealing in seed in cases in which there is a shortage or some particular necessity, but apparently the .situation is this: The Gover nment went into various parts of the Northwest and purchased seed grain, had it cleaned, and then sold it again. That may be a good thing to do, but why could not that matter be left .to private enterprise? Is the Government going into the seed business in normal times throughout this country? Usually intervention of a Government in regard .to matters of that kind arises when there is some peculiar local necessity. Here the minister admits frankly that there was no necessity. There is no reason why the individual farmer could not buy the grain in the Northwest just .as well as the Government could buy it. If my hon. friend were introducing some new kind of seed from some other part of the world I could understand the reason for the intervention, but upon what possible basis are we going to have, in perfectly

normal times, the Government turning aside and engaging in what is purely mercantile business?


Martin Burrell: I am glad my hon. friend thinks times are entirely normal, and that they do not justify action. The action we took is justified to this extent, that it has met with the most widespread gratification throughout the country affected, and even through the East, to such an extent that in Quebec Premier Sir Lomer Gouin was exceedingly anxious to avail himself cf this opportunity in his province because the farmers there were very ehort of good seed. Unfortunately, he applied a little too late, and the only way in. which I could help them out was to get the Purchasing Wheat Export Company to release some of the best of their grain in the Montreal elevators. The circumstances were not normal. In 1916, we had lost at least $100,000,000 worth of wheat by the wheat rust of the West. Western members, of course, know these facts. The result was that in at least thirty municipalities there was danger of the farmers not being able to get any good seed. It is true they could have secured it through private parties, but we thought the national situation was grave enough, with the absolute necessity of getting every ounce of production we could, for the Government to step in and, in this way through the expert officials of the department to secure, by purchase and resale, the very best class of seed that those people could have. With all due deference to my hon. friend I must say that, although it is not usually good policy for a government to go in and do these things, the conditions existing at that time justified the Government in stepping in and taking that action.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not yet told us whether the bills for the purchase of this grain are paid through the Finance Department or how they are paid. It would be a very objectionable matter if they were paid without reference to the official course through the Finance Department.


Martin Burrell: The matter is all arranged through the Finance Department.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood from the discussion that the minister was a little uncertain as to how the business was really done-where the money goes when it is paid in by the farmers or who keeps the accounts. I trust the minister understands how those matters are handled.


Martin Burrell: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the minister's policy for the future? Is it intended that there shall be a regular distribution each spring to the farmers of Canada, and will it be open in all the provinces for the farmers to come to the minister for their seed if they find that more convenient than buying in the usual way? If we are to understand that there was not an emergency, we want to know what is to happen next year, and what is to be done with the 50,000 bushels we have on hand.


Martin Burrell: I would not like to laydown, at this particular moment, what might be the policy for the future. So far it has been open to farmers of other provinces to avail themselves of this opportunity of buying seed grain. I have already explained that it was open last year, and a large amount of oats was shipped to the eastern provinces because those provinces were short of the best seed oats. The policy is sufficiently justified by its results to be continued, especially at a time like this when war is on and when the production of grain is of such vital importance. Anything that can help the farmers to get first-class seed grain at a moderate price in order to ensure a fuller crop would go a long way towards justifying the Government to do what they would probably not do under normal circumstances.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How does a farmer in an eastern province apply when he wants to purchase seed grain from the Government?


Martin Burrell: Last year notices were put in the press giving the particulars. The applications were made to the Seed Department, and we kept in touch with the Seed Purchasing Commission constantly as to what stores were on hand and what the transportation facilities were. Very full publicity was given . to the whole matteri


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think this item should go through. We are without information on nearly every point. To start with, we find a very abnormal condition of affairs in regard to the use of the Governor General's warrants.
There has been no explanation why the transaction was effected in that way, and I think the committee should have an explanation before we are asked to ratify it -it goes without saying that before we ratify an unusual proceeding we should know why it was done in an unusual way.

The minister says that we do not cast any reflections upon him. Of course we do not, but it does not necessarily follow, because we have every confidence in him personally, that everything in his management of public affairs was done in the best interests of the public. For instance, there was a most unfortunate condition of affairs in connection with the administration of the Seed Grain Act in former years. The Government, under the Minister of the Interior, set out to get the farmers seed grain at $1.50 a bushel. It was sent out to all the different villages and some of them refused it; they would not allow it into the settlement because it had so many weeds.


Mr. ROCHE:: That is not quite in accordance with the facts.


William Erskine Knowles: It is true in one case to my knowledge. There are whole districts out West in which the farmers hold up their hands in. distress because the homesteads on which they had worked so diligently are now full of dirty weeds. I do not blame the minister for that, but I am saying that we should have more information about these matters before we vote the money; otherwise, we might as well vote the money in blank. I may say that I never saw as poor a crop of oats as this year. I do not say it is the minister s fault.


Martin Burrell: The hon. member surely does not put that down to me?


William Erskine Knowles: It may be due to something else, but still it may be due to rotten seed. I think this item should stand for further information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The House is certainly entitled to information as to what the Government paid with the seed, what they received back, and what the cost of depreciation was. Was any profit made upon this transaction, or was any profit sought? What was the cost of organization? These are natural and reasonable questions to ask in connection with a transaction involving the expenditure of this large amount of money.


Martin Burrell: We. have not got all those details yet, as the whole thing has not been cleaned up. But I am in a position to say this: so far as the Government i? concerned, we have actually made a little on the transaction, not that we wanted to make anything out of it, but by virtue of the fact of purchase and sale and the differences in markets, we have repaid every
cent of the money and have a balance in hand at the present time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have asked the minister for information on certain points. Why does he not proceed to tell the committee on what basis these goods were bought and on what basis they were sold, and whether they were sold at a figure to cover the cost of purchase, cleaning and a profit besides?


Martin Burrell: They were sold at the cost of purchase, re-cleaning, bagging and shipping. No profit, of course, was made.


William Erskine Knowles: Evidently the minister does not agree to let the item stand. I think it is an unfortunate position to put us in. I do not think we should have to ask that the item stand. It is only reasonable that the Government should be willing to give an explanation of these matters, even without it being asked for. The fact of the minister not agreeing to my suggestion that we should have fuller information before passing this vote is not at all to his credit. He says there is nothing to suppress. I do not say there is, but let us have all this information. The session will not be over for some days, possibly weeks, and there is no reason in the world why we should not be given this information.


Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend has misstated me entirely. I have not the slightest objection to allowing the item to stand.


William Erskine Knowles: Do you not think it is a reasonable request?


Martin Burrell: I am not disputing it.
I have tried to give, and I think I have given, a fairly good explanation of the whole subject. As to giving all the details of the purchase and sale of this wheat, my hon. friend could not expect that information this afternoon, because I did not know this matter was coming up. I did not come here prepared with a lot of details, and my officers cannot be got. This subject could have been discussed pretty fully on my own Estimates when the seed vote was put through. I had a lot of information at that time, but I have not got it now, and I regret I am unable to get it. I have no. objection to allowing the item to stand. I am always ready to give the fullest information on this ot any other subject connected with my department. I do not care how much publicity we get; the more the better, as far as I am concerned.
Item stands.

Experimental Farms-Maintenance of Central Farm and establishment and maintenance of additional branch stations-further amount required, $40,000.


Martin Burrell: This vote is very largely in connection with the publications. We did not pnt a sufficient amount in the Main Estimates, as sufficient allowance was not made for the extension of the work this year. We have 300,000 names on our publication lists, and owing to the war and owing to the production campaign, which has been carried forward very vigorously this year, owing also to the decision -to issue -some special -and rather expensive bulletins in connection with wheat rust and one or two other matters,, we thought it advisable to put in this amount of $40,000, which we think will cover the expenditure.


Charles Murphy: Would the minister inform the committee generally as to the sale of products from the Central Experimental Farm and whether there is realized from the sale of the products of the farm each year a sum sufficient, or approximately sufficient to defray the expenses of the farm? There is some public curiosity on this point.


Martin Burrell: I do not know how the -sales of the farm will compare this year w-ith other years, but speaking generally, my bon. friend will understand that no experimental farm in the world could pay by the sale of its products for the operation of the farm, because these articles that are sold are only a sort' of by-product. The object of an experimental farm, of course, is not to grow stuff for the market, but to carry on perhaps five hundred different experiments out of which perhaps only one or two would be of any commercial profit at all. I am sorry I cannot give anything like an approximate estimate of what was sold at the farm, or as to what proportion it would bear towards the general expenditure of the farm, but- speaking offhand, it would be a very small percentage. The money goes, of course, to the Receiver General.


Charles Murphy: There is a good deal of stuff sold?


Martin Burrell: Oh yes. We have been experimenting, for instance, in the manufacture of certain types of cream cheese and things like that. In regard to cattle, the milk has to be used.


Charles Murphy: Fruit, in the same way?


Martin Burrell: Yes. I am sorry I cannot give the details.
[Mr. Burrell.1


John Howard Sinclair: What is the location of the additional branch stations that the minister proposes to establish?


Martin Burrell: We are not establishing them. This vote is very largely in connection with our publications, which we have enormously increased. This year we have issued something like 3,000,000 publications altogether. The publications vote is always a pretty heavy one.


John Howard Sinclair: The item is improperly placed in these Estimates then? There is nothing here about publications.


Martin Burrell: The whole vote goes in in that way. I am simply carrying out the practice that has always been followed. This vote covers all the operations of the farm, including publications and everything else. It is then subdivided in the Estimates and taken up more or less in detail. -


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister explain what has been the cause of the delay in the receipt of the usual blue-books of the Experimental Farm, which in other years have always been available early in the session? A large number of my constituents are very much interested in these reports, and, we only got them hbout a week ago.


Martin Burrell: That is for the last fiscal year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. It seems to me if the House had not been sitting we would not have had them at all for distribution among the members and consequently among our constituents.


Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend will have to stir up the Printing Bureau. We get our reports out as fast as we can and they are got out in fairly good time. I am afraid I will have to transfer some responsibility to the Printing Bureau. I will make an inquiry about it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are there -accounts kept in the Experimental Farms as -to the crop of different grains, how much per acre is grown and so on? Is that all given in the report?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And what becomes of it?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Mr. GLASS:: I would like to ask the minister if any satisfactory progress h-as been made in eoneetion with the flax experiments during this year?


Martin Burrell: We are not in a position to give any details yet. I may say, however, we are making satisfactory progress.


Samuel Francis Glass: I understood samples of flax for fibre have been grown on the different Experimental Farms throughout the Dominion and that samples had been sent to the Experimental Farm here, to be tested out?


William Erskine Knowles: I had never heard about the flax business before, and would like some information. For example, there is the problem of straw on the prairie farm. Recently there has been established at Moosejaw a plant which produces gas from straw revolutionizing the methods of heating- Inasmuch as the work of the Experimental farms is in the interest of the farmers, I have often thought it was unfortunate that the Government had not looked into this matter before. We have also the problem with regard to our flax straw. I presume that is why my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) speaks of. If the department have been experimenting along these lines we would like to know it.


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend full information about it. We have been doing a good deal of work during the last year. There was quite a discussion amongst the flax growers of the different provinces-it started in Ontario, I believe-partly on account of the seed, but largely on account of the straw. As to the fibre industry, a great many difficulties have had to be faced, because in this country they have never been able to solve the problem of dew retting. This has been done in Europe, and in Russia. It is an open-air process, and the installation of tanks for dew retting is expensive. Comparatively little work has been done. As a result of representations made by the Flax Growers' Association and others interested, we appointed a man about a year ago and attached him to the Experimental Farms with the idea that he should give his whole attention to flax. We started growing different varieties of flax seed on the Experimental Farms. We have also entered into contracts in a small way with some of the farmers to grow flax. We are establishing some machinery and tanks and intend to experiment with it. We hope to see what developments may be made in a profitable way and to make a report this fall. There are climatic conditions here which are not met with in Europe, and which may make
it more difficult for us. At the same time,
1 am convinced a great deal can be done.


Frank Oliver: Is the idea to utilize the fibre of the natural flax-to get both seed and fibre?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And, under present process, when the seed is mature, the fibre is not in a condition to be used?


Martin Burrell: I am not positive about that. I would not like to enter into a technical discussion of it.


William Erskine Knowles: Has the minister taken any interest in the question of using straw for the production of gas on the prairies?


Martin Burrell: We have not gone into it. It was done by the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister would find it worth his while to stop off and see it, any time he happens to be in Moosejaw. They have lately taken one of the professors from the Saskatchewan University, and he is giving all his time to it. The idea is, they draw the gases from the straw. This gas is used for lighting, heating and so on. If it can be worked out commercially, it would be worth a great deal of money.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: How successful are they?


William Erskine Knowles: The results are very satisfactory. It has never yet been put on the market, but the owners of the invention have it working very satisfactorily. A load of straw will go very far in heating and lighting a farm house.


William Roche: The by-products are sufficient to pay for the cost of manufacture.


William Erskine Knowles: They are able to run machinery and so on from one little retort. They have not had sufficient money so far to put the thing on a commercial basis. They have often expressed the wish to me that members of the provincial Government, and especially members of the Federal Government, should go and visit the place.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Have they tested out different kinds of straw?


William Erskine Knowles: I cannot say as to that. When I was there they were always using wheat straw.


Samuel Francis Glass: I understand some of the most valuable experiments in the utilization of cereal straws have been conducted

by the Research Department of the Canadian Pacific Railway, under the direction of Dr. Harrison Howe. Dr. Howe attended the Flax Growers' Convention, which was held in London on March 31 and April 1, and read a very interesting paper on the utilization of straws generally in industry. When this department was established by the Canadian Pacific he was instructed to direct his energies along the line of the utilization of cereal straw in industry generally, but particularly the use of flax straw. I understand that in the West they have succeeded in producing a linen paper of very superior quality, the fibre for which can toe produced from that straw on a commercially profitable basis. The idea is that pulp mills for the manufacture of this paper can be established throughout the West, and this pulp shipped to the mills to be manufactured into paper. I thought at one time, and I still think, that a department under such a capable firm as that of Little & Company, of Montreal, of whom Dr. Harrison Howe is chief, would facilitate matters and hurry along the experiments. We want to have the Department of Agriculture co-ordinated through efforts made by such men as Dr. Harrison Howe, and hasten the determination as to the ultimate success of the use of this straw.
My hon. friend will readily admit that if flax straw can be used in the manufacture of paper, and if it will produce a high-grade linen paper, surely it must produce a very much more valuable product for the country and one to which the department might give closer attention rather than directing their energies to. producing a fuel from the material. At the Flax Convention .in London it was .shown that Mr. Howard Fraleigh, as a result of the experiment which he has carried on in the district of Forest, Lambton county, has been able to grow a very superior quality of hemp. His experiment in growing hemp on an area of five acres was so eminently successful as to indicate that people living in similar districts can grow an equally high-grade quality of hemp. The use of some 500 acres in that district has been volunteered by owners for the purpose of being seeded to hemp to show what can be produced. Howard Fraleigh's crop of hemp was said to be as fine as has been grown in any part of the world. It was of a very superior quality. As a result of the meeting up there a very large acreage will be devoted to the cultivation of flax. Howard Fraleigh is said to be the best flax expert in Canada or on the continent of

North America. He has, toy his own enterprise, conducted a series of experiments in tank retting and he has achieved very good results. He told me that last year the flax crop in his district produced fitore to the value of $200 an acre which was certainly a very creditable production. That flax was grown for fibre alone. Generally it is understood that where they grow flax for fibre the seed is regarded as a toy-product. It does not amount to very much because they do not allow the flax to mature sufficiently to ripen the seed. But Mr. Fraleigh has been making these experiments and his success, I understand, is so well established that in so far as he is concerned the principle of dew retting has been entirely abandoned and he is confining himself on a large scale to tank retting. I think that a man of the enterprise .and energy of Harold Howard Fraleigh might have the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture and be assisted in carrying out experiments of this kind. It has taken him two or three years to find out what would be found out with a great deal more despatch if encouragement were given to those who are devoting their energies to this enterprise. I was going to suggest to the minister that in any report of the flax fibre industry generally that may be issued by the department-and I speak of the flax fibre industry generally because it will include sisal and other things-it would be very interesting if we had incorporated in that report the results of the experiments of the department of reasearch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because I think that in the Northwest Territories the experiments so far have produced results that are of enormous value to that western country. If we could .have a report of what Harrison Howe has produced in connection with the flax fibre industry incorporated in our report it would be very useful and probably very helpful to the farmers in the West.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Monday, August 20, 1917.