1917-02-06

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the 'Table bis recommendation and the Clerk's repprt respecting the promotion of Mr. A. C. Campbell, of the Hansard staff, and of Mr. Harry E. Oliver from committee reporting staff to the Hansard staff, and of the changes in grades thereby required under the Civil Service Act; also his recommendation and the Clerk's report in the matter of the appointment of Mr. D. L. Desaulniers, supervisor of the blue-book translation staff of the House of Commons, to the position of chief translator of the House of Commons; and also his recommendation and the Clerk's report in connection with the appointment of Mr. L. Boulet as chief of pages on the staff of the House of Commons.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on

the 3rd instant, relative to the yearly increase in salary to certain officers, clerks and employees of the House, pursuant to section 37 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, be approved.


Mr. MARCIL:: I ask the Prime Minister what the Government intends to do in respect to the sessional employees during the adjournment?
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: The subject has not been brought to my attention; I really could not answer my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: Would the hon. gentleman give the matter of these sessional employees Sfime consideration? He understands what I mean.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall ask his Honour the Speaker to take the matter into consideration, as this is a subject more particularly coming under his jurisdiction, and that of the Commission on Internal Economy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES:: I observe that in one of the morning papers I am credited with having mentioned the name of General Stanley Von Donop as as ordnance officer in connection with certain matters that I referred to last night. I neither directly nor indirectly mentioned General Von Donop; nor did I refer to him-I do not know how the name got into print.
I observe also that the hon. Solicitor General in his opening remarks yesterday- following, I assume, the lead of certain distinguished statesmen, who wish to balance one against the other and show that they are always taking a middle course- stated:
At the same time we are attacked by the exMinister of Militia because we authorized this substitution too soon.
I shall be pleased if the Solicitor General, who is not in his seat now, will show where I have attacked the Government on this matter. I was not aware that I attacked him. When I attack the Government, I will realize it, and I think they will too.
, WESTERN COAL MINING.
On the Orders of the Day:


Robert Laird Borden: With reference to an inquiry which was made yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) with regard to the strike in the
coal mines in Alberta and British Columbia: the information which has been received indicates that the men resumed work yesterday in all the mines except Coalhurst, and that they were to resume work in that mine to-day.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: Is the Prime Minister acquainted with the terms of settlement? 1 have been advised from Lethbridge that the coal strike has been settled on the basis of a war bonus of $1.75 per week per man from the middle of November last to the end of March, the Government to indemnify the operators for the bonus.


Robert Laird Borden: The terms of the settlement will be made known when the Minister of Labour returns; he is expected to arrive here to-morrow. In the meantime, I do not think it desirable that I should make any statement on the subject.



MONTREAL POSTMASTER.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I do not see the Postmaster-General in his seat, but I should like to ask the Government if it is their intention to appoint a postmaster in Montreal at an early date? I am told that the service there requires the appointment of a postmaster at the earliest possible moment.


Robert Laird Borden: The Postmaster General has not brought the matter to my attention. I shall direct his attention to what my hon. friend has represented.
156TII BATTALION-THE NOVA SCOTIA HIGHLAND BRIGADE.
On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. A. E. KEMP (Minister of Militia):: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) referred on Wednesday last to a matter concerning the 156th Battalion. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) referred on the same day to the matter of the Nova Scotia Highland Brigade. On Thursday a cable message was sent with regard to these matters to the Minister of the Canadian Overseas military forces. An answer was received on Sunday, and did not reach my desk on Monday until after I had left for the House. The answer is:
At an early stage instructions were given for absorption of 156th (Battalion into 109th Battalion, but subsequently in order to aid recruiting in district from which raised and in view of 5th Division being formed order was cancelled, battalion reconstituted and

allotted 5th Division. It was impossible to allot all battalions Nova Scotia Highland Brigade to fighting formations; 85th Battalion selected for service with Canadian corps, Prance; 185th posted to 5th Division; remaining two battalions absorbed into 17th Reserve Battalion Highlanders for purposes supplying reinforcements to 85th, 185th and other Nova Scotia battalions in the field.



THE CARE OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.

Robert Laird Borden: In pursuance of what -I said yesterday upon the motion of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), it is my purpose to-morrow to move as follows:
That a committee of nine members be appointed for the purpose of considering, inquiring into and reporting upon:
(a)	The reception, treatment, care, training and re-education of the wounded, disabled and convalescent who have served in the Canadian expeditionary forces;
(b)	The provision of employment for those who have been honourably discharged from the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and the training and re-education of those so discharged who are unable to engage in their former occupation.
Iu shall not make this motion to-day, hut I should be glad if the member for West Lambton would give consideration to its terms. I have asked my right hon. friend to name four gentleman on that side of the House who, with five whom I shall name, would constitute that committee.



FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF CONFEDERATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day;
Robert Laird Borden: I suggest to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that it is expedient to appoint a committee of nine to consider and report upon the arrangements which should be made for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of this dominion. It seems to me to be proper that a committee should take that subject into consideration; possibly it might be advisable that a committee of the Senate should also be appointed. I do not intend to suggest that there should be any expenditure of public moneys-certainly not any considerable expenditure- but in order that an appropriate form of celebration may.be adopted, it seems to me that a committee of the House might very well be appointed, if my right hon. friend has no objection.
So if my right hon. friend will be^ good enough to give me the names of four hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, I shall make the motion to-morrow.



DAVIDSON COMMISSION REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY:: I see that the
right hon. leader of the Opposition made inquiry in my absence as to the production of the report of Sir Charles Davidson, the Commissioner to inquire into war purchases. Last Tuesday there were laid on the table of the House three reports covering the submarine investigation, the sale of small arms ammunition, and allegations that unsuitable military cloths were furnished. There was also laid on the Table the entire evidence taken by the Commissioner with regard to the other matters to be reported upon. As the Commissioner explained in his introduction to the first of these reports, quite considerable delay was caused by vicissitudes in his health. I am glad to say that he has quite recovered, and my information is that he is continuously at work and that we may hope to have reports coming in now almost from day to day.



HON. DR. BELAND, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for
Bonaven.ture (Mr. Marcil) asked whether any efforts had been made to secure the release of a colleague, with whom I am sure we all most heartily sympathize, Dr. Beland, in connection with the release of Baron Von Polenz and Baron Mundhein. Baron Mund-hein has never been released; he is still in internment at Fort Henry. I understood my hon. friend to base his inquiry upon the statement of a newspaper in regard to Baron Mundhein.
With regard to Baron Von Polenz; at the time of his release conditions were such that the effecting of any exchange would have been absolutely impossible, and I believe that these conditions as regards individual exchanges have continued since. I think I may add, and this has already been practically recognized, that every endeavour this Government could make to bring about the release of Dr. Beland bas been made; and were there any further effort that could be made, certainly the Government would be glad to make it. At the time it would have been quite impossible to connect up the two things, and the case of Baron Von Polenz had to be dealt with on its own merits. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, T may add that every precaution was taken to satisfy absolutely the police authorities that the action taken in his case was one that could

be taken without in any way exposing the public safety.
THE 60th BATTALION.
On the Orders of the Day:


Samuel Hughes: I was not in a few moments ago- when the Minister of Militia made a statement regarding the disposition of some of the battalions in England. Was anything said concerning the 60th Battalion which w!as at the front fighting?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think there was
anything in this despatch regarding the 60th.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any data on the subject?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, but I can get it.


Samuel Hughes: I have received
several cablegrams that have been addressed to other people to ascertain why they have been taken out of the firing line, and some other battalions, I do not know what [DOT] they are, substituted for them. Would the minister look into the matter?



IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Some days ago I drew
the attention of the Prime Minister to hardships that were being experienced by Canadians returning from the United States through their children being detained at the border. I mentioned the case of the wife of a Canadian soldier who was visiting her father in Brooklyn, New York, and who arrived at the Canadian boundary with a child six months of age, but was refused admission to Canada because she had not a certificate of health for the child as required by the Interior Department. The objection I saw Iwas that instead , of returning the mother to a distant point in the United States some arrangement might have been made by which the child might have been examined at the border. This occurred at MacAdam Junction. When the case was drawn to my attention I laid it before the Prime Minister who said he would submit it to the Minister of the Interior. Would the minister explain how the matter stands and if anything has been done to relax the rule first adopted in regard to this matter?


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior) :: In reading the hon. gentleman's
remarks in Hansard I gathered the opinion that the was undetr the impression that this was a medical examination enforced against immigrants coming into Canada. That is not the case. The hon. gentleman will remember that last fall there was a very severe epidemic of infantile paralysis particularly in the city and state of New York, which spread to the other neighbouring states, and spme of the United States municipalities had actually an embargo against their city of New York. For the protection of our children in Canada it was considered necessary to have an embargo placed against those -states in which infantile paralysis was epidemic, we therefore insisted upon any person coming into Canada with children having a certificate from a medical doctor that the children had not 'been exposed to any case of infantile paralysis within thirty days. The transportation Companies were informed as to this requirement, so that any person purchasing tickets to Canada was or should have been informed by the ticket agent as to the necessity of providing certificates of this kind. My hon. friend will see that it would be of no use to have Canadian medical mem at the boundary to give such certificates. I may say, however, that this embargo has been removed by reason of the suppression of the infantile paralysis epidemic.



WAR LOAN-$500,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Bordem (Prime Minister) Bill No. 24, for granting to His Majesty aid for military and naval defence was read for the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr Rainville in the Chair.
Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Naipierville) (translation):: Mr. Speaker,
before this Bill is passed, I wish to enter once more -my protest against this policy which is ruining the people of this country.
I may state, that il am not at variance with the ends pursued by the Allies, but solely with the manner in which this war is managed by the Government.
Hon. gentlemen possibly may enquire whether I am alone holding such views. In answer, I might quote from some London papers, -statements to the effect that Great Britain, during the year 1915, would never ask for 150,000 men from Canada, realizing that such a sacrifice would be too heavy for us; and, in those papers, it was further stated that Canadians working in the fields

were helping the Allies' cause as much as those who were fighting in the trenches'.
Furthermore;, Mr. Speaker, .quite recently a French lieutenant, after spending twenty-eight months in the trenches, haying returned to Canada, on leave, to recuperate, made the following statement:
" On learning that Canada was to send forward 33,000 men, we said to ourselves: what a noble deed? When, later on, we were informed that a second contingent was to he sent overseas, we considered it as a sublime act of patriotism. When, still later on, in January, 1916, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that he would send
500,000	men, we exclaimed: That is madness ! "
Now,* Mr. Speaker, such being the case, it seems to .me that Canada having .sent to the front 50,000, 75,000, or even 100,000 men at $1.10 per day, might have -stopped and taken up the manufacturing of munitions, though not for the exclusive benefit of the friends of the Government, but in every Canadian centre; and moreover might have utilized Government works for the manufacturing of munitions at cost price, or at a nominal advance of 10 or 15 per cent, whereas it is found that scandalous profits of 400 and 900 per cent have been secured thereon by friends of the Government.
I repeat it, the Government might well *have made use of their own plants to turn out war munitions, and supply work to all comers for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the Allies. What happened since this war has broken out? What was the slogan of Lloyd George, the present Prime Minister, when addressing the House of Commons a short time ago? Munitions, munitions, munitions! In fact, this wax is nothing else but a war of munitions and guns. So much so, that Great Britain, after sending men over to France to fight in the trenches, recalled home a number of them to turn out munitions instead. Such being the case, I afh not at all certain, as a business man and a merchant, and also as the head of a family who has provided for his children by holding the plough, I am not at all certain, I say, whether this Government is doing the right thing towards the people of this country, by sending over to France and Flanders, to wage war, Canadian boys at $1.10 a day, when Great Britain has as many recruits as she is able to send over at one shilling a day. In the meantime, Great Britain is bound to keep at home a fairly large number of men physically fit, for the purpose of turning out munitions. Once more, may I inquire why

Canada should commit the egregious mistake of sending her men overseas, instead of keeping them .here to turn out munitions for the Allies, who are so much in. need of them.
Mr. Speaker, I stated last year in this House and throughout my constituency whenever an opportunity offered, that if it could be shown that by means of 200,000 men drafted from Canada, we might win the war, I would not dbject to our making such a sacrifice. But, considering that Russia, with a man power of twenty-five or thirty million men, has not enough rifles or munitions to equip one third of that num

ber, while here in Canada we are in need of all onr people, I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is high time to put a stop to this- sending of troops overseas. We have thinned our ranks to quite a sufficient extent; we have sent over rifles, though they are not any too good, if we are to judge from the statements made in this House for a few days past.
There must have been something in the wind last year, when the right hon. .Prime Minister shot his bolt about sending 500,000 -men. It is not my intention to cast any aspersions on him, 'but if we are to judge from the speeches which have been delivered on the Address, it is -quite credible that its intent was to enable some fanatics, such as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), to impugn the province of Quebec and assert that she is not living up to her obligations. Mr. Speaker, it is claimed that the province of Quebec it not fulfilling its duty. What happened when the war broke cut? Frenchmen answered their country's call; so did the Belgians. Should not . Englishmen who have been here for one, five, or even fifteen years, have answered as well the call of their Mother Country? Such was not the case, however. A number of them enlisted in the .Canadian army at $1.10 per day, because the pay was higher with us than at home, and they are welcome to it. The province of Quebec has not received .many immigrants from the British Isles; the greater pant of these have gone to Ontario and the West. Is it not a matter of course that these people being newcomers in Canada, should answer their country's call, as recruits either for the British or the Canadian contingents? These late arrivals reading in the newspapers that the Huns had thrown bombs on British unfortified cities, were impelled to enlist with the object of defending their relatives at home.	.
As regards enlisting in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, comparisons be-

tween these two provinces are not in order, for the reasons I have stated. If reports in the press are to be credited, Ontario claims
110,000	British born, out of a total of 152,000 enlistments. How many are there in the province of Quebec? I cannot say, but there should not be many of them, British immigrants having kept aloof of our province.
Moreover, I say that this vexed question as regards- enlistments, which is being constantly thrown in our faces, with the object of showing that the province of Quebec Is disloyal, is very despicable business. It should not be brought up in this House, and- the right -hon. the Prime Minister should refuse to countenance any attempt of that kind.
-Now, I shall take up another point. I was surprised: to hear the hon. Minister of Finance, in his speech of January 30 last, refer to the country's prosperity, to the fabulous figures our exports have reached to, an cl in a general to the prosperous state of business. Qf course, I have not been trained to -speech-making, neither have I presided- over trusts; I -am only a -farmer and a merchant. However, -I am aware that when a town corporation or a school board in the .province of Quebec make up their -minds to borrow $1,500 or $2,000, they are called upon to refund the amount within twelve months, or even within thirty or ninety -days. Now, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance at whose request the House voted 800 millions for 1917-18, would be in a position to refund that amount within ninety days, as the aforesaid corporations do. I believe that the people of this -country, who are being deceived day in and day -out -by the government organs, would consider tha-t the war -comes high, should the Minister of Finance some -day come out with some, such statement: We are in need of 800 millions, and the loan will -have to -be refunded within ninety days. In the province of Quebec, families with ten or twelve children -are no exception, and they have to be provided for in -any ca-se. I wonder whether the people would take -stock in any -statement made by the minister or his -colleagues, a-s regards the prosperity of the country, if the head of a family, with ten or twelve children to provide for, were called upon to contribute $1,400. How could the people of this country foot the bill? There would not be found 25 per -cent in -a position tc liberate themselves-. The ministers hailing from the province of Quebec went through that province last year and attempted to make the people believe that we
were actually prosperous, though it is known that it is all the outcome of the manufacturing of shells and gun-s, with the object of making -fo-dder for guns, -as the ministers themselves asserted in 1910. So I say that we should not rely on that prosperity, which is only fictitious, and will be a source of disappointment, once the war is over.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I wish to -call your -attention to a question which i-s being mooted: I mean conscription. La Patrie, of Montreal, suggested yesterday that it might be enacted very soon. Whatever will be the outcome of it, Mr. Speaker,. I wish to state right here that I a-m not in favour of conscription, not any more than I am in favour of sending men overseas. I repeat it, if the Government had at heart the interests of the people, the Prime Minister, previous to embarking for Europe, would- state in this House that recruiting will stop at once, in order to enable the youths of Ontario to remain in that province, and the young men an other parts of Canada to remain also where they -are, including those from St. Rose, in the county of Dorchester, who were called upon to -cross the -boundary, -should ever conscription be enacted. Of -co-ur.se, should the United States enter the war, these people might be induced to return home.' So I say that it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to state that -conscription will not become law, and that voluntary enlistments will .continue to -be the rule. We should keep oair own in the country, to raise crops of -all kind-s, and to turn out butter, cheese -and all the foodstuffs required for the provisioning of the Allies.
Mr. -Speaker, I -shall not -delay the House any longer, reserving my right to take up the subject anew when the budget comes under dicussion.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the House must regret, in view of the adjournment to-morrow, that the Government in introducing this measure, which in its general nature has the support of the House in its entirety, has not seen fit to give some information to those who are particularly interested in Ithe welfare of the boys overseas as to the 'statements made in the report of Dr. Bruce, and in the report of Dr. Baptie and his colleagues with reference to the statements of Dr. Bruce. In the press of the country there have appeared from time to time excerpts from these reports, and certain statements have been made of a nature to excite the

public mind with reference to them; but, so far as the House is concerned, we have not received any information whatever. It is true that an order of the House was passed for the laying on the Table of both these reports, but, so far, that order has not been complied with. I submit that there is no valid reason why it should not have been complied with, because I have no doubt whatever that these reports were contained in printed documents which were in the hands of the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Militia, and could have been placed upon the table of the House without any difficulty whatever. It would be in the public interest to know exactly what the statements were, and to know what the real situation is in regard to this very important matter. I hope that before we adjourn to-morrow, the Government will, for the satisfaction of those who are intensely interested in this matter, give the House and the country the exact reports as they have come to them from the different bodies that have been making these investigations.
If one is to judge from the newspaper reports in regard to these matters, Dr. Bruce, about whose standing there is absolutely no question, was appointed by the Government for the purpose of making an examination into the medical conditions which existed on the other side. As I have said, about his standing and ability there can be no question. In these newspaper reports we find it stated that there was no medical inspection of Canadian soldiers in the military hospitals in England by the Canadian Medical Service, that there was no efficient medical inspection of any kind made of our men in the Canadian hospitals, previous to the time when Dr. Bruce took up his duties and made his report. If that statement is correct, it seems to me that a very grave state of affairs indeed is disclosed. We have there the men who have been wounded in France, taken to England, and distributed among the various hospitals all over Great Britain, and yet we are told that they were under no supervision or inspection by the medical men who went over from Canada. Dr. Bruce is authority for the statement that no inspection whatever by any recognized Canadian medical officers was made of those men of ours who were in the military hospitals, and that no efficient inspection of any kind was made by our men of those who were in the Canadian hospitals. As has been pointed out in the newspaper reports, the consequence has been that soldiers have 
been retained in hospitals who should have returned to duty, thus disclosing gross neglect in the whole matter. The newspapers state that men were retained who should have been returned to duty; and that a great many others should have been returned to ' Canada where they could have been more economically treated. What is the answer to this? Is the House and the country not to know whether or not these statements are true? My hon friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) went to Toronto shortly before his resignation, and was reported in the Toronto press as having stated that our Canadian soldiers were allowed to come under the knife of first year medical men in charge of the hospitals in England, when qualified doctors were available.


Samuel Hughes: I never said first year medical men; if I did I meant first year doctors after they had graduated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume that my hon. friend will refer to this matter. I am merely quoting from an extract in a Toronto paper.


Samuel Hughes: I never read it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It gives his address in Toronto.


Samuel Hughes: I never heard of the statement before.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am simply taking it from the report in the Toronto newspaper.


An hon. MEMBER:: What paper?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Toronto Mail.


An hon. MEMBER:: Of what date?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend can satisfy his curiosity by looking it up in the library.


Samuel Hughes: I am not finding any fault with the hon. member. I may have used the words which he quotes; I will not say that I did not use them, but what was in my mind, and what we objected to, was that first year doctors, not students, should have been put in charge of these hospitals.


Robert Laird Borden: First year after graduation?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, some of them within six weeks of graduation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what^this report states that my hon. friend said, first year medical men."


Sir   S@: You said first year students before that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not call them students; I read to the House what my hon. friend was reported to have said.


Samuel Hughes: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What the country
is particularly interested in is not what my hon. friend was unable to accomplish in regard to this matter, but whether or not the condition of affairs reported by Dr. Bruce existed in England. That is a matter which I assume my hon. friend can discuss.
This report also discloses the very important fact that many soldiers had been sent to England who were unfit and who should not have been enlisted at all. That statement implies a lack of care and of proper management on the part of the medical service of the Militia Department. If large numbers of men were enlisted and sent to England without proper examination, to become a charge upon the country, it will be agreed that it is another very improper condition of affairs. It is stated dn that report that in every battalion which arrived in England it was found after medical inspection that from five to fifteen per cent of the men -were medically unfit. An instance is given of a particular battalion, the Canadian Pioneer draft, which had 57 unfit men out of 254 which constituted the whole draft of officers and men.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the
statement?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement is that the Canadian Pioneer draft, composed of 254 officers and men, had 57 men who were medically unfit for duty, and were pronounced to be unfit when they reached the other side.


Robert Laird Borden: What date is that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is in the report of Dr. Bruce.


Robert Laird Borden: At what date?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 

that it will cost $4,000,000 inclusive of all the other charges which go to make up the account. There are allegations made in regard to the question of sending men to what are known as V. A. D., or Voluntary Aid Detachment, hospitals. I think that some very worthy people raise the point that a great Imperial issue is at stake and that our Canadian boys should be practically compelled to go to the V. A. D. hospitals in order that their faith in the Empire may not he impaired. To say that the Imperial spirit of these poor Canadian boys will be impaired unless they are associated with and lie beside boys from other parts of the Dominion seems to me to he the veriest twaddle.


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has called attention to what is suggested in certain reports that are not yet before the House in their entirety, and are only known in so far as their contents have been published in the press. I may say that the printing is being expedited as much as possible. We cabled to Great Britain to ascertain whether any printed copies of the Bruce report were available, and we are informed that forty copies have been mailed. The other report, as I have said, is being printed with all possible expedition. I do not purpose entering into a discussion of the reports before they are on the table of the House and can be examined in their entirety, but some of the suggestions made by my hon. friend are worthy of a moment's attention.
With regard to the lack of inspection of Canadians in Imperial hospitals, I am not qualified to speak from a medical standpoint nor as having any special experience in such matters; but I suppose that the inspection of Canadians in such hospitals would be left to the Imperial authorities, just as the inspection of Imperial soldiers in Canadian hospitals would doubtless be left to the Canadian medical authorities who have control of such hospitals.
My hon. friend has spoken as if the medical service overseas, whether in British hospitals or in Canadian hospitals, was of a very inferior character.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quoted Dr. Bruce's report.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is most undesirable to spread an impression of that kind amongst the people of this country. I visited forty-three hospitals,

Canadian and British, last year, and I did not see one of them that, so far as I could judge, was not well organized and well carried on, I saw the Canadian hospitals in England; I saw a very large number of British hospitals, and I found the medical men and others in charge of those hospitals keenly alive to their responsibilities and anxious to do everything possible for the comfort of the men under their care.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Dr. Bruce does not say so.


Robert Laird Borden: ahead at the end of the day. I was told that a large number of lumbermen in one of the battalions were being rejected for the reason that they had flat feet. It seems to me that it would be desirable to try these men out, and see whether in endurance upon the inarch they would not be quite as capable as others who in this respect would be accepted for enlistment. The memorandum which my hon. friend asked for some time ago as to the unfit enlisted for overseas service has been placed in my hands, by the Deputy Minister of Militia and is:
The records of the department show that the following were returned to Canada during the years 1915 and 1916 as being medically unfit: 2,701 in the year 1915; 3,651 in the year 1916.
These figures, of course, include a number who left Canada fit, but who contracted disease during their training in England. The figures for 1915 also include any wounded returned that year.
The balance of those not found fit for service at the front, such as those with slight defects, over age, etc., are being retained for light duty in England, and it is also understood that two Construction Battalions have been organized from these men.
As to the cost, it will not be possible to state the cost with any degree of accuracy without taking up each individual case, owing to the varying periods of service and the various ranks held, and this would take months to furnish.
The estimated cost per man in the Canadian Expeditionary Force is $1,000 a year.
My hon. friend asked also with regard to No. 7 Hospital and No. 8 Hospital. No.
7 Hospital is at Le Treport, in France. I do not remember the exact complaint made with regard to Le Treport Hospital. I visited that hospital last year on my way from Paris to Folkestone. I spent the greater part of a day there, and, as far as I could judge, the hospital seemed to be well organized. Has my hon. friend any particular information as to its defects?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many cots are there in that hospital?


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not remember the number of cots; it is a very large hospital. In fact, there are two hospitals there. One is a British hospital, which is located in a very large hotel overlooking the sea and which was built, I wai * n formed, by a German syndicate a year or two before the war. Shortly after the war broke out it was expropriated by the French Government and placed at the disposal of the British authorities. It is a very large and well-equipped hospital. The Canadian hospital was located in tents and huts im-

mediately adjoining. There were a large number of patients in the hospital when 1 was there, and a large staff of nurses was employed. The hospital was under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Bridges who was attached to the Canadian Permanent Force.


Samuel Hughes: That was near Dieppe?


Robert Laird Borden: At Treport. I recollect that when I first went to France there was a gathering of the officers of all the Canadian hospitals in that vicinity, officers from the staffs of five Canadian hospitals, including the hospital at Treport; and there was present, also, the chief medical officer in the British "service who had jurisdiction over the district in which these hospitals were situated. The highest possible compliment was paid to the organization of the Canadian hospitals by that officer in speaking at a dinner which was given by Lieutenant Colonel Murray McLaren and the officers under his command.
No. 8 hospital is at St. Cloud, near Paris, France.
The number of beds laid down for general hospitals is 1,040, with an establishment of 46 officers, 73 nursing sisters, and 201 n.c.o.'s and men.
It, however, frequently happens that after an hospital has been located, the accommodation is from time to time increased, and as a consequence, the staff. There is no information available in Canada as to the present standing in this respect of the hospital at Treport. If particular information is required it will have to be obtained from overseas.
No. 7 is at present used for the accommodation of casualties of the British Expeditionary Forces.
No. 8 was offered by the Canadian Government to the French Government, as a complimentary contribution towards the cost of France's share of the war, to be used for the accommodation of French casualties, but it remains under Canadian control.
Both these hospitals are doing exceedingly good work.
I asked Colonel Mignault, who had to do with the establishment of No. 8 hospital, to give a statement with regard to it some time ago, and I might read one or two quotations from a letter which he has written to me on this subject. He said:

No. 8 Canadian Hospital was sent to France on the 23rd of November, 1915. It took the months of December, January and February to erect it, on the Racing Course at 'St. Cloud, property of Mr. Blanc. It is built with barracks which were furnished by the French army at a cost of 250,000 fr., but put up by our own men.
On the 1st of March, 1916, the hospital was ready to receive patients, and on the 17th of the same month, the first trainload of wounded from Verdun reached us, and then the hospital was filled up rapidly. It -has a capacity of five hundred and twenty (520)
heds.	..	.
Hospitals in France are divided into three categories, namely A, B, and C, according to the importance and seriousness of cases. Thus, Class A stands for "Les grands blessOs"; Class B for "Les blessds moyens," and Class C
for "Des petits blessds. '
Three hospitals are classified m Paris in Class A. One is the Val de Grace Hospital in Paris (1,000 beds). The second is the American Hospital (600 beds), which is kept up by the generosity of individuals of the great Republic. The third one is the St. Cloud Hospital, No. 8 Canadian General.
So this stands among the three chief hospitals of Paris at the present time, according to the report given to me by Colonel Mignault. Colonel Mignault continues in his 'letter:
The above-named three hospitals are the only ones classified in Class A, that is to say, they are SO thoroughly equipped with surgical appl -ances, etc., as to be able to take care of all cases, whatever may be their severity or their importance.
With regard to segregation or otherwise of the Canadian wounded, I do not think that there ought to be a policy for segregation or a policy against it. I think that these matters must be determined according to the military exigencies. There is a great deal to toe said in favour of Canadians toeing among their own people and living under the care of Canadian nuTses. On the other hand, I think there is much to be said for that fellowship and _ comradeship which comes from the association of men from this Dominion with, men from the Old Country and from the other Dominions in hospitals and convalescent homes. I saw Canadians in our own hospitals; I saw them in British hospitals in many parts of the country; but I never .found any complaint whatever from any Canadian or from any soldier in any hospital with respect to the care and attention which he was receiving, and I have heard no complaint from any Canadian who was in a British hospital as to his desire to 'be placed elsewhere. It may toe that some of them would like to be more among their own people. That is quite possible, because I know they were very glad indeed to see
the face and hear the voice of some one from home.
With regard to what my hon. friend has said respecting Witley Camp, the statements which he has made come to me for the first time. If he will give me further particulars I ehall make it my business to inquire and to see that any such condition is remedied.


Samuel Hughes: What is that point?


Robert Laird Borden: He said that although a Canadian officer at Witley Camp desired that the canteen should be closed for the welfare of his men, the British contractor, who had some authority from the War Office, disregarded his wishes and insisted upon keeping the canteen open. I think the desire ot a Canadian officer in respect of such a matter ought to be respected, and I shall be very glad to take the matter up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall very gladly
give to the Prime Minister the name of the officer who gives me that information, but if my right hon. friend thinks that the whole question is whether the wish or will of that particular officer who was the orderly officer of the day should be respected is the issue involved in that question he is much mistaken. I fail to see for one moment what possible right the British Government has to lease to any contractor over there the right to sell whisky and rum to Canadian soldiers in a Canadian camp, or to do anything else in a Canadian camp. That is the question involved, and in that regard the problem is very much larger than the mere question of whether the orderly officer of the day is to have his authority flouted and disregarded by a man who happens to be a contractor.
My right hon. friend suggests that there should be no discussion of the Bruce and Baptie reports until the reports come down.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
that. I said we could discuss it more effectively.	[DOT]


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let us see what the facts in this matter are. This examination of Dr. Bruce's into the Canadian hospitals, according to the information which has unquestionably come from governmental sources, was inaugurated by the ex-Minister of Militia, and the report of Dr. Bruce was made to the ex-minister previous to his retirement.


Samuel Hughes: Made to the then
Minister of Militia.
%


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is technical, I will accept that. This was made to the Minister of Militia, not in England or the acting Overseas Minister of Militia in England; it was made to Major General Sir Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia of the Dominion of Canada, before he resigned last fall. Now for what reason or purpose does my right hon. friend come here and, in the month of February, 1917, and as an excuse for not presenting that departmental report to the House, say that he is waiting until he receives some copies of the report from England? And then he undertakes to intimate to me that it is most undesirable for me to discuss this question, when that report must be in the possession of this Government, must be here in Ottawa, and must have been here for some time.
My right hon. friend, having had before him a report which he does not bring to Parliament, introduced a commission presided over by Sir William Baptie which goes out and examines this report of Dr. Bruce's. Again I assume that the report of Sir William Baptie with re erence to the statements made by Dr. Bruce is in the possession of the Government. And yet my right hon. friend intimates that it is undesirable that we should discuss it in this House. How long are we to wait before these reports are brought down? It seems to me that we are the last people on earth 'before whom this Government desires to place anything. Statements are given out to the press, but nothing is given to Parliament, and we are told it is not desirable to discuss these things in Parliament. It is said to be undesirable to open one's mouth in regard to the interests of the boys overseas. That seems to me a most remarkable position to take. There are many people in this country who hiave no kith or kin at the front, who are very good at lecturing people who say a word on behalf of the boys who have gone overseas. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose to take lecturing from people of that sort. The men who have gone overseas look to us as representatives of the constituencies in Parliament to ascertain the facts in regard to conditions overseas. Mhat is the good of my right hon. friend saying that a certain number of K.C.M.G.'s sat on a commission to consider Dr. Bruce's report? We know that Dr. Bruce is a Canadian surgeon of high standing, that no one would venture to impute anything against him. That being so, he having made two or three charges in regard to the administration of the hospitals of this Canadian Gov-

ernment overseas, the representatives of the people, speaking for the boys who have gone overseas, I submit have a right to discuss this question before Parliament. It is our duty to find out what these reports were and what the truth was. My right hon. friend has not told us just where we stand in regard to this matter. What answer is it to give to the mothers and fathers of the boys who have gone overseas to say that a gentleman with K.C.M.G. tacked to his name has sat on a committee land made a report that we have not yet had placed before us in Parliament? That is where we are in regard to this question.
I submit that this House is entitled to some expression of opinion by the responsible Government of this country as to whether or not they regard the statements of Dr. Bruce's report as having been true, and whether or not they regard the statements of Sir William Baptie's report as true. That is the situation in regard to the men overseas, and that is what I want to know.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: The matter of the canteen has come up. When the Canadian division went to England first, in the fall of 1914, I crossed over, and, in my innocence under the British military law and under the Canadian military law, I thought that I had some say still in the affairs of our troops. I was politely informed that I had nothing whatever to do with the canteen or rationing or feeding of the men, that General Alderson had let that to certain English contractors, and that Canada had no right to interfere, as it w.as outside our military .sphere, that the contracts had been let to some company not only for the Canadians, but for the forces in England, and that .contracts could not 'be interfered with. I protested against it. We had learned at Valcartier that as much as $33,000 in one case had been made by one of the contractors in a period of six weeks, and there were upwards of one hundred of these gentlemen. It was the first time that we learned that so much money was being distributed. We set to work to run the canteens under regimental boards, and the result was a saving of upwards of $1,000 a month. There is a regimental fund, money belonging, to the men themselves for their own distribution and maintenance. I wanted this plan carried out.


Charles Marcil: Did they not try to institute a dry canteen over in England?


Samuel Hughes: I will come to that in a minute. I tried to institute a dry canteen, and I was informed in a gentlemanly way that I had no jurisdiction. General Alderson told the men with a great hurrah and bravado in the only speech he ever made except when he read to them a little book which he once published about how not to do things


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who was that?


Samuel Hughes: General Alderson. He told them he was going to make them free men and, as a slap at the Minister of Militia in Canada, he said he was going to give them a wet canteen.


Charles Marcil: Is it not the fact that liquor is given to the men every day in the trenches? I have heard objection made in Montreal by parents who would not allow their sons to go over there because they were afraid that they would get into the . habit of taking liquor which they had not been in the habit of taking before they went away.


Samuel Hughes: In the trenches, when men are standing up to their waists in water, they get a little rum, not as a beverage, but as a stimulant; and, although I may be regarded as a fairly temperate man, I certainly would not object to any officer, non-commissioned officer, or man getting his tot of rum, as they call it, when he is standing up to the waist in water in the trenches.


Charles Marcil: Is this done at all times, or only when they are about to go into action?


Samuel Hughes: I am not discussing that question.


Charles Marcil: I am merely asking for information.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's (Mr. Marcil) remarks might be misconstrued. I have never heard that the rum is given to the men when they are going into action. What I have heard is that when men are exhausted, and wet and cold, a very small proportion of rum is given to them merely as a stimulant, for the time being, to prevent unfortunate results from cold and wet. As to rum being given to men going into action, that is something I have never heard of, and I do not believe it for one moment.


Charles Marcil: I understand that it is the practice to give the men a little liquor in the trenches-


Samuel Hughes: In South Africa
where the climate is very hot, we had rum issued to us, but we never used it except when going into some hazardous exercise. I have no hesitation in saying that when the boys wanted it they could get it. If I were running the show to-day, I would say that when men are standing in the trenches up to their waists in water-and I think I can claim to be as practical a temperance man as there is in Canada-I would have no objection to them having their tot of rum. I regard it, under these conditions, as a medicine and npt as a beverage. This extraordinary piffle about rum being handed out in the trenches, and all that sort of thing, comes from people who do not understand what they are talking about, and who are simply trying to create an agitation in that regard. I take second place to no man in Canada in supporting the cause of temperance, but I do not like any of this piffle served up when the boys are fighting and dying in the trenches.
Another question which has come up is the question of fallen instep. There are three grades of fallen instep, as I am told by medical men. In the third grade the men are really unfit, and I do not think there are many of that class sent over. There was one fellow who came into Edmonton and was rejected. He wrote to me, and I had a doctor examine him. He had walked from Peace River to Edmonton, and yet he was rejected as unfit. However, I sent him ovier, and he was rejected over there. He told them that I had sent him, and I arranged that he should go to the front. He went into the trenches, and is one of the best marchers to be found anywhere. Any man accustomed to wearing moccasins is certain to suffer from fallen instep. Nearly all the woodmen are in the habit of wearing moccasins and they often suffer from a fallen instep. I think that the medical regulations should have been relaxed a little in that respect, and I did relax them in the case of two or three who were in the first and second stages of fallen instep, but in The third stage a man cannot march very far.
Then there is the question of segregation, which has been referred to by the Prime Minister. I think that if he reads Dr. Bruce's report the right hon. gentleman will see that he himself agrees exactly with Dr. Bruce. I have not read the rfiport, but Dr. Bruce talked over the matter with me and bis views and those of the Prime Minister are exactly the same. I look at the matter purely from a business point of view.

I could never see why our men should be hauled from say Folkestone to the north of Scotland, when we have hospitals of the right class near Folkestone where they cou'd get better service and where 340 or $50 could be saved in each case over sending them to other places. Nox could I see why our men should be .sent to the V.A.D. hospitals. These hospitals axe presided over by the most charming women in tire world; I am not saying a word against them-such nice little girls with five or six weeks' training in 'some St. John's Ambulance affair or something of that kind - s helpers; the dearest little creatures in the world for smoothing brows and holding hands,-but J did object to Canadian soldiers being sent there, and to paying three shillings a day to keep our boys when we had our own highly skilled nurses. The hands of our skilled nurses might be a little rougher, and not so smooth on the brow, but I wanted our boys to get the attendance which could be given by our own nurses who had had >at least three years of experience itn our hospitals. That is what Dt. Bruce objected to, and that is what I object to. He also objected to having our men kept there when they should -be in the trenches. There was one of these V. A. D. hospitals that had a baseball team as you will find it mentioned in the report 'and the men were kept playing baseball when they should have been in the trenches. When Dr. Bruce w.as examining these hospitals- Colonel Jones, or General Jones, managed to rake up in a very small circle around London, 700 men, and shoved them back into convalescent camps immediately. In 1915 when I was over there and when the Prime Minister was over there, I inspected a battalion at Sbormcliffe one day. They had -only about 200 men. I asked for the parade state, and it showed that there were about 1,200 men. I wanted to know where they were, and I was told that so many were convalescent-, and so many were here, and so many were there. I said, "What are these convalescents doing here, they should not he here." I said that we wanted no men in the battalion except fit men, and so I ordered that the convalescents should be kept all in one place by themselves, and not mixed up with the rest of the camp, the plan being to have them in one camp and divided into six or seven classes, those just out of the hospital, those convalescing, and so on in the various stages up to the last class which would be fit to go back to their battalion and take their places in 
the trenches. That was the plan which we arranged and carried out until the new overseas minister sent them back, I understand ; and now they are rambling all around England. We had hundreds and hundreds of men rambling around England. We were returning from 8 to 10 per cent of our men. while the British regulars were returning about 60 per cent and Kitchener's mein were returning about 30 per cent until I arranged that convalescent plan. Then in the similar periods we returned 60 per cent. I am not reflecting on General Jones-I want to let him out-but if this agitation is going to be carried on by the V. A. D. people, fourth grade society dames in London, the facts are going to come out. I do not want to hurt General Jones; I have stuck to him as far as I can.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the ex-minister read the letter written by Lady Drummond on that subject?


Samuel Hughes: Lady Drummond
sent me several letters. I am not aware that Lady Drummond or any other society lady wias authorized to run our hospitals'. There was also Sir William Osier; he wrote several letters. The dear creatures who hang around the outskirts of society in England wrote a great many letters, and interfered, but I was not aware that it was any of their business. I thought that Canada should manage her own affairs. All the agitation has come from these hand-holders and brow-rubbers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about Genera1 Jones?


Samuel Hughes: When I got to England in 1915, and knowing that the Prime Minister was desirous of visiting the hospitals, I got General Jones to furnish for him a 'list of the hospitals where the boys who had been wounded at St. Julien were placed. It took three weeks to get the list, but I got it and gave it to the Prime Minister. It stated that there were about 200 of the boys at Cardiff. On the way there I happened to get off at Oxford to have a look around, and I found fifteen or sixteen men there. I met one boy who had just the day before passed the " cannot recover " stage, and he said that as soon as he was well again !he was going hack to the trenches. I said, " You will he of no use in the trenches," He said, " I cannot'get cold feet because I have only one foot to get cold." I have seen him since tripping along with a cork leg, about as good looking a boy as

there ie in the country. At Cheltenham, I found a Canadian nurse and a number of Canadians in the hospital there. The name of not one of them was on the list of General Jonee. At Cardiff, I found that there were three Canadians in the hospital, whereas 200 were reported on the list. At Aberystwyth I found a number not reported, and I saw that by following Jonee' .report I would not get 'anything, 'and I paid no further attention to it. I was looking ait the matter from the business end, and the convalescent system .that I established in 1915 during the first year saved1 Canada $6,000,000, by restoring men, to the fighting line who otherwise would have been lying in hospitals in England holding hands and having their brows smoothed as I have pointed out. The very first day on which I let Dr. Bruce loose in England, 700 men were picked up and sent back, and every week they kept going back. There was no system of getting reports about these men at all until I established the convalescent system. I told the Prime Minister this; I told him that Jones' statement was no good. In 1916 I went over intending to look after the business.end of things; I was not interfering with the medical end. I challenge any members of this House to find in Dr. Bruce's report any criticism of the doctors. There is an etiquette among doctors, which I am sorry to say, is not observed among politicians, that they must not blackguard or expose each other. I could not induce the doctor for love or money to expose any malpractices. I could not get him to expose those fellows at ail.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Perhaps there were none.


Samuel Hughes: I am not saying anything about that. However, I could not get Dr. Bruce to make any report on that aspect of the ease. I do not say that there were many cases of that kind but he would not touch the matter. What he reported on was the way in which we could bring about an improvement in the operation of the hospitals. I selected Dr. Bruce in order to reorganize the business end of the service. The year before I had taken up the financial end of it. I do not know that it interested me very much to hear the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) tell the House the other day-it seemed a sort of a left-handed compliment-that he found things pretty good over there. I did not appreciate him telling me that, because I knew that things were good over there. I
knew that the medical end of it under Dr. Bruce would be improved over there and that it would be pretty good here too. The right hon. the First Minister has given us a comparison of a lot of extracts from the statements of those fellows; they are all good chaps-those Canadian officers who had to do with the Canadian end of it. I picked out Col. Ashton as a fighting officer. I did not know what he was as a medical officer but I knew he was a good fighting officer. Col. Fotheringham is a good man; Col. Ross, none better; Dr. Elder-the very best-he stands head and shoulders over Dr. Baptie in ability. Dr. McKeown, head of St. Michael's College, is one of the brightest men in Canada. He had a record unsurpassed in the history of the world for hospital work. Four or five of these gentlemen on Colonel Bruce's committee, I understand, are among the twelve Eedlowe of the Royal College of Surgeons of England living in Canada. There are Drs. Bruce, McKeown, Scott, and Hunter. Dr. Hunter is an Edinburgh man, now belonging to Winnipeg, who is one of the greatest physicians that it has been my privilege to meet. Dr. Wilson, I understand, comes from St. Catharines and he is one of the ablest and best administrators whom it has been my privilege to fall in with. Taking the Canadians on both lists, they are the pick of the fellows we have over there in the medical service. As far as Dr. Baptie is concerned, I am not going to say a word against him only that he may be a little prehistoric.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Were the gentlemen whom the hon. member has named, associated with Dr. Bruce in his examination?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dr. McKeown and the others?


Samuel Hughes: Drs. McKeown,
Scott, Hunter and Wilson.


Charles Marcil: All good men.


Samuel Hughes: There is nothing to touch them in Canada. I picked out the very best, the most highly qualified men that I could get. There is scarcely a man amongst those whom I have mentioned who had not a practice of from $30,000 to $150,000 in Canada. They gave their practices up to go over there. I do not know Dr. Baptie and I am not going to say anything agains't him, but, the fact that he was a medical officer in 1881 does net impress me a particle. He would naturally favour the

V.A.D. hospitals. That is where the whole trouble catne. Sir George Perley favoured the V.A.D. hospitals, but I did not feel that we were getting the best use of them. When the doctors would demand that the men should be sent to convalescent homes they would be told by the ladies in charge of them that they had been told by Dr. Carle-ton Jones that they should keep these men until others were sent to take their places. If others were not sent there immediately the men were kept because these places bad to be kept up. We were paying three shillings la day for these nurses,, while our own nurses were employed on English cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who authorized Sir
George Perley to do that?


Samuel Hughes: I did not anyway.


Mr. GERMAN:: Will the hon. gentleman tell me if Dr. Bruce made a report directly to him as Minister of Militia?


Samuel Hughes: He did.


William Manley German: When was that report received?


Samuel Hughes: I do not remember exactly when it was received. It was in the month of September, but it is in the department and it will show.


William Manley German: I presume that report
is in the department and is available?


Samuel Hughes: It was in the department when I was there. It was kept. The matter has never been taken up. I left the report there when I moved out.


Charles Marcil: 
Samuel Hughes: We used to get many requests of that nature.


Charles Marcil: Does it not strike the exMinister of Militia as unusual that a man

who is fit for the trenches should be held back in a convalescent home?


Samuel Hughes: Did he send his
mother the doctor's report that he is fit for the trenches?


Charles Marcil: He says he is fit.


Samuel Hughes: 
Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Is not the hon.
gentleman aware that each man was passed first by the doctor of the battalion and that at Borden Camp every man was afterwards inspected by a full board of physicians? What further precautions could have been observed?


Mr. NESBITT:: That is not speaking very highly of the ability of the physicians. Some of these men would have been rejected on their looks by any member of


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: It chanced that I was in England at the time when the commission of inquiry was appointed by Sir George Perley and the Government. I am acquainted with the circumstances in which that action was taken. I may say that I have had some experience in connection with hospitals, and with members of the medical profession. For many years I was on the Senate and Board of Governors of the University of Toronto, For a considerable period I was one of the governors of the Toronto General Hospital. I was chairman of a committee at

one time which re-organized the staff of the Toronto General Hospital, and I then got to know something of the medical and surgical profession. I found that it was possible for doctors of the highest eminence to disagree, and- to disagree quite honestly. I know Dr. Bruce; he is a personal friend of mine, and a man of high standing in the Canadian surgical world. That is, I think, well known by all members of the House. When I went to England I found that Dr. Bruce, acting uppn the instructions of the ex-Minister of Militia, had made a report upon the hospital situation in Great Britain and was engaged in attempting to carry out the recommendations of that report, under instructions from the minister and, I believe, with the sanction of the Military Council which had been established in London. I found that great tension, very strong feeling, existed in London, as well as on the Continent, with regard to the Bruce report and his proceeding to carry it out. I took the opportunity of talking with men. high in the Canadian medical service, with officers and men of impartial judgment, and I found-I desire to make an absolutely fair statement respecting the matter-that while it was admitted that there were many good points in Dt. Bruce's report, it was in many respects impracticable to carry out its recommendations. I believe that is a fair statement of the opinion of the Canadian Medical Service and of official military opinion of London with respect to Dr. Bruce's report. I do not mean to say that that was a unanimous opinion. Dr. Bruce had some strong votaries and supporters; on the other hand, Dr. Jones had many equally strong votaries and supporters. I found the opinion prevailing very widely that Dr. Jones had been done some injustice, that the difficulties with which he had been obliged to contend bad not been taken into account, that as the war had developed burdens had been cast upon him and upon his organization, which had not been foreseen 'and which could not have been fully and adequately prepared against. We found the opinion prevailing widely among eminent members of the medical profession and among military men that Dr. Jones had done exceptionally well, having regard to all the circumstances surrounding his task. As I have said, it was thought by many-and in this I agreed-that there were many excellent points in Dr. Bruce's report. I believe that Dr. Bruce proceeded with his work in all good faith. He had not been a military man, 'and to that extent would not be acquainted with the practical difficulties
which might stand in the way of carrying out some of the recommendations which he made. In London 'a newspaper controversy had been proceeding with regard to the question of so-called segregation. Ilt was contended by some that Dr. Bruce's plan provided for the segregation of the Canadian troops-that the Canadian troops should not he allowed to mingle with the troops of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand in the Canadian and British hospitals, But that they should be gathered together as Canadians in Canadian hospitals, and be treated by Canadian physicians and Canadian surgeons. I found a very strong feeling prevailing in London that it would be an unwise policy, an improper policy, 'to segregate the Canadians in their own hospitals and to deny to wounded British, Australian land New Zealand soldiers the privileges of Canadian hospitals. I think it is unfortunate that that controversy arose, because in reality-and I know that this is the opinion of Sir George Perley-the truth lies between the two extreme opinions. I do not regard it as necessary that Canadian soldiers, in twos, threes or groups of half a dozen, should be sent to remote parts of the United Kingdom for treatment. On the other hand I think it would be an unmixed misfortune, contrary to Canadian and Imperial interests, if a hard and fast rule were laid down that Canadian soldiers should be segregated in Canadian hospitals and not be allowed to mingle with the wounded soldiers of Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia. While I was in the United Kingdom I visited many Canadian and British hospitals. I took the time tp go about among the wards of those hospitals-I think it was one of the most interesting experiences of my life- and I asked many Canadians in those wards as to the treatment which they had experienced since becoming patients there and as to what they thought of the question of segregation. I state the substance of the answers truthfully to the committee when I say that, without any exception, they all spoke in the highest possible terms of the medical, surgical and nursing treatment which they had received in those hospitals. That was true also of the Canadian soldiers whom I saw in the British hospitals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Having regard only to the main question of segregation, would the Canadian soldiers prefer to be segregated, or otherwise?


William Thomas White: The Canadian
troops, according to the opinion of those

with whom I discussed the matter, would prefer a condition under which, while there would be a considerable number of Canadian soldiers in a hospital, there would also be soldiers of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain. I myself observed that here would be a Canadian in one bed, here an Australian next to him, there an Irishman and so on. I heard a story when I was at Cliveden that illustrated precisely what I have in mind. A Canadian was engaged in an animated discussion with an Australian about some matter over which they differed. It became heated, and the Irishman interposed in order to compose the difference. He said to the nurse: "This is the first time in the history of the world that an Irishman has been found making peace instead of breaking it." That is typical of what you find in all these hospitals. If in a hospital containing 1,000 beds there are two, three, four or five hundred Canadians, the Canadians will not be lonesome. On the other hand they do like to mingle with the Australians, the New Zealanders and the soldiers from the British Isles. It gives them a wider interest than they would otherwise have; it makes for breadth of view and of sympathy; an exchange of ideas continually goes on among these patients. I talked with hundreds of Canadians in the hospitals which I visited and I never heard one single complaint with regard to their treatment, or in respect to the medical, surgical or nursing services. On the contrary, they all spoke in the highest possible terms of the treatment which they have received in these hospitals. As I say, I think it unfortunate that this question of segregating should have arisen and to say the truth, I do not believe myself that Dr. Bruce had it in his mind that Canadian hospitals should he shut to all except Canadians. I think he had it in mind that a policy should be inaugurated that would aim at getting as many as possible of the Canadian soldiers in to Canadian hospitals. In my view as has so often happened in the case of these controversies, the truth lies between the two extremes. I know that that is the opinion of Sir George Parley, and that is the policy now being adopted. Instead of sending two, three, or half a dozen Canadians to a distance in Great Britain, they will, wherever possible, be sent to Canadian hospitals. So then we shall have a situation in which, in a hospital say of 1,000 beds we may have 300 or 400 or 500 or 700 Canadians, and the remainder British or Australians or New Zealand soldiers. As I 
say, there was a controversy in London with regard to this question. Lady Drummond had taken up the matter in the Times newspaper, and I desire to say with regard to Lady Drummond and the other ladies whom I saw in London, that they have laid this country under a debt of gratitude for the unselfish service which they have rendered to our soldiers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Lady Drummond has maintained, 1 believe at her own expense, an establishment in London through which she is in communication with practically every Canadian soldier in Great Britain. That is a great service. I found the same with regard to other Canadian ladies in London. I do not believe we can speak too strongly or too highly of the service which these noble women are rendering in the cause of humanity there in London. I do not know anything that fills me with greater pride than the work being done by Canadian women in London and Great Britain.
There was the tension then that arose by reason of the feeling widely held that Dr. Bruce's report had not taken sufficiently into consideration the difficulties with which Surgeon General Jones had to contend, and that it did not do Surgeon General Jones the justice which it was thought by* the Canadian forces he was entitled to. There was also the tension caused by the controversy over the question of segregation which I have discussed. Then there was further question, and this was a most important matter, that .many members of the Canadian Medical Service and a good many of the leading officers of Great Britain, did not believe that Dr. Bruee's recommendations could be earned out practically. They did not believe that, having regard to conditions that existed at the front, and at the base hospitals, and the mode of transporting the casualties to the hospitals, that Dr. Bruce's recommendations could he carried out. That is to say they did not regard them as practicable. I talked with Dr. Bruce on one or two occasions in London, and I desire to be absolutely fair to him. As I say, he is a personal friend of mine. He is a surgeon of high standing, and in my view there are many excellent points in his report; but I do think that 'some of the recommendations which he made were impracticable, and I believe that the carrying out of them in their entirety or in large measure would have gone far to disorganize the Canadian Medi-

cal Service in Great Britain and on the continent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was he not promoted by the British War Office?


William Thomas White: I am not touching on Dr. Bruce's technical skill except to say that it is of a very high order. Dr. Bruce is the head of one of the services of the Toronto General Hospital. He is an associate professor of the University of Toronto, and I speak in the highest terms of his ability as a surgeon. What I am saying is that an opinion widely prevailed in military circles in Great Britain that it was not practicable to carry into effect many of Dr. Bruce's recommendations made in absolutely good faith-there is no question about that. That was the situation with which Sir George Perley was con-rfronted, and it was a .serious situation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At what time was
that?


William Thomas White: In November. It
was a serious situation, and it had. to be faced. Sir George Perley was obliged to act. This matter was given the best consideration of which we were capable. We reached the conclusion that in order to resolve the difficulties-because there was a clear cleavage of opinion, military and medical-we should have to appoint a board of inquiry in whom the people of Great Britain, including our own military men there, officers and men, and the people of Canada would have * complete confidence. I know that the selection of the personnel was approached in that spirit, and in that spirit only, because I myself advised with regard to some of the appointments. We thought it advisable to have a representative of the University of Toronto, a representative of Queen's University, Kingston, and a representative of McGill. The idea was to get a representative board in whom our military men, both officers and troops in Great Britain, would have confidence, and in whom the people of Canada would have confidence. Let us see whom we chose. I do not believe that a better or fairer board could by any possibility have been selected than that presided over by Dr. Baptie.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To-day I learned for the first time of those other medical men who were associated with Dr. Bruce. I assume that the minister's statement is accurate in regard to the other men, and that they assume responsibility for his statement.


William Thomas White: I think the position is this, that Dr. Bruce made the report, but I believe that some of these other gentlemen assisted him, obtained information for him, and reported to him. Dr. McKeown is a surgeon of high standing, who is connected with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Wallace Scott is another physician of good standing connected with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. I say nothing against the ability of those men; they are well qualified surgeons,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was the direction given to Dr. Bruce merely or to these gentlemen associated with him?


William Thomas White: To Dr. Bruce.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But they joined in the report?


William Thomas White: I do not know that they joined in the report, but I think that Dr. Bruce made use of their services for the purpose of obtaining information, and no doubt embodied some of their conclusions or findings in his report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not rather humiliating to think that Dr. Bruce, a man of outstanding ability, having been ordered to investigate, should, after that, have been succeeded by another board to investigate him?


William Thomas White: I am explaining the circumstances which made the appointment of that board absolutely imperative if the Canadian medical service was not to be disorganized. I have explained all the circumstances which prevailed when the board was appointed. The board had to be appointed in order to deal with the acute differences which had arisen, and I want to refer for a moment now to the personnel of this board. I say that if the Government had tried for six months they could not have obtained better names than were obtained for the board which went into this matter at the instance of Sir George Perley and the Government in order to make a report for the purpose of settling these differences which had arisen, to ascertain whether these findings were correct and practicable. Who are the men of that commission? Who is Dr. Fotheringham? He is associate professor of medicine in the University of Toronto.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nobody questions
that.


William Thomas White: Dr. Fotherdngham is on one of the medical services of Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Fothering-ham is a consulting physician of the highest standing an the city of Toronto. He is a man who has 'been connected for twenty or thirty years with the militia of Canada, a man of the highest possible standing. You could not select a physician in Toronto to-day who has in greater measure the confidence of the people of that city than has Dr. Fotheringham. So that no question arises as to him. Who is the other? Dr. Ross, of Kingston. The standing of Dr. Ross of Kingston is of the highest. He is a splendid man, a man who has the confidence of the people of Kingston and of Central Ontario, and I believe of most of the members of this House. Who else? Dr. Elder, of Montreal. Hon. gentlemen from Montreal will know him. No one can impeach his standing. I had the pleasure of conversing with Dr. Elder going over from Boulogne to. Folkestone. He is the leading surgeon, I believe, at the McGill Hospital at Folkestone, one of the best, if not the greatest hospital that this war has produced. He is the leading surgeon there, and does any one suppose that he would join in a report in which, he did not believe? Does any one suppose that Dr. Elder would make a report with regard to the question of Canadian wounded for any ulterior purpose Is there any hon. mem'beT who -will raise that question against Dr. Elder?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No one is raising a question against Dr. Bruce.


William Thomas White: I am contending that the men on this commission were men of the highest standing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No one is questioning that.


William Thomas White: The ex-Minister of Militia has spoken, and spoken quite properly, in high terms of General Ashton. Then there was Sir William Baptie.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Does my hon. friend
think or say that the men on the Baptie Commission, were any better than Dr. Bruce and the men. who were working with him?


William Thomas White: At the outset oi my remarks I paid as high a tribute as I could to the surgical ability and standing of Dr. Bruce. I said that I had been on an hospital board long enough to know that

doctors differ and honestly differ. If I should have any criticism to make of Dr. Bruce, who is a personal friend of my own, it would not be on the ground of any lack of surgical skill, but on the ground that he had not the military experience which some of the men on that Commission had. I have a high opinion of Dr. Bruce's capabilities, and I said at the outset, and I sa>
now, that he made his report under instructions from the Minister and acted in all good faith.
Then we .have Sir William Baptie recommended to Sir George Perley by the British medical authorities. No one can challenge his standing. What happened? We have a report upon a report. We have Dr. Bruce's report, and we have a report on Dr. Bruce's report by five of the ablest medical men that could be selected.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: We have not the reports; that is the trouble.


William Thomas White: Well, we are talking about them.


William Manley German: We cannot talk about them until we see them.


William Thomas White: Then why are we discussing them? The reports have been made, and I am relating the circumstances under which they were made. Let us look for a moment at the V. A. D. question. I desire to say that Canada is under a debt of gratitude to those women who work late and early without regard to hours in connection with these hospitals. Why did the British authorities utilize these V. A. D. hospitals? It was for this reason, that they have had casualties on a scale undreamt ot a year ago. How many beds are in those V. A. D. hospitals? There are 53,000 beds, equivalent to 53 hospitals. The British medical authorities would tell you: "why of course we would rather have military hospitals, but we have to do the best we can, having regard to the exigencies of a situation in which casualties are coming by the tens of thousands when we expected them by the hundreds." They are only too glad to make use of these V. A. D. hospitals with 53,000 beds because they have not sufficient hospital accommodation otherwise. These are the facts.
So far as the Baptie .Commission is concerned, I have indicated the condition that existed in London, the controversy in regard to segregation and the strong feeling that was prevalent in the Canadian medical service in connection with the propos-

als to carry out the recommendations of Dr. Bruce's report. I have told the House the reasons (which .influenced Sir George Perley in appointing the Baptie Board of Inquiry. I have also informed the House, although most of us are aware, of the high standing of the members of that board. Until the two reports are tabled, it is quite impossible for the House to form its conclusion upon them, but I desire to say that from numerous conversations which I had with men, with officers, with members of the Canadian medical service, with distinguished medical practitioners in London, and with other prominent people there, I am absolutely of the opinion that in no war in the history of the wprld has there been anything like the high excellence of medical treatment of the soldiers as has been given to the troops of Great Britain and the Dominions overseas in this war. I desire to say this further, that of the hundreds of men with whom I talked in the hospitals which I visited, Canadian soldiers and Canadian nurses, from almost every constituency represented in this House, all spoke in the highest possible terms of the medical and surgical treatment and of the nursing which has been furnished to the wounded, and I came away with a feeling that all was well in connection with the treatment which had been accorded our Canadian soldiers in Great Britain. Further than that,' the Canadian soldiers in Great Britain, while they desire to see a large representation of Canadians in the hospitals, in so far as I was able to gather their opinipn from conversation, and from hundreds of letters from Canadian soldiers, do not desire segregation. They do not desire that Canadian hospitals should be maintained exclusively for Canadian soldiers. They want a percentage, a large representation, but they certainly do not desire the doors ,of the hospital to be closed to the soldiers from New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, England or Ireland. They want to talk with these men. They find it interesting to talk with them. I believe that the association of our wounded soldiers with the wpunded soldiers from Australia and New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire will make greatly for the promotion of Imperial sentiment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will this lying alongside of an Australian or a New Zealander in a hospital impart any more of the Imperial spirit to the heart or the soul of a man whose loyalty was staunch enough to impel him to fight for the Empire.
35i


William Thomas White: All these influences contribute to the development of Imperial spirit. There is a comradeship which they greatly value. I never saw a soldier who intimated a contrary opinion. They value the comradeship of the men from the British Isles from New Zealand and Australia. They value the comradeship of their own fellow Canadians and they want to be with them but they do not desire that the Canadian hospitals should be wholly for Canadians. I do not wish to labour that point. I repeat, what I said a few moments ago, that the truth in regard to this matter, as it does in so many cases, lies between the two extremes. On the one hand, I think it is a mistake to send Canadians in small groups to remote parte of the United Kingdom, but, on the other hand, I do not believe that Canadian hospitals should be solely for Canadian wounded. You might have a Canadian hospital with a thousand beds and five or six hundred Canadians in it. Are you going to say that the unoccupied beds shall not be available for wounded soldiers from England, New Zealand or Australia?


Samuel Hughes: Does Dr. Bruce say that? *


William Thomas White: No,, he does not say that. I said before the ex-Minister of Militia came in that I did not believe Dr. Bruce had that in mind. I said that the policy which I understood him to put forward was that we should, as far as possible, have our Canadian soldiers in the Canadian hospitals. I think it is unfortunate that this " segration " controversy should have arisen in London. I know that Sir George Perley's view is that the truth lies between the two extremes and I think the matter is now satisfactorily adjusted.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understand that there were two commissions, and each commission, I presume, made recommendations. Will the minister tell me if there was anything done to implement any of the recommendations made by either commission?


William Thomas White: I understand
from the Prime Minister, who has had the matter more immediately in charge, that the recommendations of the Baptie Commission are being carried out.


Samuel Hughes: Wherein did the recommendations of the Baptie Commission differ from the recommendations of Colonel Bruce's Commission?


William Thomas White: I do not propose to go into the details of Dr. Bruce's report. The ex-minister was absent during the major part of my remarks this afternoon. I stated among other things that some of the recommendations made by Dr. Bruce were, in the view of the military authorities, impracticable. With reference to the details of the Baptie report, as the matter is not particularly under the jurisdiction of my department, I do not propose to enter into it. I have taken up the time of the House this afternoon because I think it would be unfortunate in the last degree if the impression should be created erroneously in this country that Canadian wounded are not receiving proper treatment in Great Britain. I believe they are. I believe they have been well treated, that they have had the benefit of the highest medical skill and the best nursing possible, and I have never heard a contrary opinion put forward by any soldier or officer either here or in Great Britain.


Wilfrid Laurier: Except by Colonel Bruce.


William Thomas White: I am speaking of the men with whom I talked.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was Dr. Bruce's promotion recommended by Sir George Perley to the War Office?


William Thomas White: I understand it was the British service that he was recently appointed to, although I am not informed as to the truth of the report to that effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On whose recommendation?


William Thomas White: There was a newspaper report that Dr. Bruce was to enter the Imperial service to act in the capacity of consulting surgeon in France. I should imagine that Dr. Bruce would be highly qualified for a position of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not extraordinary, after his having been taken to task by Dr. Baptie, that he should be promoted by the Imperial authorities?


William Thomas White: I do not think there is anything extraordinary about it. If my hon. friend has had as much experience of physicians and surgeons as I have had, he will know that they differ and honestly differ. You frequently have men of the highest standing and ability who differ, but that does not mean that they are unqualified in their profession. My opinion is that Dr.

Bruce would make an excellent consulting surgeon.


Samuel Hughes: I observed in the report which purported to be issued by the Baptie Commission that an " if " came in; that so long as it was decided that the Canadians and the British land others should mix together they did not think they should be segregated. If I remember aright, this report contained a condition that " if " it was decided to keep the Canadians, Australians, and British soldiers together, then they would agree with Dr. Bruce's report, but otherwise they would not agree.


William Thomas White: I have no information as to that.


Mr. WILCOX:: It has been reported that my hon. friend from West Lam'bton (Mr. Pardee) made a statement that a soldier who was returning from the front by the name of Private G. Walton, of Windsor, invalided home-
-was without overcoat or gloves, and had his hands frozen at Quebec. He is being cared for in the London hospital, and his case should receive such attention as will make similar cases impossible.
Then the hon. gentleman continues:-
That is one concrete case, and, I have no doubt, there are hundreds of similar cases.
I desire to say to my hon. friend that, in regard to this statement, I have received the following telegram:-
Windsor, Ont., Peb. 6, 1917.
O. J. Wilcox,
House of Commons.
Re Pardee newspaper story, Private G. Walton frozen hands account; no issue coats and mitts absolutely false; was met by Sportsman Patriotic Assistant Secretary. Writing particulars.
M. G. Campbell,
President.
I simply allude to this fact to show how careful hon. gentlemen ought to be in reading these newspaper trashy reports as actual proof of conditions.
Mr. PARDEE; I simply told the House that I was reading from a newspaper. I did not take it upon myself to say whether it was true or not; I was simply pointing it out.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. -Mr. Blain in the Chair.

On section 2-payment of $500,000,000 may be made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is desirable to make any observations that I have to make on this Bill as brief as possible. I did intend to speak upon the resolution; but time did not permit last night, and it was agreed, I understand, that the same discussion could be carried on in committee on the Bill. The field for discussion which this large vote opens up is very inviting, and my sole purpose in addressing you, Sir, at this juncture is to discharge what I regard as a serious duty to my own constituents, in explaining to them the salient points of this Bill. The Bill itself in a concise way sets forth its purpose. It involves the voting of an enormous sum of money, I suppose the largest individual vote that has ever been before the Parliament of Canada; at all events the largest within my memory of any transactions of this kind in this House. The preamble of the Bill says-
Whereas a state of war exists between His Majesty and the German Emperor, the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, the Sultan of Turkey, and the King of the Bulgarians; and whereas it is necessary that measures be taken for the common defence and security, and to this end it is expedient that aid as hereinafter provided be rendered to His Majesty: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
The second section of the Bill, which is
the important one, says:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied beyond the ordinary grants of Parliament a sum not exceeding five hundred million dollars towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1918.
It is important for the people of this country to have some understanding as to what is to be done with this enormous sum of money. The subdivisions of section 2 set out what those different matters are, and as they are all highly important, I desire to refer to them for a few moments. They are:
(a)	the defence and security of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval and military operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry, and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise;
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state of war; and
(e)	payments made for the said purposes during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen, in excess of the amount authorized by The War Appropriation Act, 1916.
Speaking for my people, I am not finding fault with this vote; far from it. I am heartily in accord with it, and the only advice which I would attempt to submit would be that the money should be applied carefully and properly to the different subjects enumerated in subsection 2 of this Bill. Liberal as I am, and a true follower of a great Liberal leader, I could not be anything other than in entire accord with proper expenditure being made and proper steps being taken by this Parliament and this country in support of the position which we have so proudly taken in this war. Some attempts are being made in certain quarters to show that the Liberal leader and those who follow him are not doing as much as they ought to; that they are not sincere in their support of the Government in war conditions, and, in fact, that the leader of this great party is not in favour of participation in the wars of Great Britain at all. I was particularly struck by an article which appeared a few days ago in a Conservative paper published in the province of Quebec. La Patrie, I understand, is a stout advocate of Tory principles, a paper which is edited by bright, capable, business young men who understand the politics of this country and who are familiar with the history of the different political parties. I feel gratified that they take a proper view of the position of the great Liberal leader in connection with military matters in the Dominion of Canada, and of his judgment and of the judgment of his party in regard to the relations which Canada should have with matters political and matters imperial in the old land. I think it was about the 25th of January last, when party politics in the province of Quebec were at a high temperature, that La Patrie tried to find fault with my great leader and to hold him up as a man who was not in line with the ideas of the Conservative party, because this paper said:
If Sir Wilfrid Laurier were in power should we participate in the present war? Certainly. It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who first defined! this policy of participation In 1897 at the Jubilee of Queen Victoria in London. "When the hour of battle strikes," he said, "light your beacon-fires on the hills, sound your trumpets and Canada will answer your call in sacrificing the best of her blood.''
In 1899 for the first time the Canadian Government took part in an Empire war. The

Laurier Government sent the contingent to Africa.
In 1910 Laurier brought about the adoption of the Navy Bill, affirming this constitutional truth:	"When Britain (England) is at war,
Canada is at war." This navy should be Canadian in peace time and Imperial in war time.
It is Sir Wilfrid Laurier who is the sponsor of military Imperialism in Canada.
That is the position taken by the leader whom I am proud to follow, and it is represented in La Patrie, which intended to put this statement forward as an offence to my great leader and- as something which would not be acceptable to the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, particularly in regard to the election going on in the county of Dorchester, and this particular quotation was published for the purpose of rendering matters difficult for the, candidate of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in that constituency. I say, therefore, that the expenditure of this money, if it is properly expended in support of King and country in connection with the situation in which we find ourselves, is perfectly satisfactory to me as a humble follower of my great leader.
We had an opportunity of hearing eloquent discussions upon the various phases of the management of the war since it commenced down to the present hour, but we did not hear anything from the Treasury benches that would strengthen our confidence in the manner in which war appropriations have been spent in the past I am sorry that in this discussion no evidence has been given either by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp) or the Secretary for War (Mr. McCurdy)-if that be the proper title-of ability or willingness to explain the matters placed in their charge. One Minister of Militia has been dismissed. One would naturally suppose that the reason for that dismissal is that the Prime Minister thought he had not sufficient grasp of the affairs of his department, especially in view of the tremendous responsibility we have undertaken in participating in this desperate struggle now going on in Europe. And in selecting a man to take the place of the Minister whom he dismisses, one would suppose that the Prime Minister, especially as he has such a wide clientele, so to speak, from which to select, would choose a man having at least a fair knowledge of the subject in hand, and ability to give to the House a business presentment of how the money voted by Parliament had been spent, and a reasonable explanation of the plans of proposed expenditure. I have no fault to find personally with the hon. member who has been selected to be

Minister of Militia. I have sat in this House with him for some years and have always found him a genial gentleman. But I had hoped that when the House met this year he would show some knowledge of the business for which he was selected, and would give a business account of what is being done by the department. I know that the gentleman appointed as Secretary for War-still assuming that to be the proper title-is a business man, and I expected that he would give some business idea of what was being done both upon this side and upon the other side of the water. But to my amazement-and I speak sincerely-I find thait both the minister and his lieutenant are as dumb as oysters, and, assuming that they know anything about the affairs in their charge, refuse to share with us their store of knowledge. It does not require great eloquence to give the House a business idea of what expenditures have been made and what the plans for future expenditure in connection with this war may be. It surely is a surpiising thing that it should be thought necessary to have a special pleader in the person of the Solicitor General to tell this House what is being done. To me it is always an indication that things are not what they ought to be when the Solicitor General is called in to give a statement to the House-one, as the Shakespearean phrase has it to make the worse appear the better reason. I do not now find fault with the way in which the Solicitor General puts the case; what I say is that it is not his case, it is not his business. A few years ago, we in this country were putting through a big transaction in the Transcontinental railway, and we were scoffed at by the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), then the leader of the Opposition, because, forsooth, we had lawyers on the Cofnmission. He said we had no business to have lawyers handling such matters. He must have changed his mind; because now, even when dealing with military matters; with the making of ammunition; with rifles, and differentiating between one rifle and another, or between one class of ammunition and another; with tactics on a battlefield; this House must pass over the Minister of Militia and the Secretary for War, and must pass over an ex-Minister of Militia as well, and learn from the Solicitor General what is being done in these matters. Surely the Prime Minister will remember how he used, to attack us for trusting to lawyers business that 'he said belonged to Parliament. I want to be honest with myself. Of men

who are not specialists in any business that is to be dealt with, the lawyer has as much opportunity of knowing about that business as anybody. For, if he has any practice in the courts, he has to deal with every kind of business, and, while, he is master of no trade, he will know something about a great many.
We are called upon to hand over this huge sum of money to the Governor in Council. Well, we all know who the Governor in Council are. But will any of these hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches say that he knows anything about war matters? I do not think there is one of them who would venture to cast the first stone at the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) if the accusation were that that horn gentleman did not know enough about military affairs. There is the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). He is a splendid speaker. But because a man is a good speaker it does not follow that he is a good financier or a good business man. If I had any advice to give the hon. Minister of Finance, it would be to pay less attention to the rules of elocution and more to the multiplication table. If I have any weakness about the Minister of Finance it is in thinking too much of him. I suppose that I still have some of the old regard that men always feel for an erring brother, based, I suppose, on the! hope that he will complete the circle and some day find his way back to the Liberal fold. Perhaps the Minister of Finance is too easily dissuaded from his purposes. I think it was on the evening of the 30th of last month that the hon. gentleman was speaking when the House rose at six o'clock. At that time he was going strong in a certain direction and talking pretty straight about the exMinister of Militia and his manoeuvring in his department.
When he came back after dinner, he saw a great light. Our- Saul of Tarsus had become Paul the Apostle, and he had little, if anything, to say against the manipulations of the ex-Minister of Militia. I have a third quotation here, the words of which clearly indicate that they were uttered after dinner. I am .not now suggesting that a dinner in Ottawa means very much, or that any reason of that kind resulted in a changed view on the part of the Minister of Finance. However, when he came back he said:
I repeat that if you take all the nations that are engaged in this war, and have regard to the scale of their operations, the mode of purchase, the administrative acts which have been
taken, their financial operations, having regard also to the proportion which must be observed between their operations and ours, in my belief there has been less waste in connection with the administration of the Militia Department and this Government of Canada than in connection with the administration of any other belligerent in the world. I say that not only with regard to the present war but in regard to any war of the past.
That is a most extraordinary statement for the minister to make. The Minister of Finance never went through a war before this one, and I never heard of any book being published which made comparative statements respecting wastefulness in matters connected with war. I am at a loss, therefore, to know how my hon. friend is in a position to say that the conditions prevailing in Canada since the war began have been economically superior to anything that has ever happened since the world began. One would hardly suppose that a careful, cool, calculating mathematician such as the Minister of Finance ought to be would make statements of that kind without having the very best proof to back them up. This statement was made by the Minister of Finance after (the ex-Minister of Militia had spoken on the same evening, and no doubt it was with the statement of his expert in mind that the Minister of Finance made this declaration of economy. If hon. gentlemen will refer to Hansard of January 30, page 279, they will find the following:
Mr. Pugsley:	Before my hon. friend leaves
that matter, could' he say what was the value of the equipment which was thrown away?
Sir Sam Hughes:	X forget; it was millions.
We did not look at the value; we tvere so busy swearing.
That is the evidence upon which the Minister of Finance reached the conclusion that the greatest economy and thrift ever known had been practised-a declaration by the ex-minister that he could not look at figures, never knew anything about the multiplication table-he was too busy swearing. I should not care to go to a jury with evidence of that kind and ask them to give me a verdict according to the evidence. That, Sir, is one reason why I find fault with the Minister of Finance and one reason why I should hesitate, if the case were not as urgent as it is, to put $500,000,000 into his hands to be expended as may be deemed proper by him and those associated with liim-for I assume that the counsel of the Minister of Finance will have to prevail in matters affecting the disbursement of this money.
I had intended to quote a few gems from the speeches of the ex-Minister of War. I

realize that the ex-minister is not such an authority to-day with my friends opposite as he used to be. I have recollections of seeing during the last five years my distinguished friends across the way making most elaborate salaams to this dignitary, with palms in their hands. But now I observe that only one member on that side of the House pays the slightest attention to the ex-minister, and that is the hon. member for Chateauguay, a gentleman who, I understand, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling tombstones. This is explained by the old saying: "Where the carcass is, there the eagles will gather". I want to give the Minister of Finance further evidence of the kind of economy that was practised during the five years that the ex-Minister of Militia was in office. I find that the ex-minister, as reported on page 511 of Hansard, after making some extensive observations regarding the wastefulness that he said was being practised on both sides of the water, says:
This is the way this humbug goes on, up and down.
He says further, on the same page:
There is no doubt that the world put two and two together. Nobody could know of the conspiracy in my department, and this was part and parcel of the conspiracy from start to finish. And yet these gentlemen are there to-day.
He intimates that while he was in office some men in the department evidently had nothing to do but conspire to defeat him in some of his purposes-laudable purposes, no doubt-and he says that those who were conspiring, are still there. That circumstance is not such as causes me to have great confidence in the administration of the Governor in Council. He says further, speaking about the kind of ammunition that was being made:
Yes, they are on record.
That is, the nature of the different kinds of ammunition.
The three brands were defective and no rifle could have fired them. One of them was so deadly that to have sent men to the firing line with it would have been simply murder. We found an ordnance officer attached to Canadian headquarters issuing that ammunition to the extent of 5,000 rounds which were placed in the pouches of one battalion after the blow-up. X have no hesitation in saying that that ordnance officer should have been led out and shot, and if I had been running the show I would have carried that out. I protested, and demanded his dismissal, but he is there yet.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What does he mean by calling it a show?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know, perhaps a sort of zoo he was running, but I do not know what he means by it. I't seems there were some parties concerned in the show who did not dance to his pipe, and he certainly finds fault. But this is too serious for me to pass over without calling the Prime Minister's attention to it. There is somebody somewhere for whom the Prime Minister is responsible who was putting ammunition in the pouches and bags of Canadian soldiers, and the giving of that ammunition to them was, according to the ex-minister, equivalent to murder. That is a very serious matter, and I heard no explanation and no contradiction by the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Militia, or tlhe Secretary of War; they have allowed this to go by the board and made no explanation of it at all. If I should be asked by my constituents: Have you consented to giving $500,000,000 to that group of gentlemen to be expended by them? Did you find out if that sort of officer is yet in dbarge? Is that same officer, */ho, according to the ex-Minister of Militia, should have been shot, and who he says is still in the employ of the Government, is he yet there and is he still going to have charge of the ammunition to be given to our boys to defend themselves? I cannot say. The hon. gentlemen on the other side iare not very communicative. They will not tell us. But this is what the ex-Minister of Militia has said, and we have no reason to suppose that he has said anything but the truth.
He gave us another pathetic statement about the Highland Brigade, and he disclosed the truth, which is really pathetic, about the condition of things which existed in the camp. A good deal of fault has been found in the province from which I come in respect to that Highland Brigade. It was promised, as the ex-minister has said, that these men would be kept together. He says that he bad the authority of the Prime Minister in making that statement. On the strength of that statement the very best men that we have in the province of Nova Scotia went out recruiting. I may mention as one Bishop . Morrison, of the diocese of Antigonish. Bishop Morrison went out among his people with this promise in his hand, that young men would be kept together, that they would not be broken up, that brothers, relatives, neighbours would be together and it would be a sort of outing for them where they would not be separated. On the strength of that promise he got many Scotch Highland Cath-

dies in Antigonish and all through his diocese to join. What will Bishop Morrison say to-day to the fathers and mothers who come to him and say: Bishop, you promised our boys would be kept together; we took your word for it, and they went out; but now we find that they are broken up, sent hither and thither, and there is no unity in the regiments as you promised. I think the Prime Minister should have some regard for the obligations and the feelings of gentlemen of that class who went forth believing the Government would do what they promised to do and represented to the people that that would be the case; and that certainly the word of the Government, as presented by the Prime Minister, would not be departed from. I am sure that for myself I should be quite willing to take the Prime Minister's word for such a statement, as for almost anything else; but 1 -am sorry to say that his residence in Ontario and -his commingling with such people as he associates with does not help him along the lines of stability and veracity. What the ex-Minister of Militia said is this:
When the Highland Brigade of Nova Scotia was organized I felt a little keen in regard to the matter because of what had happened and I took the matter up with the Prime Minister. With his authority I gave my solemn pledge! to the officers of the brigade and to the committee that had helped to organize it that it would be kept intact. The Prime Minister may recall that on one occasion he spoke to me about the 58th Battalion. I said, "for heaven's sake let us carry out one pledge which we have made to the people of Nova Scotia.''
It was, of course, very pathethic. The ex-minister -says: "everything else has gone; we have made thousands of pledges, we have broken them, they are gone, but this one thing, stand by the pledge that you and I gave to the people of Nova Scotia". But no, they did not stand by it, it is gone.
The ex-minister comes to the question of financing again. He calls to account the Prime Minister and others for their system of financing the brigades, and he says that there were more men drilled at Camp Borden, Camp Valcartier and elsewhere in Canada than are -being drilled on the other side. Then he says:
Why all this paraphernalia should be introduced in London X have never been able to find out.
The Prime Minister is familiar with our Statutes in Nova Scotia, and he knows that our Probate Act refers to paraphernali i. Paraphernalia is something that is never considered worth mentioning in an inventory and although it is the property of the
dead man there is nothing said about it. I do not know whether that is the -sort of paraphernalia that the Minister refers to here. However, he does not give any description of it beyond the statement that there is a paraphernalia and that paraphernalia exists in London. He says:
General Carson, with Colonel George Murphy, and thirty-one assistants, ran the business-
That is during his regime.
-and when any hon. gentleman asked for any news of his friends at the front he got an answer within a few days. When any hon. gentleman asked if any one was wounded or wanted a report about any one, he got his answer in a very few days from General Carson. To-day you get nothing. General Carson with only thirty-one officers could keep the work going, train men, and send- them to the front and win battles, whereas to-day I am told there are 700 assistants, costing $6,000,000 a year, as the result of the action of the Minister of Finance when he ordered the Prime Minister to appoint an overseas minister ; I forget what he was going to do. We find all that saddled on the country, and I presume to-night the Minister of Finance is preaching thrift and economy to the people of Ottawa.
He is, on one hand, squandering the money of the people of Canada, and in his line of talk going around preaching economy. That is what his colleague or the man who was his colleague for the last five years accuses him of. That, sir, to some extent is the testimony u,pon which the decision of the Minister of Finance is based when he tells this country that there never was in this world (or almost in the world to come) any such high-class economy as was practised in Canada. I find here a letter from the ex-Minister of Mi-litia to the Prime Minister bearing date 13th of May, 1915, which was put on record by himself I am going to quote only a few lines from it. He said:
I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on May 13, and X presume there is no objection to my reading it. The faults complained in it have been rectified by the War Purchasing Commission, and I think it is in justice to myself that I should place it on record to show the life we had to lead in the Militia Department :
May 13, 1915.
Dear Sir Robert,
Since my return from England last November, I have repeatedly notified you that owing to the interference and plans of the " so-called " sub-committee and to the repeated hold-ups and needless obstructions of some of my colleagues in the affairs' of this department, the Contract Branch has been very much hampered and practically blockaded; delays have been very prolonged ; the cost has been greatly enhanced and the goods supplied have been, in many cases, inferior. Indeed, the most ardent agents of the German Government-

This is the part to which I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister particularly :

indeed the most ardent agents of the German Government could scarcely have been more successful in holding up the proper equipment of our forces, had they been in control.
That, Sir, is a tremendous indictment. We are told by the ex-Minister of Militia that even if the most ardent agents of our arch enemy had been in charge of matters in the Militia Department and of the Government, they could not have been more successful in obstructing and blocking our success than those who were in charge. That goes without a reply. It is not for me to say it is not true. I believe if it was not true it would have been contradicted. I notice that the special pleader, the learned counsel, who comes forward to save the ship when there are rocks and breakers in sight, steered clear of this piece of dangerous and hazardous navigation. He did not tell us anything about that. I will be asked by my constituents: were you a party to handing over to the Government $500,000,000, and I will have to admit that I was. I consent to it because, for the present, they are the only power. I will have to plead theology, and say that the power is from the Lord, although the party in power are rather poor representatives in exercising it sometimes. But I will have to say that for the present they are the power, and d will, have to plead my theological knowledge in voting them the money in the hope that they will do better things, and that no minister, or any other man who may have inside knowledge of the working of this Government, will ever again be in a position to say that this Government, or a certain wing of it, was more successful in blocking the preparations of war than any agency of the Germans could have been if they had had the matter in hand. I trust that the outgoing of the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) will have the effect of stirring up the Prime Minister and those who support him, and of ensuring that matters will be better handled in the future than they have been in the past.
If we were to go upon the evidence, and if the occasion would permit us to cause any delay in granting the money, I would feel justified in supporting that delay and stopping the supply if that were possible. But the matter is too urgent, and the occasion is too grave and I am sure that the people who sent me here would rather take the grave risks of having the money spent,

perhaps recklessly and ineffectively in some regards, than have me for one moment interfere with the voting of the money. I am sure there are many people in my riding who will regard this expenditure as very large. As I said at the beginning it is, so far as I know, the largest vote that ever came before a Canadian Parliament. It involves the payment of $62.50 by every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada, and of $312.50 for every family of five in the Dominion. These are large amounts, but still the cause is worthy, and we are heart and soul behind this thing. We can only hope that we shall get proper value for the expenditure of the money. There must be a landmark from which the Prime Minister can start afresh, turn a new page; and if he cannot turn a new page in everything, he can surely turn a new page in regard to the question of patronage. This is an opportunity for him to start a fresh page in the matter of patronage. I am speaking only about the province of Nova Scotia, for I know very little of what is being done elsewhere. I have told the Prime Minister over and over again, and I take the responsibility of telling him again, that there is not the slightest difference between the expenditure of war money, so far as patronage is concerned, and the expenditure of any other vote that passes this House. It is well known that in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in the Department of Public Works, and in the Department of the Interior, though they have not very much patronage in the Department of the Interior, the expenditure is strictly along party lines and is distributed among party friends and party favourites. I take the responsibility of saying, and I challenge contradiction from any member of this House, or from any one outside of this House, to say that in the province from which I come there is the slightest difference between the expenditure of war moneys that we vote in this way, and other moneys that are voted. I submit to the Prime Minister that this would be a good occasion for him to make a fresh resolution to start anew and spend this money in such a way that nobody can find fault and so that Grit and Tory, saint and sinner, shall have an equal opportunity of giving value for the money which has to be expended.
I have not very much more to say in connection with this matter. I hope that we shall get good returns for this very large expenditure, and that those whom the

Prime Minister has called to his council, his Minister of Militia, and his Secretary of War, will take this matter in hand and try to learn something about it. So far, they have not given us the slightest evidence that they knew anything about it at all, and I think it is a pity that we should be called upon to pay handsome salaries to ministers and their secretaries, when we have not the slightest evidence that they are taking any interest in the matter, but, on the contrary, are leaving it entirely to parties outside. I presume we should not expect very much from them this session, but when we meet again after the adjournment I hope that they will have learned' something about their departments, and about this business, and that when questions are asked concerning matters pertaining particularly to the War Department we shall get an answer first-hand from the proper source, and not have to take it second-hand from people who. are not supposed to know very much about it, and who try to cover up the crevices of their ignorance by the continuous flow of their eloquence.
Before I sit ddwn, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to a case that has been brought to my attention concerning a soldier who enlisted at Windsor, in the province of Nova Scotia. A young man by the name of H. Bruce Hawkins was enlisted by Lieutenant Fielding at Windsor on the 25th September, 1916. He was examined by Dr. Keddy-I presume of Windsor-and passed tihe examination. Lieutenant Fielding told him that his pay would begin on the day that he was passed by Dr. Keddy. On the 4th October, 1916, he was given transportation to St. John, N.B., on arrival there was examined by a board of examiners, and directed, after he had passed the examination, to join the company of Lieutenant Blair. From there he went to Montreal. Arriving at Montreal, he was again examined by a medical board, passed and put on duty. When pay day arrived he was not paid and the paymaster had no record of his joining the company. He was told that he had been reported by Lieutenant Blair as being in the St. John hospital. That is an extraordinary condition of things. Lieutenant Blair took him to Montreal, passed him over to some other officer and then reported that he was in the hospital in St. John. It was about the 24th October, 1916, that this young man went looking for his pay. Then he was reexamined by a board of examiners who found that there was a small piece of his
little finger that was slightly touching on the third1 finger and for that reason he was discharged and sent back with no clothing except what he had when he left home and without a cent of money. I am informed that he was obliged to pawn his watch in Montreal with a man by the name of Heller, at 217 St. Lawrence street. Hon. gentlemen from Montreal will know whether I am giving a true account or not. Mr. Heller took his watch in security for a little money to take him home. He was obliged to go back home and was not paid for the month or more that he was in the service. He had passed the medical examination three times-first by Dr. Keddy, then by the board at St. John, and then by the board at Montreal. He did everything he could do to enlist, but from the time that he offered himself to the present he has not been paid anything. I just want to draw this to the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Militia in the hope that they will take some steps to do justice to this poor young man and see that he gets the little money that is coming to him for the time during which he served. This information was sent to me iand I was asked to- bring it to the notice of the minister. I have done so in this way, because, the time being short, I have had no opportunity of calling upon the minister.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will my hon. friend be good enough to give the name of the battalion in which he enlisted so that we can trace it in that way?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may be able to get that information, but I do not have it in my hands at the present moment. That is all I have to say on that matter . In conclusion, let me express the hope that wise counsels will prevail across the way, that this bickering and fighting, now that the ex-Minister of Militia has gone, will pass away and that we will learn that there are other people in the world who can do something besides the hon. gentleman who has left the Cabinet. Of course, in times of wiar, I suppose we will be disillusioned in a great many directions. For 4,000 years we have been under the delusion that the Lord had created the heavens and the earth, the firmament iand the waters under the earth. Now, we 'are all disillusioned, because we find that all these 'things were done by Sir Sam Hughes himself. However, we are learning and we hope that the Prime Minister and the rest of them have not lived in vain with this great man for the last five years.


Robert Laird Borden: London, Jan. 31, 1917.
Statements that Canadian leather equipment has been burned on arrival in England are absurd and untrue. Oliver equipment with which First Division proceeded to France was subsequently replaced here without expense to Canadian public and it was returned to Canada early in 1915 for use there. Converted Oliver equipment with which Second Division was equipped was replaced before going to France and later returned to Canada for further service. 1916 Canadian leather equipment with which Fourth Division proceeded to France was eventually replaced by web equipment without expense to Canadian public. Large number of troops in training in England use Canadian leather equipment. Sufficient web equipment is now being supplied troops in training in England to enable reinforcements to proceed overseas with acceptable equipment properly adjusted.
It seemed to me desirable that I should make that statement to the committee.
With respect to certain other matters which have been raised, I might say that . the Second contingent was authorized: by order in council ot November 7, 1914. The despatch ot that contingent to England commenced on tlie 10th of April, 1915, and wiae completed on the 9th of August of that year. The number of ships required was twenty-one, and the total numbers that went forward in the contingent were: officers 930, other ranks 21,640, total 22,570. I am further informed, by memorandum placed in my hands by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, that the contingent was rl spatdhed to England as soon as accommodation and transports were available. I am informed that this contingent went to the front on September 13, 1915.
I have already explained that the motor trucks with which this contingent was equipped were loaned for the time being from the War Office. I have here a memorandum on the purchase of these motor trucks which I desire to read:
The purchase of motor trucks was authorized by order in council dated 15th December, 1914 ; -50 trucks from the Kelly-Springfleld Company, Springfield, Ohio; 50 trucks from the Packard, Detroit, Michigan; and 50 trucks from the White Company, Cleveland, Ohio. One of the terms of the order in council was that if any of these firms failed to accept the order under the conditions named in the order in council, the portion of the order allotted to ' such firms should be distributed among the others accepting the conditions price: list price, less 20 per cent, discount f.o.b. place of manufacture. It was a further condition of the order that each firm representing any truck purchased should agree to have made in Canada such portions of the bodies and tire work as could be done in this country. Orders were placed in Canada by telegram for the bodies on 17th December, 1914, and for the tires on December 18th,	1914. The order for the
chassis was delayed owing to the desire of the

Prime Minister to institute certain inquiries in regard to the reliability of the Kelly-Springfield motor. On 5th January, 1915, the Prime Minister instructed to proceed with placing the order, and on the 15th of that month the firms named in the order in council were asked by wire to supply the trucks.
I interrupt the memorandum to say that a question had been raised as to the durability and reliability of the Kelly-Spring-field motor, and it seemed to me desirable that the doubt 'Should be absolutely cleared up before we should proceed to give an order. For that reason there was a delay during which I undertook to satisfy myself on ithatt point. It eventually proved thiait the motor was entirely .serviceable. The memorandum continues:
The Kelly-Springfield Company accepted immediately and the contract was made on the 16 th January. The White Company offered only twenty per cent, f.o.b. Cleveland, and the Packard Company did not close within the period specified for acceptance, viz.: one week. The balance of the order was accordingly given to the Kelly-Springfield Company, who completed the entire delivery of the chassis by 19th February. 1915.
My recollection of the exact terms of the order is that we insisted that the various companies from whom these motor trucks were to be purchased should give a price to the Government based on a deduction of the commission which they allowed to their agents. As we were ordering direct, we thought the Government was entitled to a deduction equal to the commission ordinarily paid. The memorandum proceeds:
Owing, however, to the bodies originally ordered not fitting, and fresh bodies having to be made, the motor trucks did not arrive in England in time to equip the Second Division. But the Second Division was not delayed in proceeding overseas or in going to France by reason thereof. The trucks for this division were borrowed from the War Office and replaced by our trucks on their arrival in England. The Government lost nothing by their exchange with the War Office, as the trucks supplied by Canada, while just as efficient as the Imperial, cost less money.
There is another matter upon which I desire to give the committee some information, as the question is raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He spoke of the response to the National Service card. On the 2nd instant, I procured from the Secretary of the National Service Board a statement as to the number of cards which had been received up to that time. He informs me that the estimate of National Service cards received to that date was 1,350,220, and that the cards were still being received at the rate of about 40,000 per day.


William Manley German: The right hon. gentleman who leads the House has told us that there have been a lot of wrong statements regarding the scrapping of articles of war equipment purchased in Canada and taken overseas. So far as this House is concerned, the information that we get in this matter is from the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). He more than any one else has stated that articles purchased in this country have been scrapped. So, if anything has been wrongly stated, it comes from a former colleague of the right hon. Prime Minister. And I can hardly suppose that the ex-Minister of Militia has made such erroneous statements as would appear from the statements read by the Prime Minister. But that will be a question for investigation later on. At present, we are asked to appropriate $500,000,000 to be handed over to this Government to expend at their own sweet will. This is an amount which would have staggered the imagination of Canadians a few years ago -a very few years ago. To-day, we feel that we are strong enough financially to stand expenditure of this kind. But it is our duty, and the people of 'the country will see to it that we are held responsible for the performance of that duty, to see to it that this money is properly expended. There has been some discussion in the press of the formation of a national government. If anything would induce me to believe that the time was ripe for a national government, it would be the fact that we are asked to hand over $500,000,000 to the Government now in power. Consider the statements that have been made by ministers of the Crown themselves. Judging by what the ex-Minister of Militia has said, it would appear that for months, yes for years, he in his department was surrounded by what a former Prime Minister of Canada called, a nest of traitors. The Minister of Finance rises in his place in this House and states that expenditures made by the ex-Minister of Militia, when he was in office, were extravagant expenditures. He instanced one very large item, the expendi+ure on shovels I wonder if they were scrapped? I think that about $50,000 or $60,000 was paid out for shovels. The Minister of Finance admits that that was an extravagant expenditure, and he intimates, if he does not state it as a fact, that other extravagant expenditures were made in that department, and that in order to protect himself and, as far as he could, safeguard the treasury, he found it necessary to write a letter to
the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in his letter to the ex-Minister of Militia, states that hie time for several months was taken up with settling quarrels and differences between the ex-minister and other members of the Cabinet. To hand over to this Government on their own demand the enormous sum of $500,000,000, to be expended without our having any further information than we have now, is a rather hard proposal to put before the people's representatives.
The discussion. this afternoon started on the report of Dr. Bruce. I would not assert that the Prime Minister would endeavour to mislead the House or the country, but his statement regarding Dr. Bruce's report was certainly a misleading one. It misled me, and I venture to say that it would mislead the people. The Prime Minister asserted very emphatically that he would not discuss Dr. Bruce's report until it was laid.on the table of the House-indeed, that, until it should be .laid on the table, the report should not be generally discussed. He said further that he had cabled to London for copies of the report and that about forty copies would very shortly be available for distribution. From that one would infer that the report had been published in England but had never come to this country. However, in answer to a question that I put this afternoon, we have been informed by the ex-Minister of Militia that Dr. Bruce's report had been sent to him in September last and has been in the possession of the Government since that time. An order of the House has been passed for the production of this, report, and I cannot understand either why the Department of Militia has not produced it or why the Prime Minister has not seen that it was produced. The subsequent report is also in the department, and I think the Government is very much to blame for misleading the House and the country, even if not intentionally, by giving the impression that that report is not available, whereas it is in their own possession.
I quite understand that it is very much easier to sit outside and criticise what is being done within than to sit inside and improve what is being done. It is not diflicult to criticise,, but it may be difficult to administer the various departments in a time like this. Certain matters, however, can and should he very considerably improved. The House will adjourn, supposedly tomorrow. The Government have established a National Service Commission, ostensibly

in order to ascertain, what can be done further in the way of recruiting; but they do not deign to tell us what definite action they purpose taking in the matter of recruiting. Recruiting is practically at a standstill. On Sunday, January 21, a recruiting campaign was begun in the town of Welland in order to get recruits for the 176th Battalion. The town and the county of Welland and the whole Niagara district have done admirably in the matter of recruiting. This district has made a splendid record for t itself. Diligent .and intelligent work in connection with this recruiting campaign was carried on for a week, with the result that only three recruits were obtained. There are a large number of men in that town and throughout the county who could go to the front. Why do they not go? I will tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia why they do not go. There are in Canada thousands of militiamen who have volunteered for overseas service-they may be found ar Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and other points. These men are officered by men who are drawing their pay simply for the sake of drawing it; who have no intention of going to the front, and who would not be allowed to go to the front even if they went to England. The young men in that district and throughout Canada generally know this, and they say: if men are needed, why do they not send the men that they have? The Colonel of the 176th battalion, who is a Conservative, representing the county of Welland in the local Legislature, made a statement along these lines at a recruiting meeting: The press report says:
The commander of the 176th explained that he had brought 623 from Camp Borden to Niagara Falls and had since taken on 125 men, hut owing to discharges for medical unfitness and desertions the strength of the battalion was only 648.
Or only 25 more than they had. when they came from Camp Borden. One hundred men had deserted or been discharged for unfitness. At the city of St. Catharines they have the 213th Battalion, which, for some unknown reason, is called the American Legion. This battalion has a full complement of officers-colonel, majors and captains-men who will not go to the front and who cannot go even if they want to; and the battalion has only about 213 men. The number may be even less, because I was told on excellent authority that the men were deserting. Then there is the 176th, also with a full complement of officers and 600 men. There you have two battalions and two sets of officers, but scarcely enough

men altogether to make up one battalion. Is that a situation which would, appeal to the young men throughout the locality as being satisfactory? Is it not rather discouraging? If that is the prevailing situation throughout this country, that we have numbers of battalions in different localities one-lialf or less than one-half strength but with a full complement of officers, it being known that these officers will not go to the front and that they are drawing pay, why, in all reason and sensibleness, does not the Government bulk these men and send to the front all men who are fit to go? They want to go, they are appealing to be allowed to go. They do not want to stay here with the training they have had. Why does not the Government send the men to the front where they wish to go and where they can be of some use, and discharge these officers who are drawing pay? Then you would have some encouragement among the young men of this country to join the colours. I should like to know from the Minister of Militia, and I wish he would tell this House, how many colonels and majors and captains there are in London at this hour drawing pay who are not on actual active service, who will not and cannot go to the front. I know some, and a friend of mine who came from London only a few weeks, ago, a very reputable gentleri m, says that these officers who will not go to the front are having a high time, living at the Carlton and the Savoy at the country's expense. I believe they cannot go to the front, in the first place because they are not qualified, and in the next place because there are no positions for them in the capacity of colonel, major or captain. Now I say that condition of affairs is what is destroying recruiting in this country. I know it, because I have spoken to young men about recruiting. I belong to the recruiting committee in the county of Welland, and we have worked energetically to secure recruits for these battalions. You cannot do it. Young men say when you ask them: Why do they not take the men they have and discharge the officers who are not qualified to fill the positions, men who have had no military training,	men who never	were incamp, but who are simply boosted into	these position!-I	will notsay for	political reasons,	at least
not on the part of the Government, but through local political reasons-boosted into these positions which they are not fitted to fill, men who never intend to go to the front hut who are drawing the pay of a colonel, a major or a captain, although they are doing no service to the country? Why

should the people's money be thus squandered in this time of stress, at a time when we are asked to vote $500,000,000? I trust that that money will not continue to be expended in -that -sort of way for any very lengthy period. The Prime Minister stated in his remarks in this House on. the 22nd of January that he had enlisted 434,529 men.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
we had enlisted that many; I detailed how it was made up.


William Manley German: 

better to have put the matter in the hands of the authorities in each municipality, and called on them to make a return to the Government of every available man in that municipality, stating for what purpose he was available. You would have got the returns and got them quickly, and you would have got them without frightening a large number of people into leaving the country out of fear of conscription. You would have got a better report. You could have had committees formed in each county who would look into the requirements of each district, and you would have got, by that means, a result which would have been of far greater benefit than thiat which is likely to he derived from the National Service Commission.
I do not wish to take up the time of this committee further, hut I do feel that the Government have been, if not negligent, at any rate unwise in their system of recruiting. I think they are unwise at the present time, and that they will fail to get recruits unless they change the system which they have adopted, and carried out up to the present time. Change that system, dismiss the officers who are drawing pay and who are of no use, send to the front the men who want to go there, and you will have no difficulty in getting recruits to fill up the ranks in the future.


Albert Edward Kemp: I wish to say just a word in regard to one matter referred to in the speech of my hon. friend from Welland, that is in regard to the battalions which are under strength at the present time. My hon. friend referred to two battalions that are under strength, one in the county of Lincoln, and the other in the county of Welland, one having between 600 and 700 men, and the other being of lesser strength.


William Manley German: 200.


Albert Edward Kemp: Over 200, I think. It is all very fine .alt this stage of the game to say that the mode of recruiting is wrong. We decided when the war broke out, and I think the country, approved of it, that the best mode of raising recruits was by the battalion method, and that method was pursued. It was the only course, I think, that should have been pursued, and it has been followed and has been a success. Nearly 400,000 men have joined the forces through that system. Recruiting has now fallen off, and there are a number of battalions which are only partially filled. These battalions are being consolidated in some instances, and in
[Mr. German.!
other instances are being sent overseas in drafts. My hon. friend asks: Why don't you get all these troops out of the country, irrespective of the regiments that are under strength? But the battalions are not only under strength in the counties of Lincoln' and Welland; they are under strength in many places throughout the country. We are sending troops out of the country at the present time.


William Manley German: Why does the minister not unite these battalions that are under strength and make one battalion up to full strength, and so do away with these surplus officers?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have just informed my hon. friend that that is exactly what we are doing as fast as we can. The Teason they are not going out of the country at once is two-fold. One reason is that the British Government has told us that they have no ishelter for any more troops than the number that they wish us to send oveT during the winter months. The other reason is that the Admiralty is not able to furnish transports for the conveyance of the troops. But there are a good many troops going over every month. We are sending exactly the number that the British Government want us to send during these months. I repeat that the regiments under strength are being consolidated in some oases, and that in others they are going over in drafts.
It seems to me that my hon. friend reflects to some extent upon the officers of the forces, that have gone over. All the officers to whom he refers were not in employment in England or at the front. Some of my colleagues have been on tire orhrr side recently and they know more aornt that than I do. They know about the number of senior officers who aTe in that position at the other side at the present time. But there is a very good explanation.


William Manley German: Why do you not bring them home?


Albert Edward Kemp: We will see about that in a minute. So far as the officers in this country are concerned, there are many who have done splendid service in recruiting, but who are not fit to go to the front, and who perhaps did not intend to go to the front. But they have done their bit in recruiting. They are not military men, hut they have done nil they cou?^ do to serve the Empire in getting battalions together. Recently they have not been so successful, because recruiting has fallen off. These men have done the best they could do, and they will revert to civil life as soon

as possible.	In the Tegiments to
which my hon. friend referred, although one is only 600 or 700 strong, it is necessary to have colonels and majors in the meantime. We cannot get along without officers for these regiments. As I said, these regiments are being consolidated, and they are being sent to England at the present time, in accordance with the instructions which we receive from the British Government as to the number of troops they can accommodate during the winter months. They are being sent as fast as the British Admiralty can send us transports. They are not going over as fast as at other times, but they are being sent at the rate of 7,000, 8,000 and 9,000 a month. When the spring comes, the course that I have outlined in respect to sending them over will be followed. As I said, the men who are not fit to go to the front will revert to civil life, and they will be taken off the pay-list. They will willingly go off the payroll. There are many officers in this country who have done good work, and who did not have to be taken off the pay-list, because when they finished their work, they sent in their resignations and asked to be relieved. That is what is being done. I do not think that my hon. friend could name any man who has engaged in this work from a selfish motive. They have done their duty, and for the most part they have done it well and patriotically.


William Thomas White: I am loth to prolong this discussion, but I feel that I cannot retain my seat and listen in silence to the remarks of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) with respect to many brave officers at present in the United Kingdom. It is easy to say that Canadian officers in the United Kingdom should either be sent to the front or sent home. That may sound very well, but the matter should be looked into a little more carefully before my hon. friend makes reflections upon as brave a body of Canadian officers wearing the King's uniform as there are in Great Britain to-day. It is not well that any hon. member of this House should generalize with respect to men who have raised battalions in this country, men who have gone to personal expense, who have spent their time, given their services freely, and faced the perils of an Atlantic voyage ito taike their men across; men who desired to get 'to the front but who .are unable to get -there because the positions are filled
36J
*which they would be 'glad to occupy. I have had dozens, yes, scores of officers in Groat Britain come to me and say: "We want to get to the front; cannot you get us there? " The reason why they cannot get to the front is perfectly obvious. There are a certain number of officers in command of the men -at the front. I discussed this very matter with Sir Julian Bymg, I asked Sir Julian Byng whether it would not be possible to get more of the Canadian officers ih Great Britain w-ho are willing and anxious to go to the front, who plead to be allowed to go to the front, and his answer was: "We have officers in charge of the men in the trenches who have been here for months, some of them for a year, and some of them for two years; they are experienced officers; I do not care how capable the officers may he who are in England, if I substituted these officers for the men who are actually trained in the trenches, it would mean casualties." That was his answer and that is the answer that appeals to any one's common sense. He was quite willing that men should go over there as supernumeraries, and if qualified should, as vacancies occurred (take their places in, charge of the battalions in the trenches; hut lit is manifestly unfair to say that the Canadian officers who are in London to-day, who have -qualified themselves by training -and Who are -anxious to go to the front should; either be sent there, when as a matter of fact there is no place for them, or be discharged .and sent back to Canada.
Supposing that policy had been followed from the beginning, what would have been the result? There is many an officer in his grave to-day who waited fo-r six or nine -months in London before he had an opportunity to go to the front, the opportunity which he longed for. There are Canadian officers in London to-day anxious to go to the front, pleading to be allowed to go, and who will get their chance when there is a vacancy. Take the case that was brought repeatedly to my attention in England; take the case of a colonel, some prominent man who spent months of ihis time in one of the constituencies represented in this House recruiting a regiment. Hie personal weight and influence -had much to- do with the success of recruiting that regiment. I know of eases in which the colonel had everything to do w-ith the recruiting, not because of bis military ability, but because of his personality, his weight and influence in the community. That man recruited his battalion and when


William Manley German: How many are over there now?


William Thomas White: I do not know.


William Manley German: Does the Department of Militia know?


William Thomas White: They probably could tell my hon. friend, but it makes no difference how many are there; they have recruited their regiments, gone over there in good faith; they are ready to go to the front when the opportunity does come, and they are waiting for the opportunity to come. Let us look into that further. Look at the Canadian casualties. Is there any man in this House who expected that the Canadian casualties would be on the scale they have been? What is the reason for the breaking up of battalions when they go over to Great Britain? The reason is the casualties which have taken place at the front and the need for reinforcements. If 10 p.m. there had not been these casualties in the Canadian force we would have been able to maintain four or five divisions at the front. But on account of these casualties Canada has not been able to maintain four or five divisions at the front, and these regiments that have been [Sir Thomas Whited
sent forward have had to be broken up and the officers separated from their commands. Instead of there being criticism of these officers there should be the very opposite of criticism. These men feel it; they are cut to the heart when their regiments are necessarily broken up by reason of military exigencies. They do not want to be separated from their regiments, and most of them-I do not say all of them, but I have no information to the contrary-desire the first opportunity of going to the front. If there was anything I discovered am'ongst the men and officers wearing the Canadian uniform in London it was their intense desire to go to the front.


William Manley German: Is there any thing to
prevent them?


William Thomas White: Of course.


William Manley German: Why cannot they go as
privates? There are colonels who are no better than lots of privates in the ranks.


William Thomas White: That sounds very specious. A man who is quite competent to act as a colonel might not be quite as competent to act as a private. He might be of an age at which he might be quite competent to command men and yet not competent to take his place as a private in the trenches. It is unfair to the gallant body of men in London to cast any such reflections upon their patriotism or courage as that which has been cast upon them by the hon. member for Welland.


William Manley German: I did not intend to impeach the courage or cast any reflection on any of the brave officers in London. I did not intend to do any such thing but I say that there are officers-in London drawing pay who cannot go to the front, who will not go to the front, and whom it is the duty of this Government to return to Canada. Are they to be kept over there? If so, for how long? They have been there for months and some of them for a year or more. I have had something to do with recruiting in the section from which I come and I and others in my locality who are not in the Militia force know a good deal about recruiting. We think that we know something about the military situation as well as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. This is one of the things that is interfering with recruiting in Canada. There ought to be a remedy and there is one. Are these men to stay there until the end of the war? The Minister of Finance has just told us that he could not send these Canadian

officers to the front as colonels, majors and captains because they have officers in the trenches who are more capable. They have officers in the trenches who enlisted as privates and who have gained their rank for brave deeds in the trenches and they are filling the place of lieutenants, and captains by promoting men from the ranks. So they should, instead of sending over men who have had no experience in the- trenches, and placing them as colonels and captains over men who are just as good as they are, who have enlisted as privates and who have fought the battles of the country from the beginning. Are they to be supplanted by newcomers without trench experience? Certainly not. They should be rewarded by receiving the positions which become vacant when casualties occur in the superior ranks. These are the men who should be promoted. The hon. gentleman speaks very speciously of the officers there. I have not a word to say of the officers over there as men. I am perfectly willing that a colonel should go over with his regiment.
Should he stay there for six months and receive pay for doing nothing at this particular time when we are voting $500,000,000 for this war, and when the Minister of Finance is asking for $100,000,000 of a war loan? Is that a time when men should stay in London under pay, doing nothing, waiting for an opportunity to go to the front, forsooth! when my hon. friend knows as well as I know, and as the Minister of Militia and the ex-Minister of Militia knows, that these men will never go to the front in the capacity of colonel or major in which they went over to England, because those positions will be filled by the men who are promoted and who are fighting the battles in the trenches?


Air. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: Mr. Chairman, there is poison gas disseminated in connection with this war from other quarters than the trenches in the German line, and there is sniping equally as disastrous to the cause of the war as that of the 'German 'sharpehooters. I am one of those colonels, commanding officers, of whom the hon. gentlemen who act the part of political snipers in Canada speak so contemptuously in this House and through their press. I think it is well that there is one of those commanding officers present from London to answer face to face some of those who have just as much right to be over there as we have had, but who content themselves with discouraging the public men of Canada who do attempt to set an
example to so many others in Canada wRo might be serving their country, but who decline to do so. One feels almost ashamed to discuss service to one's country from the low standpoint of pay; but as a commanding officer who did not put on his uniform because of any pay attached to it, I would like to say that in the office which I carry on at home, and from which a large proportion of the staff have gone to serve our country, from the manager down to the printer's devil, the average pay of the workmen in that office is the pay that a commanding officer in the Canadian Militia receives for commanding a regiment. I hope that is sufficient illustration to convey to the intelligence of some of those hon. gentlemen to whom the pay of a commanding officer looms so large, that possibly there is some other incentive than to receive the same pay as scores of his own staff that impels him to put on the uniform.
I would like to cite my case as an example of what does prompt a member of Parliament to offer his services at the front. At a certain stage in recruiting in Canada, the then Minister of Militia called for
100,000	additional troops. We have about 100 infantry battalions in Canada, so that meant an overseas battalion, in addition to those already raised, from each of the infantry battaljons in this country. As I had the honour at that time of commanding an infantry regiment in Canada, I felt that it was an appeal to me to raise an overseas battalion, and I promptly volunteered to do it and I did do it.
As the Minister of Finance has said, the personal influence of a commanding officer had a great deal to do at that time in securing recruits. I feel quite sure that the fact that I had the honourable position of a member of the House of Commons gave me a great leverage in going about through my district and asking the young men of Westminster district-not to go to the front, but to come to the front with me. I may say to the hon. gentleman who says that the commanding officers might go as privates that I will forestall his objection by telling him that when I was of the age at which men do go as privates, I went to the front as a private in the service of my country. I am not of that age now and I could not go as a private nor as a lieutenant. If I volunteered I would not be accepted. But I did raise a very fine battalion in my district because of my personal appeals, and, if I do say it, because of what little prestige I have in that district.
56G

'Under ordinary circu: ^stances I and my battalion might very w jll have gone to the front as a unit. It was our desire. Many a political enemy at home-because we have a few snipers there, although in the West they do not flourish-has caused it to be asked of me on the platform or elsewhere: "Are you going to the front yourself"?-the imputation being that I was doing a grandstand play. I answered them honestly and truthfully that it was my desire and my intention to go to the front. My battalion arrived in England with thirteen others in a convoy, a total of 14,000 troops, immediately after the terrible experience on the Somme. The Canadian Headquarters in London were confronted then with a demand for the immediate services of about 19,000 men to replace the casualties which had just occurred, and it was our fortune when we arrived in England, to be selected as some of those reinforcements which were immediately sent. I think all the battalions in that convoy except two were drafted for that purpose. My battalion sent 400 men to the trenches within two weeks of our arrival in England, 100 a week later, and since then they have been going continuously. Now then, which is the more glorious, which is the more to be commended in a commanding officer, that, being met with a demand there to send men into -the fighting line and having recruited men for the fighting line, he should say: "I have brought these men to fight and they are at your service"; or that he should come to his political headquarters, if he has any political standing, and -say: "Do not send these men to fight, but leave them with me for my honour and glory so that I may go forward as a commanding officer"? What would the hon. gentlemen have isaid 'if it bad. tunned out that I was asked to send 500 men immediately to the trenches and I said: "Do not do that; what position do you put me in; if you send those, I cannot go?" And why could I not go? Because the regiment most calling for men at that time was one from my very own district, the 47th Westminster Battalion straight from the Somme, 400 shy, including in the ranks of officers twelve out of my own home regiment, including hundreds of men the every day aisisociates of those whom I had brought over. What more natural than that my 400 should go to their own neighbours from Westminster, to their own officers of their old regiment? And why could not the Colonel go? Because -greatly to the disappointment, seemingly, of these gentlemen opposite-Colonel Wins-
by, of the 47th, had not been shot; Major Coote second in command, of the 47th, and Major in my regiment at home, had not been shot. They remained in command. Therefore, Colonel Taylor and Major Cunningham of the recently-arrived regiment were not able to go to the front. What would the hon. gentleman have? Am I to be condemned by him and those like him because I took a battalion to England? Am I to be condemned because, having sent my men into the firing line, I come back and take up my duties as a member of this House?
I will show to some of these gentlemen what their criticism of unemployed officers means in some cases. An instance arose in England in June of 1915. A number of senior officers became unpleasantly conscious of their great numbers in England. There were eighty majors, for instance, who said: "Wc'dislike remaining here; we came over to go to the front; let us go forward as supernumerary lieutenants". And they went as supernumerary lieutenants. Now, the supernumerary lieutenant has almost less than no duties. He is the understudy of the lieutenant in charge of a platoon. He is not quite so useful as a sergeant in charge of any section, because the sergeant has been trained with the section from the beginning and is more accustomed to it than the supernumerary lieutenant can be. Not afraid of German bullets, and perhaps too conscious of the criticism such as is offered in this House to-night, these majors said: "Let us go over the parapet with the men". They went. Only twenty came back. Are we to cheer in this House because in that one stroke we wiped out sixty superfluous majors?
The hon. gentleman asks why these men are not sent home at once. The answer is so plain that I wonder that anyone should ask the question with a desire of obtaining knowledge. If asked with the idea that, being unanswered, it will make a point to the discredit of the soldiers of Canada, the question seems more intelligible. I would like to hear in upon the consciousness of some of these hon. gentlemen the fact that a senior military officer is not made in five minutes. And, as it takes a long time to make him, so it should take a correspondingly long time to arrive at the conclusion that he should be discarded and sent home. As the training proceeds in Canada, there are technical courses of all kinds to qualify the officers for the duties they are to exercise at the front. When we are asked

to send an officer to a school at Quebec, to a school at Ottawa, or Winnipeg, or Victoria, as I was asked from time to time to send mine, the accompanying note nearly always is: Send a senior officer, if possible. And properly so; because a senior officer should be qualified to lead in every branch of instruction. In the case of my battalion, nearly every senior officer bad 'been the subject of a special course of training at some of these schools, to the exclusion of the junior officers, because the number was limited.


Samuel Hughes: They attended several schools in some cases.


James Davis Taylor: Some of these officers had attended several schools, as the former Minister of Militia reminds me. Now, what would have been said of this Government if the moment these highly trained officers arrived in London they were told: " Since you cannot go forward with your battalion, you had better go straight home?" Then 'we should have had a political scandal. -
As to unemployment in London, as to the presence of officers in hotels in London, I wonder where these hon. gentlemen get their information. During the two months I spent in the Old Country, I was in London, I suppose, five or six times. On every occasion when I was there I had been sent for by an officer of higher command in London for some specific business. My visits there, I suppose, were generally for two days at a time-'business starting to-day and finishing to-morrow. As these hon. gentlemen see it, I was one of the officers, " crowding the hotels in London." I saw no officers there during my time who were not properly there. The majority of them were on leave from the front, the few weeks' leave that the officer gets after a great many months of service. The minority were of my class, officers who had come to England with the bona fide intention of going to the front, and who bad not achieved their ambition. I do not think a large percentage of these officers were in what we would call an idle class, or that by their presence or their actions they constituted a reflection upon the Canadian military service. It seemed to me they were an exceptionally fine body of men. We are 'asked why they spent months there instead of coming home. I had an illustration. I will not mention names, because to do so would be like advertising that the officer to whom I refer had spent so many months idle. I found in a camp to which I went in England one of the very finest officers in British Columbia, a man,
perhaps, fifteen or twenty years my junior, trained in every respect, who had brought over a battalion equal in merit to any battalion that had left our province, but a battalion that, like my own, was broken up on arrival there. That man had come across with no other idea than that of serving at the front. He had closed all hi's affairs in Canada. He was not even a member of Parliament, and could not have a member of Parliament's excuse-these hon. gentlemen seem to think it is 'an excuse-d,o come back to Canada. He waited for employment- He got employment the day I left England, that is, nine months after arrival there. He got the remnant of his own battalion, the remnant of my battalion, and the remnant of the 158th Battalion of Vancouver, to be under hi's command as the 1st British Columbia Training Battalion. And a fine training officer he is. Why should we criticise that officer for .having -been compelled to wait that time? These hon. gentlemen speak, in connection with this, as in connection with all other military subjects we have heard discussed in the House, as if they were the discoverers of something which, if they were the Government, would be done, but which is not done by this seemingly neglectful Administration.
We are told that the administration in London should grapple with the question of unemployment. These gentlemen opposite must know-because they have read it in their own press, paragraph	after paragraph-that the subject is being grappled with. They know that about two months ago a board was appointed to examine in detail into the standing of every officer not in serious employment in England; that this board visited every Canadian camp in England, questioned all the officers, as well as men of other ranks, as to their capacity and as to whether they could profitably take up military service other than what they had gone to England to do. The men were then divided into three categories: those who could advantageously be sent to the front and be replaced in England by others returning from the front; those who could do nothing at the front or in England, but might with advantage be given permission to return to Canada-because you cannot return without permission-and those who could profitably continue to be employed in London or in other parts of England. The question was dealt with in the most serious manner at that time by a board of very competent officers, several of whom

had seen service at the front, some of whom had served with distinction there and, having come back to London, found themselves temporarily unemployed. If an abuse had crept in, they were instructed to see that that abuse was discontinued, and they were inspired with a desire that it should be discontinued. No doubt as a result of the report of that board, officers have returned, opportunity has been found to send officers to France, and every opportunity has been taken to substitute the services of returned soldiers for services that had been performed in the Old Country by Canadians who had not been to the front. When the officers are moved on under these circumstances, I do not think they should be pilloried as having been driven to do something that they were unwilling to do. I prefer to take the view that the officers who go there, do so in good faith, ready to lay themselves on the altar of their country and to make whatever sacrifices they may be called upon to make. Do these hon. gentlemen opposite realize for a moment that soldiering is not eight hours' work a day during .six days of the week? Do they realize that there are a great many soldiers in England and in France who are not in the firing line; that there are a great many private soldiers who are unemployed in quite as wide a sense as these officers are unemployed, and that it is absolutely true that these men are serving their country efficiently and nobly? We have millions of soldiers in reserve in England and France who are not working every day, or six days a week, just the same as we have some idle officers. These soldiers are kept for the great drive which we all anticipate, and which only can change the condition from that of apparent stalemate now prevailing. Are they to be pilloried as men who are eating the bread of idleness in England? Is it .fair to our soldiers who remain in Canada, hawing been trained here, that they should be pilloried, as is the custom to-day, not only occasionally in the House, but also in the party press? Are they not just as useful to us in reserve in Canada, waiting to go to England and. France when they 'are sent for, as they would be if we got them out of our sight by sending them to England or to France? Are we improving the cause of the war by having nothing but criticism-small-souled, mean-spirited criticism, if I may use the expression-of those who try to serve the Empire, but who are not permitted to dlo so to the extent that 
they desire? It seems to me, as an officer who has, had much experience in recruiting, that more harm has been done to the cause of recruiting in Canada by the state-(inemts made this .session from the other side of the House .and widely diesemimaited as they have been, for political purposes iby the party press-the fountainheads of the poisoned political gas in this country- than by any possible combination of errors on the part of the Government.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I have (been very much
interested in the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor). I do not wish to criticise them, except to say that his entire speech was absolutely spoiled by the bitter partisanship of hds last few words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


George Perry Graham: One would think, to hear him speak of poisoned gas, that we on this side had no interest in the war. *


Mr. BEST:: It seems to fit well.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend, who is always interrupting, may say what he likes, but this is too serious a matter to be allowed to pass. If we on this side, who have made as many sacrifices as my hon. friend has in this war-some of us have devoted as much time as he has to matters affecting the war -are not to he allowed to criticise simply because he does not like it, then this is not a free country, and the liberties that we pretend to be fighting for he purposes taking away from us.


John Best: I do not purpose taking away any liberties. You have just told us what you pretend to be fighting for in the House, and I agree with you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What fare you fighting for?


George Perry Graham: He is not fighting for anything. I Teally do not understand what my hon. friend means. I wish to point out that any criticism that we have made has not been such as was indicated by my hon. friend. He has said that the criticism has been made solely for party purposes. I want to tell him that there are men on this side of the House who have an interest in seeing that our share in the war is conducted in the best possible manner with regard not only to the safety of the Empire, but also to the safety of the men iat the front. It is our purpose to criticise in order to bring about that result, and if my hon. friend considers that to be against the best

interest of the Allies, then he has not the judgment that I think he ought to have.


James Davis Taylor: What I said was that untrue statements disseminated from the House had injured the cause of recruiting.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said that the criticism indulged in during this session had injured recruiting.


Mr. EDWARDS:: So it has.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend thinks it has. He has been here all the time, and he does not know about the outside.


William Cameron Edwards: Neither do you.


George Perry Graham: I have delivered several recruiting speeches since the session opened. I say that just such speeches as my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has made have done injury to the cause of recruiting. We want to work in harmony with the Government in everything that will conduce to the best interests of Canada and the Empire, and I leave it to the serious judgment of the men on the Government side who do things as to whether or not that is the case. F.ut if we .are to be scolded because we criticise and make suggestions, then I say, Sir, that what we pretend to be. fighting for is a myth. The full liberty of the member to discuss is given to' us by the constitution of this country, and the more acute the situation is the more it is right, and the more it is our duty, to criticise, if that criticism will conduce to the best interests of the cause we all have at heart. Now this attempt to create discord, I do not think is the proper thing. I was deeply interested in the remarks of my hon friend (Mr. Taylor). He is a man who can speak with some knowledge of the conditions and of the situation in which he found himself. I took more than ordinary interest in what he said, and I might tell him that I was more than interested; I felt that he had spoken from his heart as to the conditions. But, Sir, when he turns on us and insists that we are doing something injurious to the cause of the Empire, and gives us a lecture. intimating that we have not the cause of the Empire at heart, I want to tell him that he is altogether wrong, and that we on this side of the House have as much right to free speech, and are as much interested in the war, as hon gentlemen opposite. And when the history of this country comes to'be written, it will be found that the criticism made by members on this side of the House has helped and not hindered the cause of the Empire.


William Cameron Edwards: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) and I would like to add one or two words. I did not understand nor do I think the members of this House understood that the member for New Westminster was charging against the Liberal members of this House or the Liberal party as a whole that they should not make any criticism whatever. He stated that in this House during this session there had been criticisms offered on this Government which were 'founded on untrue statement, and that those untrue statements, offered in the form of criticisms, were hurtful to recruiting. And in making that statement he said what every man in this House knows to be absolutely true. I want to ask my hon. friend if he thinks the statement made the other day by the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that because of the retempering of the bolts of the Ross rifle hundreds of lives had been sacrificed at the front was in the interest of recruiting. It was pointed out to him that that retempering took place last year, and not one of those rifles was in the hands of those men. But that makes no difference to that gentleman; his statement has gone upon Hansard, it has been caught up by certain of the party press, and sent out to the country. Was he man enough then to get up on the floor and retract his statements and say he had made a mistake? We had another instance in the case of the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee), who pours out a tale of woe about a returned soldier in Windsor who came back to Canada, was allowed to pass through the country without any overcoat, who had frozen his hands and feet and all that sort of thing; and he wound up by saying that he had no doubt there were hundreds of cases just like this throughout the country. That goes through the country, it is picked up by the press and circulated. The proof in that case lies in the fact that members belonging to the Soldiers' Relief Committee in Windsor sent to the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) a telegram, which was read here to-night at six o'clock, to the effect that the statement of the hon. member for Lambton, as published in the press, was absolutely false. When challenged with that to-night at six o'clock by the hon. member for North Essex, what did the hon. member for Lambton say? He said: I merely read what was in the press, what was stated in the newspaper, that is all that I did. That is

not all that he did, for he followed up that statement, without trying to ascertain whether it was authentic, by his statement that he did not doubt there were hundreds of cases like that. This is the kind of statements made by the hon. gentlemen opposite to which the hon. member for New Westminster referred when he said, and truly said, that statements are made on the floor of the House by hon. gentlemen opposite that are a hindrance to recruiting. Does the member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) think that his presence on the platform at a political meeting in the city of Toronto, when a man by the name of Hartley Dewart went into details and disregarded facts in regard to the exportation of nickel, and was supported and endorsed by the presence of the hon. gentleman on the platform-does he think that attitude was a proper one and in the interest of recruiting? I for one do not think it was.
Mr. Speaker, this war has demonstrated this fact, that we have, over at the front, Canadians who never were known in the public life of this country before, who wert considered small men if you like, hardly recognizable, but who have proved themselves to be big men in every sense of the word. It has also been demonstrated on the floor of this Parliament that we have men who have been in the public eye as representative men, holding seats in this Parliament, who have shown by their attitude and their words that they are small men-small men and very small. Talk about their conscience being affected by the Ross rifle and that sort of thing! The stain is not in the conscience of hon. gentlemen opposite; for I say to them: if you will look down to your finger tips you will find that the stain is produced by your attempt, for political purposes, to turn the bloody key in the door of office and to open the portals to yourselves.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After this scolding which we have received from our friend, with the true (Germanic spirit which prevents him from permitting any man in this free country to say anything in this Parliament or out of it, or to venture in any way to disagree with him, I wish to read some extracts from a letter which I have received from another Colonel; not my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), but a colonel who left this country for the war in 1914 and has not come home yet. I read this just for the purpose of telling my hon. friend who has just sat down that there are some people in this country who do not

agree with him, and who do not agree with our colonel friend from New Westminster. The letter is of such a character that if I read it in full detail my hon. friend who has just sat down would at once proceed to scold me and to scold the colonel, because he would say the publication of such statements would prevent recruiting in this country. I shall read one or two extracts and leave it to this House, once we have got back to our normal frame of mind and after the lecture which the hon. member for New Westminster has given us, as to whether or not there is justification for hon. gentlemen on this side saying something about the conduct of the war. This letter came to me unsolicited; I had no communication with this gentleman in any way whatever. It came to me in the month of December, and among the expressions which he makes use of is the following:
If the people of Canada knew what goes on here in the waste of public money, the creation of jobs for disgruntled politicians and wire pullers, it would make very interesting reading for the Canadian people.


James Davis Taylor: What is his name?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will give to the Minister of Militia, if he desires, the name of this colonel.


Samuel Hughes: As one having the interest of the soldiers at heart, I respectfully submit that the hon. member should not give out the name of the officer. I have never heard of this case, but I do not like to see the name of an officer brought in.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If it is bad form for this colonel over in England, who is not a political colonel, to write certain remarks of this kind, what is the form of the Colonei from New Westminster?


Samuel Hughes: I do not think my hon. friend should give the officer away.


James Davis Taylor: The colonel from New Westminster is not anonymous or ashamed of what he said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This gentleman is not anonymous. If it comes to a question of pluck and achievement, the gentlemen of whom I am speaking will compare with the hon. member for New Westminster. He did not spend two months in England; he went over in 1914, and has not come home yet. He goes on:
If the facts that exist here were known in Canada-but our mouths are closed as long as we wear uniforms.


James Davis Taylor: Where is that from, is
it from France?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, it is written
from a camp in England. If my hon. friend wants to suggest any question about this letter, I pledge my word as a member of this House that I will give the name of the writer to the Minister of Militia. '


Mr. DAVIDSON:: What is he doing in England?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is at work in
England at the present time. He goes on further:
The impression with many officers is that the young life's blood of Canada is exploited to glorify the Tory party, and I must admit that it seems to be true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What further does the- gentleman say:
I do not know whether the censor will pass this or not. If he does not I hope he will pass it on to the Government for I am going to sign my name to it and dare any one to contradict anything written here.
I have stated what I am prepared to do in regard to the matter. I desire to say that if, as has been suggested by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) that this colonel, who went over in August, 1914, and has not yet seen his home or family, is not permitted to express his opinion in regard to the conditions over there without being denounced by hon. gentlement opposite, my hon. friend from Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has no right to lecture the men who sit on this side of the House when there are in France the graves of three boys, sons of members, and when there are some twenty-five to thirty members on this side of the House whose boys are over there. We need no lectures from hon. gentlemen opposite on this question.


James Davis Taylor: But what your friend says is not true.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will put the word of the man who wrote this statement against the word of my hon. friend.


James Davis Taylor: It is not true.


Avard Longley Davidson: Who is he?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have told my hon. friend from Annapolis what I will do with respect to the name. I merely rose for the purpose of showing that there are colonels on the other side who have something to say.


James Davis Taylor: I said that the statement is absolutely untrue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Here is the letter
with the signature to it, and I am prepared to show it to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Militia at any moment. These statements are made by a man who left here two and a half years ago, and there is no justification whatever for the suggestion that hon. members on this side of the House should not indulge in reasonable criticism. What criticism has ever been made in this House so keen as that made by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), who declared that if the conditions as he found them to exist at one time in England were permitted to continue under the administration of a new Minister of Militia, the forces would be reduced to a chaotic condition. Has there been anything more emphatic than that statement? Could any stronger criticism be made?


Samuel Hughes: What I said had
reference to the statement that political action had been taken on the other side during the last nine months or during whatever time that officer has been over there. What I meant to say was that under my administration, I challenge the face of clay to point to a single instance of political preferment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be very glad to show this letter to my hon. friend. He knows this colonel.


Samuel Hughes: If I was Minister
of Militia I would refuse to look at a letter of that kind from an officer, because it immediately brings him under the law. That was my reason for suggesting that he should not divulge the name to the Prime Minister except in confidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: An officer who is a
member of Parliament has a double advantage, and certain exemptions.


Samuel Hughes: An officer is always permitted to' criticise favourably, but he is not permitted to criticise adversely.
Some' hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: That is the law of the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This gentleman
writes this letter expecting that it might not pass the censor. He makes the stater ment which I have read.


Samuel Hughes: I made the suggestion for the protection of the officer.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have quoted from this letter for the purpose of showing that there are men on the other side of the Atlantic to-day who have gone from Canada, and who have certain opinions about


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who says that the
hon. gentleman has no such right?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have had an intimation fro-m my hon. friend from Westminster.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
- Mr. TAYLOR:	I rise -to a -question of
privilege. I a-mi being misquoted by the hon. member. My reference was solely to untrue and unfair criticism -from the other side of the House.


George Perry Graham: These are not the words you used, as you will see in Hansard.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend made a general statement in regard to criticism from this side of the House, and I appeal to the judgment of this committee whether in the discussions that have taken- place iwe have not been entirely within our rights in asking for information, in discussing the [DOT]merits of the Ross rifle, or in discussing the question of the reports of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Baptie.


Samuel Hughes: Dr. Bruce is in Canada to-night.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am aware of that. 1 submit to this committee and to the House that we have a perfect right to criticise, and that we cannot be asked to abrogate our constitutional functions as representatives of the people in discussing these matters. We have had tremendous expenditures during the -past two years. We have had the great question of recruiting, the question as to whether or not recruiting

has been properly carried on, and the question as to whether or not the aim of the Prime Minister as to raising 500,000 men c$m be realized. What sense is there in declaring that in regard to matters like these silence should reign, and that no man shall criticise or make suggestion. It is for the maintenance forever of that right in this country that we are fighting against a system which would prevent that criticism, the system which prevails in Germany, a militarism that wants to dominate the world. Our criticism has been legitimate and proper, and it has been within our rights.	'


Arthur Meighen: Let me note a specific instance. What -does my hon. friend think of the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to the effect that the Prime Minister had stated before the Ontario Recruiting League that it was his desire that there should be no more recruiting in Canada? What is his opinion as to that statement? Does he consider it fair criticism?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend wants me to discuss a question of difference of opinion between the hon. member for As-siniboi-a and the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: A difference of opinion! Does the hon. gentleman agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Probably the end of that matter has not been heard of. I am not here to discuss details. That is a personal matter between the hon. member for Assiniboia and the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. The hon. member for Assiniboia does -not claim to have been present at the meeting. The Prime Minister was there, and he specifically and emphatically denies the statement; but there has been no retraction by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and- no one has come to his rescue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me -suggest to the Solicitor General that possibly we have not' heard the end of the matter.


Arthur Meighen: Give us the end of it now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Assin-ifooi-a is no-t here. Were he here he would be perfectly able to take care of himself. I do not think the hon. member for F-rontenac (Mr. Edwards) was fair to the Liberal party with regard to his address

yesterday. Everyone who knows that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) knows that he is not a gentleman who assails this House with extreme utterances at any time, but on the 'altogether too ra/re occasions upon which he has addressed the House he has not done so offensively or in such a way as to entitle him to he regarded as in any way extreme. The right hon. the Prime Minister yesterday complimented my hon. friend from West Lambton on the manner in which he bad 'brought the attention of the House and the country to the duty which we are called upon to perform in reference to our returned soldiers. That speech was not regarded by the right hon. Prime Minister as having been the result of any idea of imputing blame to the Government at all. Every hon. gentleman who heard 'the hon. member for West Lambton knows that his 'speech was not of a controversial character and was not intended to impute blame to the Government. He asked for the -best possible good and with the best of intentions that .both sides of this House should join in the appointment of a committee to take into their most careful and serious consideration this great problem in the interim between now and the resumption of the session. It 'is only fair to my hon. friend who is not here that I should make this statement in reference to him.
In regard to the whole question of this debate, I regret that at this stage there should be any manifestation of feeling in reference to it. The ex-Minister of Militia refers to the fact that Dr. Bruce is in Canada. I understand that Dr. Bruce has arrived in Canada and in order that we may bring the discussion of this question back to where we started this afternoon I would like to ask the Prime Minister, as I am informed Dr. Bruce is preparing to make some statement to the Canadian people with regard to the question of the examination which he ha's made into medical conditions on the other side, whether he will not endeavour to give us to-morrow, before the House adjourns, the reports made by Dr. Bruce and Dr. Baptie, if they are in his possession. I understand from the statement of the ex-Minister of Militia that the report of Dr. Bruce is in the department.
Let us have it on the table of 11 p.m the House to-morrow so that in the consideration of this matter, if there is to be any statement made by Dr. Bruce the House and the country will be seized of the facts in regard to the whole question after seeing the reports of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Baptie.


Samuel Hughes: I am not going to
take any part in any of the pros and cons.
I have been in the House for twenty-seven sessions and I have to express my regret at the quarrelings and contentions, backwards and forwards, over a great question of this kind. It is quite unseemly. But, I always appreciate criticism and I think I have had as much nasty criticism as any gentleman present. Last spring the Globe came out with an editorial attacking the department for having 200 or 300 officers lying around England idle. A short time after the troops first went over we had no 'Staff, and no officers attached to the staff. They were taken from the various regiments as they passed over. These officers, although acting as staff officers, had to appear on the roll cf the regiments as colonels, majors and captains. They were taken from the regiments and they were not on the headquarters or the various divisional or brigade staffs. These officers, could not draw their pay and allowances for staff work because they were only attached to regiments. The pay master General across the water mentioned that there were 200 or 230 odd officers attached to regiments who were not drawing pay and allowances and some clever editor, seeing it, thought there were 200 or more officers in England unattached. Then, writers up and down the country, of course to help the cause and not at all with the intention of injuring the Tory party or the Minister of Militia, but to help the cause and to make the boys over there feel more at home and the friends and mothers of the boys more comfortable here came out with column after column attacking the Department of Militia and Defence for having these 200 odd officers in England for whom there was nothing to do. But every officer was act- ' ively employed. Shortly 'after this occurred there came the Zillebeke affair in June. I had an application, through our staff, from the War Office for upwards of 200 officers and I had an application when I was in England to send over 400 officers to fill the places of the boys who had gone.


Robert Laird Borden: Six hundred altogether?


Samuel Hughes: Nearly 600 altogether to go and fill the gaps. We did not have the officers there. I gave instructions that well-educated, intelligent, capable boys, sergeants, corporals and privates in the ranks should be promoted, and hundreds of these boys were promoted. I did not take the criticism seriously. I rather enjoyed it. I think I have told the story told by

Barnum the first time I saw him when I was a boy. He said: I spend $75,000 a year to have the show condemned, and I spend $750,000 to have the show advertised. I get ten times as much value out of the $75,000 that I spend to have the show condemned as I do out of the $750,000 that I spend to have the show advertised. Everybody copies the condemnation and nobody believes it, but the advertisement is all the greater. I have learned to proceed upon that line. There has been a great deal of criticism, but it does not affect me.
Now, I want to say a word about getting the battalions across the sea. I am going to make this statement that in all the recruiting that has ever been carried on in civilized warfare, or any other kind of warfare, none has equalled that which has been carried on in Canada. We sent the officers who recruited these battalions over with them. There was some criticism, but I paid m>
attention to it. I felt that people, such for instance as my friend Taylor here, who had raised regiments, were entitled to take their regiments across, and serve a few weeks at all events with their regiments. Then we gave them what we called a Cook's tour to the front, where they would get a little experience and a great deal of information, so that they might be able to come back home and give Canada the benefit of the experience and information which they had acquired. I took that view, and it has been proved to be the practical and proper view of the matter, and it has been carried out. There is no doubt that there are a number of these fellows who are good fellows, the very best in the world, whose whole hearts are in the cause, like my friend Taylor here, who went to work and did their best, although they knew that their chances of getting to the front were more or less hazy. But they wanted to go. One member of this House, Col. Arthurs-I read the most touching letter I have seen for many a day-is in the trenches. He had reduced his rank and gone over in spite of his son's remonstrance from the trenches ordering his dad to get out. These officers went over in command. They knew that the chances were that a great majority of their battalions would have to be broken up for draft purposes. But, there is nothing wrong in having these officers overseas. It was due to their efforts that many of these regiments were recruited. Colonel Taylor, for instance, was the most powerful recruiting agent one could have in his district. I think these men were entitled to a trip over and a little visit

there; it does not cost a great deal, and they are doing something useful. When they return to their homes, they will have acquired further experience, and they will be able to do even better work in the way of recruiting in Canada. Before I left England I gave directions for the organization of a committee. I demanded a report of every officer employed in England at that time. The report was not completed when I came away, and the instructions were to classify the officers, as my hon. friend has stated, into three classes and then to select those who were suitable for a command, and if possible, to give them an opportunity.
I want to say another word about the Fifth Division and the boys at the front. I am satisfied-and I do not want to go further than to express my own views- that we can have a Fifth Division and, if necessary, a Sixth and a Seventh and an Eighth Division at the front, from the men whom we now have across the water. That proposition I put in black and white to Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Kobertson and Mr. Lloyd George, now Prime Minister. My purpose was to have as many as possible of those men trained, and we have heard here to-night how men were taken over to France the second week they were in England, with no more experience than that, and put right into the trenches. I can tell of men who, within a week after their arrival in England, were sent over to France, and who the first morning after they arrived in France, were wounded and some of them killed, so that there is nothing in the story about the necessity of Canadian soldiers being kept in England for training purposes. They learn more in a week in the trenches than they do in a month in England or in Canada. My proposition was to put as many divisions at the front as we possibly could, to have a certain frontage and to take care of that and no more. Our casualties would be no greater if we had six divisions than if we had four divisions, because we would have only a certain length of front, and the men I am satisfied would be more healthy in France than they are in England. In that way we would have six divisions trained ready for action in the great drive which is coming on at an early date, whereas now we shall have only four divisions trained for it. There should be two Canadian Army Corps at the front, one which I would like to see under the command of General Turner and the other under the command of General Currie. I should imagine that

General Turner is sick of his job in London and that he would be glad to get back to the music of the guns. If General Byng has to be disposed of, he should be made an officer commanding an army because the Canadian boys like him. I do not wish to bring up anything controversial; but the whole matter is very easy: We have plenty of men across ithe water, and the few 'that 'are in England can very well get on without General Turner.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) :: Mr. Chairman, I do not arise for
the purpose of criticising the Militia Department of this country. I could, of course, under my privilege as a member of the House of Commons criticise the department, ibut I am not entitled to criticise it outside, and I am not going to say anything in this House which I am not permitted to say on the hustings of this country.


Samuel Hughes: If my hon. friend
will permit me, he is all wrong. If he will read the address I gave to this House in the year 1901 in the Hutton matter, he will see the law laid down there on the subject. He can from his seat here to-night, or on the street to-morrow, if the House is in session, tell the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Militia, or the ex-Minister of Militia exactly what he thinks of them, positively or negatively, and no man can lay a finger on him under the law. Admiral Napier left the fleet in front of Kronstadt and came back to the House of Commons and pounded the life out of the Admiralty.


William F. Carroll: What the ex-minister
has stated was what I was trying to point out. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear, that I was allowed as a member of this House to criticise the military authori-' ties and, indeed, any person, even the King; but when the House is not in session, I am not allowed to do it outside, and I do not purpose saying anything in this House or outside while the House is in session that I am not permitted to say outside while the House is not in session. i I am sorry I was not in the House yesterday when the matter of looking after returned soldiers was under discussion. Last evening I received from a personal friend of mine in the city of Sydney, who (by the way is a very strong party man and who happens to be a Conservative, a letter regarding the matter of looking after our returned soldiers and also giving some strictures regarding the appointment of censors around the Marconi stations. He
takes' the ground that a great many of our men, who should be at the front to-day or who should 'be training for service at the front, were given positions as decoders or censors at those stations at the beginning of the war, and that they should be relieved to-day and their positions given to returned soldiers. We have in the island of Cape Breton a considerable number of returned soldiers who would make excellent decoders and censors. It strikes me that in the matter of appointing decoders and censors, the Government undertook to appoint men who in some cases had private incomes, who ini many other cases had large wages and who are receiving the same large wages to-day. The names that I have in my hand are all those of censors; my friend does not mention the decoders at all. I wish it to be understood that I am saying nothing against any of these men or their capacities as censors; I have no doubt that the censors are good censors and that the decoders are good decoders. Mr. D. S. Hooper of Louisburg is assistant censor and at the present time is receiving $5 per day. He is Superintendent of Government Telegraph at a salary of $600 per year with horse-hire, and he is also local manager of the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company at a salary of $500 per year.


Robert Laird Borden: When was he appointed?


William F. Carroll: He was appointed at least two years ago. I know a gentleman in the town of Glace Bay, a man who went over with either the Pioneers or the Tun-nellers, Mr. Dan McDougall-and he is not a political friend of mine-


Samuel Hughes: Is that old Dan?


William F. Carroll: Yes, old Dan McDougall. He was returned some time ago as being medically unfit. He is a man of considerable education.


Samuel Hughes: He was concerned in the strike?


William F. Carroll: He was the leader of the United Mine Workers' strike?


Samuel Hughes: He is a very good fellow.


William F. Carroll: A good man. I am mentioning his name because I know him personally. He is a man of education, if not a man of means. I think in justice to Mr. McDougall it would be well for whoever

has charge of the Censorship Branch that this matter should be looked into. When Mr. MeDougall came back from the front, medically unfit for service, he could not get anything to do, and he had to go into the mines to work, although that is rather strenuous work for a person who is medically unfit for military service.
Then there is another man, Mr. W. T. Hayden, who is assistant censor at $4 per day. He is also private secretary to Mr. J. C. Douglas who has the patronage of Cape Breton county so far as military matters are concerned and who is a member of the legislature.


Samuel Hughes: Is Mr. Douglas a Tory?


William F. Carroll: Yes. Then there is Mr. Charles Macdonald who my informant states is decoding clerk at a salary of $3.25 per day, but I think as a matter of fact the salary for decoding clerks is $2.50. Mr. Macdonald is law clerk with Mr. J. C. Douglas. Then there is Mr. E. L. Gilpin of North Sydney who is censor at the cable office at a salary of $7 per day. He is also property agent of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company at a salary of $3,000 per year, and secretary of the Steel Workers' Benefit Fund at a salary of $1,200 per year I think we have some returned officers, who, having been wounded at the front, have been sent back as medically unfit, who would be well suited for a position of that kind. Not that Mr. Gilpin is not able to fill the position, but because he seems to be a man moderately well off, judging from the salary he gets. Another gentleman to whom I would refer is Mr. E. O. Burke, a very fine, estimable gentleman. He is assistant censor in the cable office at five dollars a day. He is also employed with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company at a salary of $1,800 a year. Then we come to Mr. B. Archibald, of North Sydney, who is assistant censor at the cable office at five dollars a day. He is also stipendiary magistrate of the town of North Sydney and carries on a legal business in that town. The gentleman who sends me the information says that he is a man of independent means. If he said he was wealthy I think he would be nearer the mark. Though Mr. Archibald is one of the first gentlemen in our country, yet if he weTe relieved of that job and some returned soldier who had the capacity to do this work were given the position I think it would be an advantage.

There are a few grievances under which I think the soldiers at the front are 'suffering at this time, and I intend to ask the Minister of Militia the privilege of writing to him a letter to tell him in my own humble way of the things that I think should be remedied. It is not my intention to criticise, as I have said. In any case, the Government might not be the 'subject of criticism, as it migbt be that officers in England are responsible for the grievances. If the Minister of Militia will give me the privilege, I will bring these matters to his attention in a letter; or, if he would prefer it, I will see him in his office, and in an interview discuss them with him.
That is all I have to say. I think that the Government should take into consideration this matter of the censorship, not only in the places to which I have referred, but generally, because I think the same conditions hold elsewhere. Where men are able to earn a living otherwise, yet are given large salaries as most of these men are, they should be relieved of these positions and the positions given to returned soldiers, who are capable of filling them.


Arthur Meighen: 
Mr. CARROL:: There is nothing very technical about this business. The men who are now in office went in knowing nothing about the censorship, and depending simply upon their instructions.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say there was anything technical about it, but that it takes a degree of intelligence above the ordinary, as well as education and maturity of judgment more than can be secured for very small remuneration. But, while the standard of service must be maintained, yet, subject to that, the returned soldier must get the preference. I shall be glad to review what the hon. gentleman has said, and to make a specific investigation in every case.-
Bill reported.



QUEBEC HARBOUR LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 25, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners was on motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
37	-
On section 2-$1,500,000 may be advanced to Harbour Commission for terminal facilities:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why does the minister
allow the commissioners to repay the interest out of the money that he is advancing?


Mr. HAZEN:: That is always done in
connection with these works during the period of construction. No new principle is involved.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see by the paper this evening that the chairman of the Quebec Harbour Commission, Mr. L'Esperance, states that in connection with the improvements in the harbour at Quebec the Government intend to spend $700,000 this year on the river St. Charles works. Is that a fact?


John Douglas Hazen: The harbour commissioners have nothing to do with the works at the St. Charles river.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But he speaks of these works in the St. Charles river as included in the harbour of Quebec.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-interest on debentures during construction of works to be charged to capital account:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the minister give
a statement of the indebtedness of the Quebec Harbour Commission?


John Douglas Hazen: Between the years 1886 and 1892 there was advanced by the Government on harbour debentures the sum of $3,612,802.42. There was advanced by the Government, without security, $584,773.26. The old Harbour Commissioners borrowed from the public $1,150,000, making a total of $5,347,575.68 that had been borrowed by the Harbour Commissioners up to the time this new work was started in 1913.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The interest charges on debentures taken up by the public are paid out of the advance made by the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: They are paid out of the revenues of the harbour, but the interest on the $1,150,000 which in those days was loaned by the public, has a prior claim to the interest on the money advanced by the Government since 1913. The people who loaned that money to the old commissioners



are protected by a clause making that interest a prior charge.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Civil government-Department of Finance and Treasury Board1-$600.
George Perry Graham: One of the effects of the war has been to cause people to open their hearts and sympathies not only to those engaged in the war, but to all other needy people. Never in the history of Canada have the poor been so well looked after as they have been since the war began; the greater the burden imposed upon the people, the greater the burden they seem able and willing to bear. We are taking a new outlook: viewing things from a different angle. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance a case which, I think, deserves his consideration. Probably no legal right is involved, but when we are gladly preparing to look after those who are injured in the cause of Canada and the Empire, I think we may, without creating a precedent and without doing anything but honour to ourselves, consider a case of this kind. I refer to the case of Colin C. McNab, now a resident of Braeside, who was engaged by the Canadian Pacific Railway as a telegraph operator during the Northwest Rebellion. According to the information given to me by him, he was placed by the company in charge of officers of the militia. His pay came indirectly from the Government. He worked day and night for months during many long weary hours in the Northwest, and as a result of disease contracted fin that employment he lost his eyesight and has since been blind. He has been groping his way through life, not an object of charity-he does not wish to be that-but he does think, and I think with him, that the people of Canada might well, through their Government, place an amount in the Estimates which would in a measure assist him in bearing the affliction that has come upon him on account of his work for the benefit of Canada during the Northwest rebellion. I know that this case has been brought before the Militia Department under the late Government as well as this Government, and the ground has been taken that there is no legal claim, as he was

not really an employee of the Militia Department, though in substance he contends he was. I admit that at once. If anything is to be given, it must come under the heading of what we call a compassionate allowance, and not through any Tight. I know that last year the minister took the ground that it might establish a precedent. I do not think it would establish any precedent, but I would go so far as to say that if any other case arose that was on all fours with this case, I would grant gladly and support a compassionate allowance. He did this work, he became subject to this life-long affliction, the terrible one of blindness, at a time when men in employment such as , hits had no opportunity of being surrounded with such safeguards as they have now; there were no Workmen's Compensation Acts of which a man could take advantage in order that he might be protected if injured. He did his duty, and, taking the hours he worked day and night, he did not receive as much pay as an ordinary soldier does at the present time. I am pleading his case not on any legal ground, I am not suggesting that he has a legal claim, but as one which might be properly expressed in the words compassionate allowance. I believe that no precedent would be established by giving him a small amount, and I plead with the Government to place in the Supplementary Estimates for next year an amount which they think fair and proper in order that this man may be helped through the balance of his life to enjoy himself as much as possible with this great affliction. I asked him to put a statement fairly from his own standpoint, and this is what he has given me:
I was turned over to the Militia Department at Ottawa with instructions to report to Colonel Jackson. My wages, transportation, and expenses were paid by the Militia Department until I returned to Ottawa. I received orders from Colonel Jackson to report to Colonel Forrest at Qu'Appelle. I was under that gentleman's orders until the rebellion was suppressed. If it will he necessary to take it up in the House, the thing should he considered.
First, I worked day and night to assist the expedition, and when you consider overtime I did not receive as much as a private soldier to-day.
Second, I lost my eyesight through exposure in connection with the Northwest rebellion. That has been proven by certificates furnished by Dr. Edwards, Government [DOT] officer, Qu'Appelle, and Dr. Horsey, Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How old is he?


George Perry Graham: I do not know, but I
should think that he is forty-five or fifty
years o-ld.


William Thomas White: This case has
been before me for consideration. I understand that it was brought 'before the Militia Department during the period of the late Government, and also since the present Government assumed office. There -seems no doubt that under the regulations of the Militia Department this unfortunate man would not be entitled to a pension. As my hon. friend has- said, there is no legal claim. He was not a member of the militia force; he was not, so far as the facts are in my information paid by .the Government; he was in private employ. He was a telegrapher in the employ of the Canadian -Pacific Railway at the time of the Northwest rebellion. I believe that even if he had been a member of the militia he would not be legally entitled to a pension because of -the period which has elapsed.


George Perry Graham: That is not his fault.


William Thomas White: There is, of
course, good reason for the rule which debars a man after a certain time because there is uncertainty in relating his affliction to his service -at so remote a date; there is always an element of uncertainty in those cases which are brought forward after a lapse of years. So that on legal grounds or under the regulations of the Militia Department he clearly would not be entitled to consideration for pension. My hon. friend recognizes that, and puts -forward the case as one for compassionate allowance on the part of the Government. In admitting a case of that kind we must have regard to principle and to precedent, which -must necessarily be established. My difficulty in regard to this case has not been one of lack of sympathy fpr him, because I think it is a hard case. This man is heavily afflicted, being blind, and our sympathies naturally go out to him. But when we consider putting him upon the pension -list of the Dominion, we have to proceed in accordance with some principle, otherwise -we should establish a precedent which would be embarrassing to ourselves and to succeeding Governments in matters of this kind. If the man was in private employ, I cannot see on what principle we can place him upon the list of those to whom the Government has granted pensions on the ground of compassionate allowance. One naturally considers just what the adoption of that principle would lead to. We take -the case of a man who is engaged by a railway company as an engineer or brake-man or other employee in connection with the
*bringing up of supplies for am -army in time of war. Supposing that he was injured; could you rightly differentiate his case from the case of -this unfortunate man? Take the case even of an operative who is injured to-day in a munitions factory. He is in private employ, but nevertheless he is doing work indirectly or even directly connected with the carrying on of . the war. My 'hon. friend will realize the questions that might arise -from the establishment of a precedent of this character. My hon, friend has stated that he has been informed that this man was sent out to the Northwest by the Mil-itia Department and paid by the Militia Department. If that is so, -that has not been brought to my attention. If my hon. friend can establish that I will be glad to look into the ease again, although I shall not commit myself and cannot, of course, -commit the Government to any course of action.
That is a new statement, so far as I am concerned. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and Dr. Maloney have brought this case to my attention, and so far I have been unable to see on what principle I could admit this man, although, so far as my own sympathies are concerned, I would like to do so. I am afraid, however, that a precedent might be established that would be quite unsound, and that would commit this and succeeding Governments to similar action on what might possibly be a large scale.


George Perry Graham: I will try to get the information.
Civil Government-Department of Finance anti Treasury Board. To provide for increased salary of J. C. Saunders, Assistant Deputy Minister-5300.


Mr. MARTIN (St. Mary's, Montreal):: What is the salary of the assistant deputy minister?


William Thomas White: The salary of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance is $4,500. My hon. friend knows that Mr. H. T. Ross, who was a very valuable member of the staff of the Finance Department, and who acted most acceptably as deputy minister for many years, resigned in order to take a much more lucrative position with the Canadian Bankers' Association. I filled the vacancy by promoting Mr. Saunders, who has been the Dominion bookkeeper for many years, a very capable official.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And deserving of promotion.


William Thomas White: I adopted the principle of promotion, and Mr. Saunders occupies the position which a couple of months ago was occupied by a Mr. Ross.


William Melville Martin: What is the salary of the secretary?


William Thomas White: My private secretary, Mr. Veitz, has gone to the front. He left the service of the department last spring. I took a young man on in his place, and he is now acting as my secretary. For some months he acted as assistant secretary, and the salary which he was getting was, I think, something like $1,300. I took him on as my secretary, and he becomes entitled to the secretarial allowance of $600, that is $300 for the period of six months ending 31st March of this year.


William Melville Martin: I am not against the increase of salaries, hut if the minister finds it necessary to make an increase of $500 in the case of his deputy minister, and increases the salary of his secretary from $1,300 to $1,600, I would ask if it would not be possible for him to put an item in the estimates increasing the salaries of the letter carriers, not only in Montreal, but all over Canada. He knows very well that the cost of living has 'increased, and that those letter carriers get a salary of $900 a year. There is no better class of employees in the Government service. They work 365 days in the year, working on New Year's Day and on Christmas Day. I think that these * men are deserving of an increase because the cost of living to-day is so high, being more than 100 per cent in different articles than it was before. The man who is getting $900 a year to-day is really not getting more than $450. If the big salaries have to be increased the small ones ought to he increased also, and those who are getting $750, $800 and $900 should receive the consideration of the Minister of Finance. I am not speaking only for the letter carriers of Montreal, but for all the letter carriers in Canada. Their wage is a email one, and it should be increased .at this time. They have asked the Government to do so, but have received no answer yet.


William Thomas White: 
Mr. REID:: The hon. member knows that Mr. Verret is at the front, and while he is away there has to be an Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is only acting then?


John Dowsley Reid: He may be acting, but even as acting assistant deputy he is entitled to the increase in salary. The fact that it has been done in this way does not imply that Mr. Verret has been removed from his position. I know that that is not the case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope not.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Fowler is there while
Mr. Verret is away.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As the vote is worded it-*would mean that there are two Assistant Deputy Postmaster Generals.


John Dowsley Reid: There is only one acting now.


George Perry Graham: There are two ministers of Militia, and we get it all the way through.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the item ought be changed and that it should read " Acting Assistant Deputy Postmaster General ". I do not think it is possible that the Government can have created another Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it is all right.


William Thomas White: The item as it
appears in the Estimates is precisely as it came from the department. I do not think for one moment that any change has been made in the status of Major Verret. Whether Mr. Fowler is Assistant Deputy Postmaster

General or not, I am not prepared to say, but I shall draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the matter. I do not believe that this item would make him Assistant Deputy Postmaster General-'if he was not. I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not here, .as I am not in a position to give my hon. friend any information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not insist, but if Mr. Fowler is only acting assistant deputy I think the wording of the item should be changed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for St. MaTy's (Mr. Martin) in respect to some extra allowance being given to postal carriers in some of the cities at least, if not in all I think it is a case deserving the consideration of the Government. I understand that the matter has been placed before them by the Postal Carriers' Association and that possibly it will receive the favourable consideration of the Government. Therefore, I merely wish to concur in the suggestion of the hon, member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) that something ought to be done for them either in the way of an increase in. salary or a bonus or something of that nature. The Minister of Finance made a remark in answer to the statement made by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in which he asked for a compassionate allowance for a certain person in the province of Ontario. On page 5 of the Estimates I find:
Allowance to Emile Carrier for injuries which resulted in the loss of an eye. . . $600.
This in the nature of a compassionate allowance. The Minister of Finance suggested a moment'ago that these votes should be based upon some principle. I brought to the attention of the Department of Railways and Canals the case of a young man in Halifax who was in the employ of that department. About a year agO' a fire occurred in a shed upon one of the piers of the Intercolonial railway. This employee was at his home and had retired for the night when he was called out by his chief at the freight shed to fight the fire. Whi'a so engaged he lost his life. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Department of Railways and Canals was kind enough to advise me the other day that this young man was being allowed $500. Here is the case where a young man is taken from his home after his working hours, is engaged in protecting
the property of the Government, and loses his life and it is proposed to vote a compassionate allowance of $500. On the other hand, here is a case where $600 is proposed to be voted to a man for the loss of an eye. I am not objecting to it, but it does seem to me there is a variance in the application of the principle as between these two cases. I hope the day will soon come when we can take care of the employees of governments in a more scientific fashion than we are doing to-day. In almost all of the provinces we have the Workmen's Compensation Act but, it cannot provide for the employees of the Government and I hope we may establish some protection in the nature of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the employees of the Government who may meet with accidents. I refer to the matter to show that there is a very material distinction made between these two cases and I trust that the Minister of Railways and Canals will remember my observations to-night and look into the case further.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did the young man leave any dependents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He did not leave any dependents except that he was a substantial contributor to the upkeep of his home and parents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This afternoon I made an inquiry of the right hon. the Prime Minister to know whether a postmaster at Montreal has been appointed. I see there are three vacancies in the higher outside Civil Service at Montreal-the collector of the port of Montreal and the postmaster of Montreal and the inspector of weights and measures. The three most important offices in the outside Civil Service are now vacant in Montreal. Whilst it is none of my business to recommend to the Government who ought to be appointed, I may be allowed to say a word or two about what public opinion considers to be the proper disposition of these offices. First of all, I wish tc ^ay that the post office lost an excellent official in the death of the late Mr. Bergeron. He was a kindly and courteous gentleman, he was in his office every day, the public had access to him, and really, he is lamented by the whole population of Montreal. We all know his geniality and his great courtesy towards the public and he will be hard to replace. Yet, if the Government would accept my recommendation, I would say first of all proceed by way of promotion. There are excellent officers in the office in Montreal. For instance, there

is Mr. Gaboury, who started at almost the lowest rung of the ladder and who now holds the office of post office inspector for the eastern section of Canada, a district extending from Montreal to Halifax. I am quite sure that his appointment would be very popular with the business men of Montreal. There is also in the post office Mr. Barcelo, who is very active, land who has taken a great interest in his work since he has been appointed. Of course, if the Government will go outside, there are some very excellent names. There is my friend Mr. Robillard, editor of La Patrie, who is a good fellow, who served his country in the Northwest rebellion, who has been in journalism for thirty years, who is, in fact, one of the deans of the press in Montreal and who is certainly entitled to some recognition at the hands of his political friends. Then, there is Mr. H. A. Cholette, K.C., a fighter of the old days who would, I am sure, be an excellent postmaster of Montreal. I have a certain sympathy with him because he belongs to the same profession as I do and if the Government appoint him I think it will be a very popular appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: Appoint them all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are many more. I understand that my hon. friend for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) has some recommendations to make also.


Albert Edward Kemp: Have you a preference for any of these that you have named?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, any of them would satisfy me; any one of them would make an excellent postmaster and would be an ornament to the office. As regards the Customs, I think the Government 12 and the country have sus-
Midnight. tained a real loss in the resignation of Mr. White who was for many years the member for Cardwell in the House of Commons. For twenty-one years he has been collector of the largest port in Canada and everybody agrees that he has fulfilled his duties to the satisfaction of the minister, of the Government, and of the public in general. There again the Government can proceed by way of promotion. The name of Mr. McLaughlin, one of the chief officials at the port of Montreal, has been mentioned and I think the name will be well received by the business com-' munity. As regards the inspector of weights and measures, as some names have been mentioned from among members of the

House of Commons, I shall make no comment here. But if one hon. member whose name has been mentioned gets the appointment, I will give him my blessing and say to the Government that they have made a good appointment.


Mp. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation) :: 
George Perry Graham: This money has all been expended; it is not for expenditure in the future?


William Thomas White: Or that will be expended before the 31st of March.


George Perry Graham: It is for this year; it is not for next year?


William Thomas White: For this year.


George Perry Graham: I find that nearly all of it is for the operation of the Government railways.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


George Perry Graham: That means, it is money that will he returned to the Treasury, but that has to be voted.
Reverting again to my suggestion to the Minister of Finance, I take it for granted that he has net shut the. door more tightly in regard to the McNab case and that he is going to give if some consideration during recess, and that I am going to receive some information from him on this subject.


William Thomas White: I shall he only too glad to take into consideration anything that my hon. friend may submit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no letter carriers in my constituency, but I am pleased to support the suggestion made by the hon. member of St. Mary's, Montreal (Mr. Martin) in that connection. There was a petition circulated on behalf of the letter carriers and they sent their representatives around in various counties. One of them was sent to me from a branch of the association in the city of Sydney, and I replied saying that if the matter came up in the House of Commons I would give it my sympathetic support. As has already been pointed out, the pay of these men was fixed some years ago when the cost of living was about half what it is to-day. These men have been in the business for quite a while, and as it is not so easy for a man to get away from a position in which he has established himself, I think that, having regard to the fact that the cost of living for these' men and their families has more than doubled, they deserve the consideration of the Government as to whether or not some further remuneration should he given to them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance if any decision has been reached in regard to the increase, more or less promised, but hinted some years ago, to the Civil Service? I understand that lately the Government received a delegation from the Civil Service Association, which laid a request before the Government. I know that we are passing through hard times an'cHtbat the expenditures of the country are high, but the man who suffers most in these days from the high cost of living is really the man who has nothing to depend upon but his fixed salary.
Has my hon. friend'considered the position in which the Civil Service is to-day? And does he intend to do something about it? Three years ago, just before the war, he

had a tender spot in his heart for the Civil Service. Perhaps, in Bis anxiety about the war, he may have overlooked the poor civil servant. I cannot forget that I am the son of a civil servant myself, and I know what the anxieties of the poor civil servants are. We all expect a word of hope from the Minister of Finance on behalf of this class of employees.


William Thomas White: In the midst of a war such as this, and with the burdens that are thrust upon the public, the time is not very opportune for considering a revision of the Civil Service salary list. But we are all aware that the cost of living has gone up during the past few years, especially since the outbreak of the war. It is altogether probable that when the House resumes after the recess we shall deal with the questions of the salaries at least of the lower grades of the Service. The matter has been under consideration.
Resolutions reported.



WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
William Thomas White: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1918, the sum of $32,195,441.17 be granted out of the, Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Thomas White: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1917,' the sum of $9,127,777.42 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively March 31, 1917, and March 31, 1918.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first and the second time, considered in committee, and reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for the adjournment of the House:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the House
adjourns,. I wish to say a word about the coal situation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the leave of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With the leave of the House, of course, because I consider this a very important question. I reported to the Minister of Railways this evening that several consignees were complaining that coal consigned to private firms was being confiscated by certain railway companies-and I named one of the companies-much to the detriment of private industry in Canada.
* My hon. friend has been good enough to notify the company named to respect the rights of private firms, and I thank him for what he did. Had it not been for the happy intervention of the hon. minister, a very important pulp establishment would have been obliged to close its doors, and leave about 800 hands inactive, incurring thereby a loss of about $10,000 daily. As the complaint seems to be general, I would like my hon. friend to give the House and the country a pronouncement on the subject. Can any railway company, by this high-handed action

I shall not say abuse its privileges, because such a privilege does not belong to it-deprive its customers of property of which they stand greatly in need?


Mr. COCHRANE:: I think the railways vhave the right to do this, because trains must be kept moving. The stopping of the trains would more seriously discommode the public than the action to which my hon. friend refers.	There is, no doubt,
great	scarcity of coal all over
Canada; the Intercolonial railway itself has had to take coal belonging to other people. The coal companies have not been able to get the necessary number of men to enable them to fill their contracts. We ourselves have had to bring in some
500,000	tons of coal. I am sure that the company that took this coal is in a very bad way; in fact, all the Canadian railways are in a bad way in different localities. As I told the hon. gentleman, I wired the president of the company to which he referred and asked him to try and let up so that the different industries could be

kept going. I shall be very glad to do anything that I can in the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the. horn, member'(Mr. Lemieux) seen the statement read by the Prime Minister in the House a few days ago with regard to this matter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman give a synopsis of it?


John Dowsley Reid: It is a statement by Sir
Henry Drayton, Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and may be found on page 210 of Hansard. The Prime Minister read it in reply to a question put by the bon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the gist of the statement?


John Dowsley Reid: