1917-08-31

VALOUR OF THE CANADIAN SOLDIERS AT LENS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir EDWARD KEMP (Minister of Militia and Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to the House to read a message from Sir Arthur Currie, General Officer Commanding the Canadian Corps in France, in reply to a message which I had sent to him on August 23. My message was:
Ottawa, August 23, 1917. Lt.-Gen. Sir Arthur Currie,
Headquarters Canadian Corps,
France.
On behalf of all ranks -of our military forces in Canada, I desire 'to extend to you and to the officers and men under your command warmest congratulations upon the splendid manner in which Canadian troops have conducted themselves during the fighting around Lens, in defeating the pick of the German army against heavy odds, and steadfastly holding gains made in the face of desperate and repeated counter-attacks. Canada is prouder than ever of her gallant sons who have so bravely and determinedly maintained her honour. We mourn with you the loss of many brave comrades.
Sir Edward Kemp.
I received this morning the following answer from General Sir Arthur Currie:
Sir Edward Kemp,
Minister of Militia,
Ottawa, Canada. *
Your message of congratulation is sincerely appreciated by all ranks Canadian corps. Tell our comrades in the Canadian militia that in addition to winning and consolidating ground of great tactical value, we have inflicted casualties on the foe at least treble our own. -In repeated and determined counter-attacks the flower of the German army was thrown against us, hut our line remained unshaken as our own Rockies. Will not the pride which you say Canada has in her sons inspire her to send us men to take the place of those so nobly fallen.	.
Lt.-Gen. Sir Arthur Currie, General Officer Commanding Canadian Corps in France.



MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917. THIRD READING OF THE BILL. '

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the- Hon. Mr. Doherty (Minister of Justice) for the third reading of Bill No. 127, the Military Voters' Act, 1917.
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I was not here when this Bill passed through the committee. Acting on suggestions from this side of the House, the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) made some amendments which I think are an improvement. At the same time there are wide opportunities still for irregularities by those who are inclined to be irregular. My experience has been that while men may be absolutely honest in business transactions, they sometimes look on things as, what they call, smart in political transactions which are not quite honest. I hope that those charged with the administration of this Bill will not take advantage of their opportunities to commit irregularities. I had hoped that the minister would at least have seen his way clear to have allowed the non-residents who are to vote an opportunity to elect one member at large for themselves which would give the n representation in the House. But, apparently he has not seen his way clear to do so.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: That could not be done without amending the British North America Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That Act could be
amended, I have no doubt. It has been done before. We have the example of Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. DOHERTY:: They have power to amend their constitution; we have not.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is exactly what I propose, and I do not see why we could not have that amendment made to the Act. But the minister will know whether that can be done or not. That presents one of the greatest opportunities for irregularity, and I had .hoped that the provision would be so amended that there would not be any opportunity for wrong-doing. However, I suppose the Bill was fully discussed in the committee, and now it is open for the third reading and the confirmation.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It was suggested to me to-day that the oath taken by those who enlist in the Canadian forces might be regarded by aliens as equivalent to naturalization. I am not sure as to the nature of the oath taken by those attesting. It may be an oath of service to the King and probably is. I can quite understand how aliens might regard that as tantamount to naturalization. I suppose there are a great number of aliens in the army. I call the minister's attention to it so that he may give it some consideration with a view to providing some amendment, probably in the 
Senate. It might be well, in Form "B," to put a further question and to ask: "When and where were you naturalized if not born a British subject?"-or something like that. I have not given the matter much thought.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will be glad to think about it.


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


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 53, respecting insurance-Sir Thomas White-resumed from August 4.-Mr. D. Stewart in the Chair.
On section 142 (b)-Accident and sickness insurance:
, Sir THOMAS WHITE: All the clauses of this Bill have been passed with the exception of 142 (b), which relates to conditions under which the business of accident and sickness insurance is to be carried on by companies obtaining a license under this Act. The section was held over until the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) should be present, and I would ask him to state to the committee the point in which he is particularly interested in connection with it.
Mr. MORPHY:: The clause which I consider objectionable reads:
(h) if the policy provides that written notice of injury must be given to the company within a specified period after the date of the accident causing such injury, such period shall be not less than thirty days.
At first sight that would appear to be in the interest of the person insured as giving him a longer time to give notice to the company; but my contention is that it is absolutely against the interest of the insured-that is the honest insured-and in favour of the man who has fraudulent intentions. 1 object also to the same clause under subsection 3 on page 55 which relates to casualties through illness. While it appears arbitrary, it must be noticed that there is this further clause applying to both of these clauses, that failure to give such notice within the specified time shall not invalidate the claim if it be shown that it was not reasonably possible to give notice within the time required. I contend that the experience of casualty companies must necessarily be the only safe guide for the House in determining on the safest and best legislation about matters of

this kind. I contend that the natural result of legislation providing for a period of thirty days within which notice may be given in cases of accident, and forbidding the insertion of any other period in a policy, will be to open the door to fraud. Casualty companies are peculiarly susceptible to fraudulent practices by dishonest insuring persons, who at times profit by their dishonesty and also compel companies to charge higher rates to honest insurers, as they are compelled to pay these dishonest claims. In other words, every dishonest claim that goes through increases the cost to the honest person insured. The longer the period for notice of any accident the more opportunities are given for fraud. The honest insurer generally gi\es notice immediately; the dishonest insurer hides his illness and, under this clause in the Bill, the man who is injured so as to incapacitate him for ten days, sees on the face of his policy that he is not required to give notice until the end of thirty days. If he is dishonest, he nurses his illness after he is cured and gets thirty days indemnity where he is rightly entitled to one, two, three, or four days. That is an objectionable feature of this Bill.
I contend that my argument is in favour of both the company and the honest insuring person. We all know that in New York some few years ago there was a perfect plethora of dishonest transactions with insurance companies. It became a great abuse, and the trend of modern legislation, both on the other side of the line and here, is to shorten the period of notice rather than to lengthen it, in order to get at the fraudulent insurer. I contend that it is the duty of the Dominion of Canada, it is the duty of any state, to protect the honest insurer and to differentiate between him and the dishonest one. Under this Bill the period for giving notice of injury cannot be less than thirty days; it is imperative, and no company can insert anything else in its policy. In other words, notice may b given after the injury has long passed away, after the man is better, and it is quite apparent upon the face of it that this will give a great lever to the fraudulent man in putting in a claim to which he is not entitled. That must be computed by the insurance companies in dealing with such claims, and will therefore increase the cost to the honest insurer. The honest insurer has to pay the cost which the companies are put,to in meeting dishonest or fraudulent claims.
The same argument applies to the illness clause. One of the largest companies in Canada in the accident and illness casualty business finds that out of 3,726 claims for accident made upon it from January 16 up .to July 21 of this year, 2,583 claims, or 70 per cent of the total claims for disability, were for less than twenty days duration, and out of 5,074 claims for sickness, 3,476, or GO per cent, were for disabilities of less than fifteen days duration. See the absurdity of inserting an arbitrary clause allowing thirty days in all those cases, where the duration was from twenty to fifteen days. The avenue for fraud is clearly opened up for every one of those cases to nurse the sickness or injury, for fifteen days in one case and ten in the other. I do not say that every case would be fraudulent, but I do say that the practice is vicious; it is not in line with modem legislation, and this Bill is wrong in every place where it lengthens the term of notice. If the minister differs-I do not know that he does; in fact I fancy from what I have seen that he rather inclines to my point of view-but I do think the superintendent of insurance does. I do not like to	speak	about an official of	the
Government but there are some men who are obsessed with theories and are oblivious of facts-and the minister might find a gentleman of that kind in his department. I point out that this particular company, whose name I do not put forward, paid, in 1916, to its policy holders in Canada. $103,948.
It paid 3,726 accident claims, involving $46,887, and 5,744 in sickness claims, involving $57,061. Considering for a moment the triviality of many of these claims, one can see the danger of fixing a minimum period of thirty days, and compelling the insurance companies to state in their own policies, if they give any notices at all, that they are compelled to fix that period of not less than thirty days within which notice of accident must be given. The main object in giving notice of an accident, as I understand, is to give the insurance company a chance to investigate a claim, to send a man upon the spot to see the insured person, and to ascertain the particulars of how, when and where the accident occurred, and I think it is proper that any insurance company should have that notice within a reasonable time. As a matter of fact, I think, generally, throughout Canada, the words used in the statutes are " a reasonable time." But in this Bill the Government is providing what I maintain to be

an unreasonable time, in reference to the class of insurance which these particular clauses are intended to deal with. The lengthening of the period is an incentive and an invitation to fraud. It is as much as to say to the man who is slightly injured: " Come along, you are hurt, it, is* true, but do not tell the company for thirty days, although you are able to get around in three days." That part of it strikes me as very serious. Fraud hurts the company and hurts the insured. Fraudulent persons Sometimes have been known, particularly in the large centres of the United States, to insure for the purpose of having an accident. Companies are up against it, and, as the companies are up against it, they put, in their schedule of rates, an allowance on account of fraud, and, naturally, the honest man taking out insurance has to pay the bill for the fraudulent one. In this case I say it hurts both the company and the man who is injured, if he is honest. The Government does not want to protect the fraudulent man who insures. To my mind the Government's duty is to consider the interests of the honest person who insures, and this provision is standing in the way here, and putting a penalty upon the honest person insuring, in favour of the fraudulent or dishonest man. The trend of modern legislation in matters of this kind is entirely opposite to the course pursued here. I have read the evidence taken before the Banking and Commerce Committee, through whose hands this Bill passed, and, whi'e they discussed other important features of the Bill, there is not a scintilla of evidence upon the record which touches these clauses. I am told the reason the Bill ip introduced in its present shape is that certain insurance companies wanted it that way; that it is a model Bill and.a standard form. Yet no discussion took place about it in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and 1 invite the members of that committee to consider the question now. As I understand it, the trend of modern legislation is diametrically opposed to long terms within which notice must be given, and is equally favourable to the shortening of that term, in the interests of the insuring public. I would suggest to the minister that twenty days for accidents, and fifteen days for illness, would be fair, and yet to my mind it is too long.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Is my hon. friend
satisfied with the provision as to the notice regarding sickness? The notice in -the Bill is fifteen days for sickness.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I .think ten days would oe sufficient. I think notice of twenty days for accidents and ten days for sickness would be about right.' I would be satisfied with the sickness provision, because I can see that sickness will sometimes prevent a man from considering his ordinary business affairs in the same way as a man would who is free from illness. Accidents are notoriously public as a rule, and generally some one is looking after the man who. has met with the accident. An accident brings with it the idea, have you any insurance, more than sickness does, and for that reason I would make a distinction between the two classes of cases, and would suggest twenty days' notice for accidents and ten days' notice for sickness. These are the periods which are fixed in the states of New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, Texas, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will agree with me when I say that in metropolitan centres, such as New York and Chicago, and those large cities, they have had an experience which no city in this country ever had, and their dates have been fixed upon the basis of the experience of the companies in those cities. I have not the general rule in the States, beyond those states I have mentioned, but those states cover the main insuring states, and most populous cities. North Dakota is an exception, that state having a thirty-day provision in case of accident. I do not apprehend that the Minister of Finance would really rather follow North Dakota than New York or Illinois. It would be like following an amateur, instead of a professional, in the business. . But even if he follows North Dakota he would not be Iqng right, because three companies have withdrawn from North Dakota since that law was put in force, and three other companies operating there have threatened to withdraw, and the Commissioner of Insurance, W. C. Taylor, North Dakota, has recently acknowledged that the Bill is a mistake, and is asking for legislation reducing the time.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I have looked over the Bill, and I do not observe that there is any definition as to what shall be deemed to be notice. Would the hon. gentleman be willing, suppose the time were shortened, to treat the mailing of a letter as notice? Because there might be cases where the person resided a long distance from the office of the company, and it would be

difficult to give them notice in the short time allowed. If the mailing of a letter were deemed to be notice, it would make it much easier.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am under a different
impression, but I think there is something in the Bill in regard to giving notice. As a matter of law I should think that the mailing of a letter is the giving of notice, no matter when it reaches the company, if the mailing of the letter can be proved. The law is that when a letter is. put in the post office it becomes the property of the man to whom it is addressed, and I think that proof, by secondary evidence, that a letter was mailed, would cover the case, notwithstanding the want of a clause of that kind in the Bill. But, with all due deference, I should like to consider that question before I give an out-and-out opinion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The provision is in the next section.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman
from Frontenac (Mr. Edvards) tells me that in the following section there is a term regarding the notice; but apart from the United States legislation, let us come nearer home. In the province of Ontario we have w,hat is known as the Workmen's Compensation Act, the product of the mind of one of the most able and skilful members of the judiciary in the province. That Act was' drafted after some two or three years' labour and study by Sir William Meredith, wno so adorns the bench of that province.
Sir William Meredith .made a special study of that Act. He examined all the compensation Acts adopted by other countries, and he worked out a form of legislation admitted by even the United States authorities to be the best, the most complete, and most comprehensive Compensation Act that can be found to-day upon the statute book of any country. Section 20 of that Act goes a good deal further than the provision that I ask for here. That section provides that compensation shall not be payable unless notice of the accident is given as soon as practicable after the happening of it, and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured. It will be observed that - notice is to be given, not quickly, or within thirty days, but as soon as practicable after the accident. Of course, there is a saving clause in subsection 5 of section 20 to protect the honest insured for failure to give the prescribed notice, if the board is of
opinion that the claim for compensation is a just one and ought to be allowed. That language, to my mind, is preferable to the language used in this Bill under section 142B, clause (1). The Workmen's Compensation Act is more drastic in shutting out entirely the claim which the board may deem to be dishonest, and putting an end to it at once on account of failure to give notice as provided in section 20.
To show further the trend of modern legislation, I point to section 99 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as follows:
Every employer shall within three days after the happening of accident to a workman in his employment notify the Board by registered post of the (a) happening of the accident and nature of it; (b) time of its occurrence; (c) name and address of the workman; (d) place where the accident happened; (e) name and address of the physician or surgeon, if any, by whom the workman was or is attended for the injury. -
Why such care? Why such specific provision in point of time? Moreover, what happens if the employer does not give notice?


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. gentleman no't realize that there is a great difference between the Workmen's Compensation Act and insurance against injury and accident?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If' there is any difference, it is that in the one case the Government protects against fraud, and that in the other it does not. Why should not this Parliament protect the people who are paying premiums to these companies, just as they protect those who pay under the Workmen's Compensation Act? I cannot see why the Government should protect the people in one case and not in the other. This proposed legislation ought to come closer to the legislation respecting workmen's compensation,' not go further away from it.
For every contravention of section 99, the employer shall incur a penalty of $50. The Act, therefore, is of a drastic nature; it compels the giving of notice quickly, so that the provincial Government may be enabled to look into the case. If that were the case here, the company affected could look into the matter in the same way, I think that the two Acts are on all fours; there is no distinguishing difference that I can see.


William F. Carroll: Would the Ontario
Workmen's Compensation Act make any provision for the employer's giving the

notice if the injured man was unable to. do so?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is definitely specified here: every employer shall within three days give such notice.


William F. Carroll: The employer gives notice if the man is so badly injured that he can not give it himself. But in some cases nobody may know that the injured person is insured; he may be so badly injured that he cannot give notice of the accident within the ten or fifteen days.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: This Bill provides that if reasonable cause can be shown why notice was not given, failure to give notice shall not operate against the claim. The section that I have just read comes very close to the point; it should make the minister hesitate to disregard the trend of modern legislation.
There is an abstract argument which enters into this question. The whole body of the insuring public is affected by the morality of that body. The higher the moral standard, the cheaper the insurance; fraud is entirely eliminated if the morale is absolutely good. The shorter the term for notice, the-less opportunity for fraud. The fewer fraudulent claims paid, the cheaper the insurance to the individual. Such provision should be made as would tend to elevate the moral standard and not give opportunity to persons of doubtful intentions to create a bad rather than a good moral atmosphere. I have referred to the fact that this Bill protects the honest insurer; it does seem to me that there should be some drastic method of shutting out the dishonest one.
The provinces have the right to legislate upon such questions as this. I should think that the minister would deem it desirable so to standardize this clause with which I have been dealing that it would cover the whole country. Quebec province has in its code a provision that reasonable notice shall be given in such cases. The provincial courts have "decided that such reasonable notice means twenty days in the case of accident and fifteen days-perhaps not more than ten-in case of illness. In the United States the tendency is not to lengthen the notice; the trend of legislation is rather to shorten it.
1 know a company in Canada that gives for $12, one dollar a month, $40 a month indemnity in case of accident. The other companies in Canada are charging $21 for the same thing. That company informs me 
that if this Bill goes through, they will have to increase their'rates. I do not think the Superintendent of Insurance will deny that; if the minister asks him about it, he will admit it. Under these circumstances, how can the minister justify the increase of the rates against the ihonest insuring public that would result from the provision of the present Bill? I hope that the minister will consider carefully the suggestions that I have made; that he will be guided only by his own good judgment; that he will consider the advisability of amending the Bill -I am prepared to move an amendment if that is necessary-by so changing the clauses in question that the provisions for thirty and fifteen days' notice shall be changed to twenty and fifteen.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member, I think, misreads the clause. I do not think it is necessary for a man to wait for thirty days before giving notice. He can give notice in thirty minutes, if he so desires.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Certainly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But this clause prevents a company from shutting out his claim if notice is given within thirty days. Only the companies' are affected by this clause, and if there had been any serious objection on their part to it, we would have heard about the matter while the Bill was before the Banking and Commerce Committee. The mere fact, therefore, that none of the companies made any objection to the clause at that time leads me to think that they do not object to it. I have had nearly twenty years of experience in connection with accident insurance, and I have represented and still represent some of the strongest companies doing business in Canada, but I have never had experience of a company shutting out a claim on account of notice not being given within the required time.
I have sometimes seen notice given two or three months after an accident has occurred. It is just possible that a company might take advantage of that provision to shut out a claim, and I do not think they should be allowed to do so because a person does not give notice within thirty days, but this provision prevents them from shutting out a claim if notice is given within thirty days. That is simply for the protection of the insured. My hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) speaks of fraudulent insurers. No hon. member wants to endorse fraudulence in regard to insurance or any other matter. Many people who may have incurred apparently slight accidents, have later on

been laid up owing to their injuries developing into something serious. Many of them may not give, notice to the company, letting those slight accidents go by default. If they had to give notice within a short time, they might not do so, and the company might take advantage of notice not being given within the prescribed time. During my experience I have never known of any one trying to defraud a company to any extent. Sometimes, when a person has an accident, he may make claim for a few days more than those during which he has been laid up, but nearly all the companies issue policies that cover total disability and partial disability, so that there has, in my experience, never been any trouble in settling claims. Fraud may occur in the larger cities. I distinctly remember the case my hon. friend speaks about which happened in New York. The companies found that a sort of syndicate of fraud had been created there and they took measures to counteract it. In Canada I have never heard of anything of the kind, and we, of course, are legislating .for Canada. I am sorry to hear my hon. friend rather censure the Superintendent of Insurance, because l believe, if there is a capable Civil Servant in Canada to-day, it is the Superintendent of Insurance. Not only does he know his business thoroughly, but he is absolutely upright and straightforward in regard to it. I could not, so far as my experience is concerned, speak too highly of him. The clause, as it stands, is all right, and it ought to pass in its present form.


William Thomas White: The particular paragraph of which the hon. member complains is (h) of subclause 2 of section 142 B of the original Bill. I believe it is section 134 of the Bill as reprinted. The particular provision is this:
If the policy provides that written notice of injury must be given to the company within a specified period after the date of the accident causing such injury, such period shall he not less than thirty days.
The intention of this was to protect the insured. I appreciate fully the point made by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), namely: That if the effect of this provision would be to cause frauds to such an extent that the rate of accident insurance would rise, it would, of course, not be in the interest of the public. Personally, I have not been of the view that that would he the result of the enactment of this proviso. It is to be borne in mind, in connection with this question of notice under a Dominion Insurance Act, that Canada is a
very large country geographically. I can understand that, in the case of an accident insurance company doing business, say in the state of New York or in the state of Illinois or in any other state of the United States, it might be wise to provide for a shorter period of notice. But giving the matter my best consideration, I thought there was a distinction between the case of a company carrying on business in a state or a province and the case of a company carrying on business in so large a country as the Dominion of Canada. It takes a considerable time to give notice from one part of Canada to another portion which may be separated from it by two or three thousand miles, apd a^tho^gh provision is made in this Dill' for giving notice to an authorized agent of the company, all the public might not be aware of that, and most of them would naturally send their notice to the head office of the company. That is a feature that should be considered. I have an open mind upon the matter, and I would rather invite the opinions of hon. members. We do not want to make a mistake either way. I do not want a provision under which the public will be prejudiced through failing to send in their notices within too brief a time.
On the other hand we certainly do not desire legislation which will encourage fraud. With the permission of the committee, I shall read part of a memorandum I have received from the Superintendent of Insurance dealing with this matter :
One of the clauses contained in the policy is to the effect that the insured shall have 30 days from the date of the accident within which to give notice thereof to the company. This provision conforms with what is the practice at the present time of a considerable number of companies licensed by the department. It may be pointed out that during the last few years there has been a tendency on the part of a number of the companies to increase the time within which notice may be given. Many of the older policies required "immediate notice". Those of a later date required 10 days, 14 days, 20 days, 21 days, and in recent years a number of companies have adapted 30 days. This tendency has been quite marked in practically all companies, and it fs believed that the change is in the interests of the insured. The following companies have filed with the department policy forms containing provision for 30 days notice: Canada Accident Assurance Co., Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Co., Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Globe Indemnity Co., Maryland Casualty Co., North American Accident Co., Yorkshire Insurance Co.	[DOT]
The following will indicate the provision of the policies of all companies licensed by the department at the present time.

Time within which notice	Number of
n\ay he given.	Companies.
14	days	
315	days	
2	[DOT]20	days	
521	days	
230 days	,	
^3 months	
1As soon	as reasonably possible....	6
It is true, as stated by the hon. member for North Perth, that the courts in the province of Quebec have ruled that reasonable notice is twenty days. That ruling was given, I suppose, with reference to the Quebec law governing provincially incorporated companies, but it must be borne in mind that our Act is an Act for the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. GARVELL:: Does the Quebec decision hold that 20 days is the proper construction of the statute, or that the elapse of 20 days would not be unreasonable?


William Thomas White: I am not quite positive, but I think it is a fact that the legislation of the province of Quebec requires reasonable notice to be given, and the courts have held that 20 days is a reasonable notice under that provision.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did they hold that 20 days would not be unreasonable?


William Thomas White: I don't think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That's the point.


William Thomas White: It is to be borne in mind that while most of the companies carry on their business fairly and honourably, our legislation should nevertheless be such that it is not within the power of any company or companies t-o take undue advantage. Cases have been drawn to the' attention of the department in which companies have sought to take advantage of the insured, not because there was any doubt as to the validity of the claim, but because notice had not been given within the time limit specified in the
4 p.m. policy. I should like hon. gentlemen who have had some experience in this matter to give me the benefit of their vietvs, because, as I stated before, I have an open mind on the subject. Our first duty, I think should be to protect the insurers, that is, the public.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is not that what we are doing in this clause?


William Thomas White: That is what I said, but the hon. member for North Perth makes this point, and it is worthy of consideration-he says that if the notice is so

long as practically to invite fraudulent claims the companies, being subject to such-fraudulent claims, will necessarily have to raise their rates, and in that way the public will suffer. It is pretty difficult to decide whether the difference of ten days, as be- . tween twenty and thirty, would make so much difference to the companies in the way of having to settle fraudulent claims " that the rates would have to be raised.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Would not " reasonable time " be the best expression of all?


William Thomas White: That would leave it open. I think my right hon. friend will agree with me that if we can fix a time that is deemed to be reasonable it would be better to fix it, because otherwise the question of what was a reasonable time would depend upon the point of view of the court, and a man who had suffered an accident, and was insured against accidents, would not know in advance what the court would hold as a reasonable notice, and consequently he might be prejudiced. I do not think we should insert a provision that it should be a " reasonable notice." If this committee can come to a conclusion as to what is a reasonable notice with respect to the filing of claims arising out of accidents in a country such as Canada, I think we should insert that term in the Bill, so as to have it fixed and definite.
My hon. friend has touched upon one other point. He says that many of these companies are provincially incorporated, which is true, and that they might therefore be left to provincial legislation. It is to be pointed out, however, that we are about to license such of these companies as will submit themselves to the provisions of this Act, and take out a license from the superintendent of insurance, and it is open to us to provide, as a condition of their obtaining that license, and for the sake of uniformity in accident and sickness insurance in Canada, that they shall be subject to the provisions of this Act, including among others a limitation as to period of notice.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite agree with the Finance Minister as to what should be the intention of the Act. Personally, I think that thirty days is not an unreasonable limit. I appreciate that we can hardly decide what the law ought to be in respect of sickness and accident policies from our experience with life insurance policies. For a great many years I tried to get fire in-

surance legislation introduced into this Parliament, or at least, I tried to get the officers of the department to admit that we had jurisdiction enough to get the kind of law I wanted with regard to fire insurance policies; but I did not succeed. My experience with insurance companies has been that there was not sufficient time, or their regulations were so framed as to prejudice the insured on account of technicalities. My professional experience, of course, has been more largely concerned with fire insurance cases than life and accident cases. I remember that I lost the first case I ever had against a fire insurance company, because it was provided that proof of loss must be filed within fourteen days. In this case proof of loss was not filed until the seventeenth day, but the court held that I was right and I got a verdict, but I lost the case on appeal. I have had many other cases; some I have lost on that very ground, and in others I have had a very close call. Quite a number of years ago the legislature of Ontario adopted the standard clause, and practically all the other provinces have followed in providing that proof of loss shall be filed as early as can reasonably be done, or some words to that effect. The courts of the different provinces have held that in some cases thirty days was a reasonable time and they have even gone so far as to hold that sixty days was not unreasonable. I had a case within the last ten years in which our own courts held that fifty-nine days was reasonable under the circumstances. I would not want to see this time limited. I do not know that I would advocate extending it beyond thirty days because there is a difference of principle between fire insurance companies and accident companies. I'f a building is destroyed by fire it is destroyed so that if damage is done it is there and it can be seen at one time as well as another; whereas, in the case of an accident company, it is quite possible that a man may receive an accident and within thirty days the man would have recovered and the insurance company would have no opportunity of examination. I presume that is the point that the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) has raised. I think it would be a mistake to limit this time co a period under thirty days. Any man ought to have at least thirty days in which to give notice. There are not many cases of fraud and there are few cases in which companies wish to contest claims. They are surrounded by suf-320
ficient protection. The claimant must prove his case on some reasonable evidence. He cannot go into court, and say: I was sick, or I was injured, or laid .up, for two or three weeks. He has to produce some kind of proof. He may have to produce medical proof. I do not say that he necessarily must do all that, but in the ordinary course of business in proving a case in court, we have to give evidence of some kind. Therefore, I do not think a delay of thirty days would prejudice the ease or that the company would not be in a position to protect itself. I take it to be the principal object of giving notice that it puts the company in a position to make an investigation tif it chooses to do so. If I were going to err at all, I would want to err in favour of the insured. Cases of fraud are very few and what is proposed by the hon. gentleman, I am afraid, would militate against the insured in order to protect a company against a possible case of fraud. I think the clause as it now stands is reasonable.


William F. Carroll: I think the minister is correct in stating that a time limit of at least thirty days is in favour of the insurer. On the other hand, if what the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) says is correct, his suggestions are both in favour of the insured as well as the insurance companies. If the insurance companies have to raise their rates on account of fraud being practised under this particular section, the persons getting insurance would have to pay an increased premium. But we have the statement of the Minister of Finance that the insurance companies themselves are the best judges of whether an increased time limit for giving notice will tend to fraud and thus force them to increase their permiums. The fact that there are seven companies, licensed under the Dominion Insurance Act, who have, of their own volition, limited the time within which notice was to be given to thirty days, and one to three months, is some evidence that these insurance companies do not share the opinion of the hon. member for North Perth. As regards the ground taken by the hon. member for Carle ton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) that perhaps there should be no time limit-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that.


William F. Carroll: That reasonable notice
should be given-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that; I
said that thirty days was treasonable.


William F. Carroll: With regard to the provincial statutes, which have these words " within a reasonable time " in them, if my hon. friend from North Perth looks at the 'Supreme Court reports for the province of Quebec, he will find, in the case he mentioned in which the judges decided that twenty days was a reasonable notice, and the decision was based on the circumstances surrounding that particular case. He will find a case from that province in which it was held that 78 days was a reasonable time because the insured, was not in a position before the 78th day to give notice to the company. So that I do not think that this Quebec case is going to carry you very far. Each particular case is based on the circumstances by which it is surrounded. I do not think that thirty days is a sufficient time. There have been many cases in which the public have been defrauded and not the company. I think that even if this legislation only provided for twenty days the public would still be protected because the next paragraph says that,
Failure to give such notice within the time provided in the policy shall not invalidate the claim if it shall be shown that it was not reasonably possible to give such notice within such time, and that notice was given as soon as was reasonably possible.
Therefore, I do not think it makes much difference whether it is twenty or thirty days.
Does the minister not think I am right in that?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is right in stating that the policy would not be invalidated even if the notice was given beyond the thirty days provided it would be shown that it was not reasonably possible to give such notice within such time. But it would be a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably possible or not. It is difficult to say just how the court would construe that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be a case of dispute.


William Thomas White: Yes.


William F. Carroll: I cannot see that the provision as to thirty days is going to breed fraud in connection with this matter. If I thought so I would be one of the last persons who would uphold the section, but I cannot see it in view of the action of these accident companies themselves in allowing the extended time. As the section stands it suits me all right.


Mr. NIOKLE:: My hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) has directed attention to the fact that there was not much discus, sion on these subsections when the Bill was before the Banking and Commerce Committee. My recollection is that upon the day that these subsections were under discussion I was the acting chairman. I think the reason there was so little discussion was that the representatives of the accident insurance companies who were present and taking an active part in the discussion in reference to the other sections were agreed that thirty days was a fair compromise as between the insured and the insurer as to the time within which notice should be given of accident, and that fifteen days was a fair time within which notice should be given of sickness. I think the committee approached the subject in the light that insurance was for the benefit of the insured and not primarily for the benefit pf the company, and that regulations should not be of such drastic character that by too rigid advantage being taken of the time limit the companies might escape liability. They also regarded the subject from the point of view that the giving of the notice after recovery from them did not deprive a company of the opportunity of making inquiry and of satisfying itself as to the extent of the injury. If I understand it, the company always has a right to demand that proof be given of an injury suffered, or of the duration of an illness, or the time when a man was laid up as the result of an accident. It may demand proof from the members of the family; it may demand proof of those who saw the accident, and it may require that the evidence of the medical practitioner who was in attendance be given as to the extent of the injury.
Looking at it from the practical standpoint, cases have come under my notice of men receiving what they thought were trifling injuries which subsequently developed into something very much more serious. But on presenting their claims to the company, they were put out of court and the claims not recognized as notice had not been given within the time provided.
I think the object of this committee should be to hold a balance fairly between the company and the insured, and reviewing all the facts as they have been advanced by various members this afternoon, I do not think much injury will be done to the insurance companies by leaving the terms thirty days and fifteen days, and I certainly think there are cases in which it

will be honestly to the advantage of the insured.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) says that his mind is made up by the figures given by the Finance Minister. Those figures were that twelve companies had expressed a preference for a period of notice running from fourteen to twenty-one days; three had filed a preference for fourteen to fifteen days; five of twenty days and two of twenty-one days. There were only seven companies in favour of a requirement of 30 days' notice as against twelve who favoured a notice of twenty-one, twenty, fifteen or fourteen days.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carroll) spoke of the necessity of giving proof. There is no danger that the man who goes out to be fraudulent will not have his proofs ready. That was well shown in the New York frauds. They even went out to have the accident made; they had the motor car burned, they had the witnesses all on hand -some of them strangers whom they had never seen before. Everything was in complete order. The proof will always be ready when the fraudulent man undertakes to deceive; he is in it for the business. It is all right to say that we have not much fraud of this kind in this country; but if the hon. members ask the companies they will find that there is any amount of it, especially in the larger centres, and the companies do complain, and I think with great cause.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Would the evil complained of, as in the automobile case, be remedied by having a shorter period of notice?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The fraud would not be perpetrated so easily. With the longer term, opportunity is given to prepare the evidence and get everything shipshape.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) about holding the balance evenly, there is only one way to hold it and that is to do a good turn to the company by lessening existing fraud, which will enable the company to give insurance to the public at a cheaper price and at the same time protect the honest insurer from the payments out by the company to fraudulent claimants. It is easily seen that every fraudulent claim paid out increases the cost of insurance to the honest insurer.


William Thomas White: This matter appears to have been considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and as the
329J
consensus of opinion here appears to be in favour of the proviso as it stands, I do not feel that I would be justified in suggesting any change.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, section as amended agreed to.
On the schedule.
William Thomas White: I may say to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) that the superintendent of insurance has gone most carefully into the checking of all references and cross references. We believe that the Bill now is accurate in respect of the numbering and references and other matters so essential in a Bill of this kind. The Bill and schedule have been reprinted, and the sections renumbered.


William F. Carroll: Has the minister any
information as to whether or not the New York Life Insurance Company has a federal charter?


William Thomas White: Yee.


William F. Carroll: The reason I ask is that I find they have been holding up a lot of insurance on soldiers killed at the front, and I want to take the matter up. I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of the department or not.


William Thomas White: If -the hon. member has a special interest in this matter, he had better speak to the Superintendent of Insurance. I think there is a regulation which covers the case.
Bill as amended reported. Amendments concurred in, and Bill read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply. Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Salaries, rents, wages and contingencies, under Canada Grain Act. Further amount required, $75,000.
["As soon as I heard of the accident at New Waterford through a press despatch, I communicated with our agent there for full particulars. I then tcok the matter up with the mayor ot Sydney and one or two other prominent men, and they all wrote to say that they did not desire any donation, that the company was^ making ample provision for the dependents of the men who had lost- 'iieir lives.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.\nSaturday, September 1, 1917."]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: This is the additional amount required for the administration of the Canada Grain Act. It is largely required because of the increases that have been made on account of the existing increased cost of living to the employees of the eastern and western division of the grain inspection staff, -as recommended by the chief inspector and approved by the Board of Grain Commissioners; also to provide for such increases in the staff, as may be recommended by the chief inspector and approved by the 'board, to- take effect

on the first of September, 19X7. This is really the explanation of the vote. It will be recollected that the total number of employees in the whole system, east and west is a little over 400, and, distributed amongst those, these increases amount to about 160,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
present expenditure for salaries to-day of those 400 employees?


George Green Foster: The total expenditure last year for salaries was $433,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is increased by $75,000.


George Green Foster: We gave a ten per cent war bonus, and we have increased some of the salaries a small amount.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend the
Minister of Trade and Commerce is proposing to increase the salaries of gentlemen who are administering the Canada Grain Act, and he is proposing to do this by reason of the high cost of living. I understand these very gentlemen who are administering the Grain Act would have it in their power, if they exercised proper judgment, and the Government gave them the proper authority, to reduce the price of foodstuffs, by reducing the price of grain, which is the essential element which regulates the cost of flour and the cost of bread; and such a reduction would be very beneficial to the masses of the people of this country. We have had the expectation held out to us that, 'by reason of the appointment of a food controller, there would likely be a reduction in the cost of living. We know that the price of flour is very high indeed, and one of the excuses put forward for these high prices is that the cost of grain to the millers is very high, and speculators, middlemen or dealers in grain are receiving large profits by reason of the high price charged to the millers. Has any reduction been made in the cost of living as a result of the appointment of the food controller?


George Green Foster: Only a short
time has elapsed since the appointment of the food controller, and a period of preliminary examination is, of course, necessary. My hon. friend's question, therefore, is a difficult one to answer. We have deemed it necessary to make a reasonable advance to the workers in all the departments of the Civil Service, inside and outside on account of the increased cost of

food staples, rents, and things of that kind, owing to the war.


William Pugsley: There 'has been no increase in rents; on the contrary, there has been a decrease.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will compare the rents of this year with those of three or four years ago, I think he will find that there has been an increase.


William Pugsley: They are less to-dav
than they were three years ago.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend chooses to dispute that point. However, there is a general conclusion that the cost of living has very .materially increased, and on that account we have made increases in all branches of the service, inside and outside. My hon. friend thinks that the persons employed in this large branch of my department have the matter in their own hands; that they can bring down the prices if they choose, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to increase their salaries. As a matter of fact, the workers under the Grain Act have no such power. The Board of Grain Supervisors-an entirely different body from the Board of Grain Commissioners, who administer this Act-have the power of fixing the price of wheat. That is their only power; they, have nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Grain Act. They temporarily fixed the price of wheat at $2.40, first as a maximum, and for the latter half of the month as a flat price. The United States authorities have within the last twenty-four hours fixed the price of grain for the year's crop -in that country at $2.20 for No. 1 Northern spring wheat. There is a marked difference between the price of $2.20 for that grade of wheat, with accompanying prices for lower and higher grades, and the price last year, and the year before. There is no possibility or probability, so far as I can see, of prices being decreased during the coming year. So that circumstances over which the food controller and the workers under the Grain Act have no control combine to make the cost of living high, and it is to compensate for that that we have made provision in this vote for a reasonable increase to the officials and workers in this branch of my department. My hon. friend asks whether as a result of the appointment of the Food Controller, reductions, in the prices of foodstuffs have taken place. As a general rule, I think that decreases have probably taken place, having regard to the prices that would have pre-

vailed if there had been no food controller. But we must recollect that the two or three weeks' work of the food controller have been almost entirely preliminary work. The fixing of the prices of food in a country like ours or in the United States is a task of very great magnitude; very careful and prolonged investigation is required before prices can be fixed with the assurance that they are based on the best information that can be obtained. So that it is a little too early to look for specific reductions in the cost of food owing to the fixing of prices. But the work is under way, and I hope that from time to time, as the Food Controller covers the various fields here and as the same fields are covered in the United States, reasonable reduction of prices shall be obtained.


William Pugsley: In view of the fact that the war has been on for three years and that the cost of living has gone up steadily month by month, the minister ought to be able to make to the committee a more encouraging statement than that which he has just made. Instead of taking official measures to control and to keep within reasonable bounds the cost of living, the minister, knowing that that increase in the cost of living bears hardly upon certain officials in his department, proposes to increase their salaries. The Government does not seem to be able to devise means to give relief to the general people of Canada *-the masses of the people, who are not' in the employ of the Government, and who are ekelng out an existence as best they can in the face of very great difficulties. I have received many letters from people who ordinarily can get along very well. They complain of the meatless days; they complain of their being obliged to eat bread without butter, to go without potatoes, to pawn their clothes in order to secure the necessaries of life. Those are not exceptional cases; they are numerous throughout the country. Perhaps my right hon. friend does not hear of them. If he will go amongst the poorer people of this country, he will find that what I have stated is time. Yet the Government of the day, with all its power, knowing as it does that prices are exceptionally, unreasonably and unnecessarily high, is not able to give any positive statement that there will be a substantial reduction. The most that the minister is able to say is that possibly, if it had not been for the appointment of a food controller, prices would have been higher than they are to-day.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Where does this state of affairs exist-in the imagination of the hon. member or in Canada?


William Pugsley: It exists, as a matter of fact, in Canada.
Mr. W. II. BENNETT: I can tell my hon. friend that it does not exist in Ontario.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member
thinks it does not exist, then he does not know the condition of affairs.


William Humphrey Bennett: Produce the letters.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: From what portion of Canada has the hon. member received the letters?


William Pugsley: I have received some from the city of Ottawa. I have received quite a number from New Brunswick. I have received many from people who are not known to me, who state facts which have impressed me very much. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) the other day read an extract from a newspaper, stating that the millers are making a profit of $5 per barrel on flour.


Mr. BRADBURY:: That is nonsense.


William Pugsley: The hon. member was informed by the Government that an inquiry would be made and that information would be given to the House on the subject. We have not so far been favoured with that information, but we know, taking the present price of wheat, that the present price of flour to the consumer must give to the miller a profit beyond all reason. If this Government had any regard for the interest of the consuming masses of the country they would take, effective steps to control and to reduce the cost of flour to the people of Canada. There are two ways in which the cost of living can be kept down.
' 1 throw aside the question of the increase in rents suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce because it is within my knowledge that, in many of the cities in Canada, rents to-day are very much lower than they were three years ago. It is the cost of food which makes the cost of living high. The two ways in which that can be reduced are, first, by controlling the cost to the consumer and, secondly, by incx'eas-ing the production. We have over and over again urged in this House that the Government should encourage our farmers to get farming implements of the most modern type and capable of the greatest production. It has been urged by speeches.

and by resolutions which have been moved, that the duty on farm tractors should be taken off. Gentlemen of very high intelligence in the Senate have brought the matter up, and the Government have been urged to act. There is an opportunity to utilize to very great advantage, not only in eastern but in western Canada, farm tractors of the cheaper sort with which large tracts of land could be brought under the plough and made capable of producing in the coming year, if the farmers could get those tractors at- a reasonable price. But the duty which the farmers have to pay is kept up-I think it is 32 j per cent-and this Government is giving no encouragement whatever to increase production. They are appealing to the farmers to increase the production of wheat and potatoes, but upon every implement of a modern character which is required for the production of potatoes, there is a very high, almost a prohibitive duty, and the same is true with regard to farm tractors. I will make a last appeal-I presume this is the last opportunity I shall have of doing so during this session-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Finance to take this matter into immediate consideration and, by Order in Council, to place farm tractors and implements necessary for the production of potatoes upon the free list in order to give every possible encouragement to the farmers to increase' production. This is a most important matter, and I believe, if the duty were taken off farm tractors, the result would be that many hundreds, I am inclined to think many thousands of those tractors would be brought into Canada in the near future, so that during the present season, before the winter sets in,' there would be a large increase in the land which would be ploughed up and made ready for increased production in the coming year. Is it hopeless for us to appeal to the Government to take an intelligent view of the situation and to act without delay?


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not think the hon. gentleman is taken more seriously outside than he is inside this House when he makes a statement as wild as the one he has made about poverty stalking through the country and people being utterly unable to obtain work. I will place alongside of his wild statement the fact that in the Toronto Telegram there are seven columns of advertisements for "help wanted" of all kinds, aggregating in round figures 500 vacant positions, and the people will judge
{Mr. Pugsley.]
for themselves about want of employment in Canada. Let us look at some of the positions which are vacant. There are wanted mechanics of all kinds, railway help, bakers, electricians, first class machinists, men in shipping departments, ordinary labourers, young men with fair education, pile drivers, chartered accountants, returned and discharged soldiers only to register for all classes of work in the city, some one to take charge of large offices, chauffeurs, drivers of motor trucks. There are almost innumerable vacant positions in the city of Toronto. There is an almost interminable list of female help wanted. Against that goes the bald statement of the hon. member that no person can get work in the country. In the Toronto Globe I find column after column of advertisements offering employment. I live in a town in which you cannot secure a man for an odd day's work for less than $3 a day, and that state of affairs prevails throughout Ontario. The hon. member cannot get any one on his own side to support the statement he has made.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The statement has been spread broadcast throughout this Dominion by a man engaged in the grain business around Port Arthur-and it is largely quoted in the press of this country and by hon. members in this House-that the millers of this country are making very large profits and that the public are being bled accordingly. I have made just a small tabulation with regard to this matter. Those who are acquainted with the milling business know that in the eastern provinces it takes about five bushels of wheat to make a barrel of flour.
You might sometimes make a barrel of flour out of four and a half bushels of the very finest grade of wheat grown in the Northwest, but as a rule four and three-quarter bushels of wheat are required to make a barrel of flour. Figuring that out at $2.40 a bushel, which is the price that has prevailed in Winnipeg for a very considerable time, we get $11.40. Out of the four and three-quarters bushels of wheat, the miller would probably get $1.50 worth of bran and middlings; that is figuring bran and shorts at 2 cents per pound almost, and it would not average that to-day. But we will suppose that the bran and middlings are worth $1.50; that leaves $9.90 as the net cost of a barrel of flour at Winnipeg. To that must be added the price for milling the wheat, the freight from Winnipeg, or Port Arthur, to ithe various centres from which the flour

is distributed, the wholesaler s price the wholesaler generally buys by the carload- the retailer's price, the bags for the flour, the cartage charges from the retailer to his customers and from the station to the retailers. AH these things add to the price, and when a man makes the statement that millers in this country are making $5 a barrel out of the flour they make, he is making an absolutely ridiculous statement, which ought not to carry any weight, and which certainly does not carry any weight, with those who have the slightest knowledge of this business. A man who makes a statement of that kind either does not know what he is talking about, or he makes the statement for the deliberate purpose o misleading the consumers of this countrj. I have no objection to a man spreading his opinions on the pages of Hansard and publishing them broadcast throughout the press of this country so long as he gives the actual facts and knows what he is talking about. If the millers are getting too much the people of the country should he told,


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question?


William Wright: My hon. friend denied me the courtesy of asking a question a few days ago, but I will he more courteous to him than he was to me.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman must be mistaken. I do not remember the occasion; it must have been some years ago. The hon. gentleman says he has knowledge of these things, and I will not dispute that. What in his judgment would be a fair price for flour to-day?


William Wright: His question would be
more intelligible if he would indicate the grade of flour.


William Pugsley: The best grade of flour.


William Wright: I do not think that flour can be retailed much cheaper than it is to-day, if the millers are to have a reasonable profit. I do not say but what the price might be reduced a little, but it depends altogether on the grade of wheat the millers are grinding. For instance, anybody conversant with the business knows that No. 1 Northern is not the same quality from year to year. The millers and the grain dealers get together every year and arrange what shall be the standard, based on the average quality of that year's crop. So it is somewhat difficult to answer my hon. friend's question. The point I was making was that the assertion that the
millers are making $5 a barrel is so utterly outrageous that nobody ought to thoughtlessly spread it broadcast throughout this country. The statement is so absolutely untrue and unreasonable that I thought it was time somebody got up and denied it.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman say the millers are making?


William Wright: A good deal will depend upon the miller's ability to finance; whether he can buy in a large stock at some particular time to last him through the season, or whether he has to buy from day to day; whether he can conduct his business prudently and with economy, and some men can conduct their business much more economically than others. All these things have to be taken into account, and consequently, it is very difficult to state what would be a reasonable profit.


Mr. OLIVER:: My hon. friend is desirous of correcting a wrong impression with regard to the profits made by millers. The profits made by millers naturally depend upon the price they pay for the wheat and the price they get for the flour, and I presume the statement to which my hon. friend objects was based upon a comparison between certain prices paid for
5	p.m. wheat and certain prices received for flour.	-[DOT]
I made a little calculation while I was listening to him, and so far from finding that the statement to which he objects was incorrect, I find it is capable of being very seriously accentuated. A large part of the wheat of last year's crop in the West was bought at $1.25 a bushel.


William Wright: What grade?


Frank Oliver: On a basis of No. 1 Northern. I do not say it was all bought at that price, but a large part of it was bought at that price. My hon. friend knows as well as anybody else that they bought that wheat, ground it into flour, and sold part of it on a basis of wheat at $3 a bushel. That gives a profit, not of $5, but $8.75 a barrel, and my hon. friend cannot figure it out any less, on his own calculation, so long as the multiplication table stands. It was on the comparison between the price received by the farmer for his wheat and the price received by the miller for his flour that I presume the statement to which my hon. friend objects, was made. There is no manner of doubt that it was absolutely correct if it is taken in the proper sense, but if it is assumed that what was meant was that the miller makes $5 a barrel on every barrel of

flour he sells that would be an absurd statement, and I do not think anybody ever made it.
My hon. friend estimated the price of bran and middlings at two cents a pound. Now two cents a pound is what the farmer received for his whole wheat, as regards a great deal of last year's crop. So on my hon. friend's own showing, the miller is getting for the waste product the same price per pound that he paid for the wheat out of which the waste product comes. I think it will be admitted that that is the basis of a very profitable transaction in which the miller is not losing any money.


William Wright: The hon. gentleman has had to take refuge behind an imaginary condition. He pictures the miller buying his whole year's supply of wheat at some favourable time. Now, there are very few millers in Canada who can afford to do that, and the miller who bought wheat at $1.25 must certainly have bought it a long time ago. I do not know any who have bought wheat at that price this year.


Frank Oliver: Last September and October.


William Wright: Does my hon. friend think that the millers, taken as a whole, could buy enough wheat last September to last them for a whole year, and would take the chances of the price of wheat going down as well as up? Any man engaged in ordinary business figures out his profit on the basis of cost at the time he buys the article. Supposing wheat goes down 75 cents a bushel, where will this miller be? He will be out that much.


William Erskine Knowles: He will hold up the price of flour.


William Wright: The only reasonable way to figure this is to figure the cost of wheat and the cost of the flour after the wheat is ground. As to the price of bran, I admit that I possibly overstated it. I figured it at $40 a ton. It is not worth that, even including the freight.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. gentleman is entitled to more credit than he takes to himself.


William Wright: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), not very long ago, was urging this Government to do something to cheapen flour.. He asked: Why do you not commandeer wheat as you did last year?


Frank Oliver: No, I did not.


William Wright: 
William Erskine Knowles: I do not understand
what the hon. gentleman means by "other speculators." Other speculators were not interfered with in the least by the Government. For example, Sir Joseph Flavelle was not interfered with. There was no price limit fixed for his bacon, beyond which he could not go. Therefore, I do not understand what my hon. friend means by saying that the farmer should take the same chance as other speculators because other speculators are not interfered with.


William Wright: Other speculators are interfered with to a great extent.


William Erskine Knowles: How?


William Wright: I was dealing with the question of wheat and I am quite prepared to go into the other question at any time the hon. gentleman suggests. But, I want to deah with one thing at a time.


William Erskine Knowles: I thought the hon. gentleman was dealing with other questions' as well.


William Wright: No. It is said by the hon. member for Edmonton that the farmers only got $2.40 a bushel for their wheat when they expected to get $3. My answer to that is that the Government acted in the interest of the consuming public and that the people were saved probably millions of dollars through this action. Yet the hon. member for Edmonton would condemn that action and he points out that, because of it, wheat was dearer, in Minneapolis than it was in Winnipeg. The Minneapolis buyers were depending on getting their little surplus of No. 1 hard wheat at a particular time in the season and they expected that they would get what they needed from the Northwest. That supply was suddenly cut off. We know that there are certain times in the year when grain dealers themselves are needing grain, when some are on the short side of the market, when they have to get a little more to fill an order, and we also know that everybody is buying very close when it comes down to the end of the season. It will all depend on whether wheat is scarce or not whether it does or does not go up abnormally. The man who is in the business has to take his chance and the price may go up or down. Under ordinary conditions nobody can tell what, at a particular time in the future, is going to happen with regard to the price of wheat. But we
know that the conditions are not ordinary and the probability as to what will be required is a matter of j udgment on the part of the buyer. Those who had the necessary money and credit bought ahead. No" doubt those who bought wheat made some money, but that fact is not a ground for objection to the price. We must take the price as we find it, offset it by the charges and arrive at a decision as to what would be a proper profit to take on a barrel of flour or any other commodity. I submit that that is the proper way of going about it. When the statement is sent broadcast that because a man bought something a year ago and it happened to go up abnormally, he is to be condemned for his acumen in looking to the future and judging how things would be. I say that such a statement has no basis in reason. He had to take his chance of the price going down as well as of its going up. It is only an ordinary principle of business that the man who uses his best judgment in regard to these things is going to get a little extra profit; but if he makes a loss he bears it as well as he may. It is an unreasonable thing to take the price of flour now and the price of wheat' a year ago and put one against the other. The thing is so utterly absurd and unfair that I wonder at anybodj taking that ground in this House.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: My hon. friend appears to have forgotten that this country is at war. When he makes the statement that flour is sold on the basis of the price of wheat, he overlooks the fact that the millers' trust is one of the most nefarious trusts in the world.


William Wright: What is the millers' trust? Is the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) one of them?


William Erskine Knowles: Suppose he is, what has that to do with it?


James McCrie Douglas: The Lake of the Woods Milling company, the Ogilvie Milling company, the Maple Leaf Milling company and the Robin Hood Milling company practically control the output of flour to the consumer. The small miller buying on the market from day to day to supply his mill cannot compete in the price of flour. The statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is absolutely correct, inasmuch as the bulk of the wheat for milling purposes was bought last fall at a price ranging from $1.25 to $1.60 per bushel. The Ogilvy and the Lake of the Woods companies have elevators all through

western Canada, and they purchase grain at these elevators for the purpose of producing flour and taking advantage of every rise in the market. If these were normal times, no exception could be taken to the attitude of the millers, but we must remember that this country is at war; that the submarine campaign being conducted by the Germans is accounting for a part of our supply of grain, and when you argue from ordinary business ethics in connection with a product such as flour, which is essential to human life, I think the argument is absolutely without foundation and cannot be substantiated.


William Wright: The statement has been
made that the miller is making $5 per barrel on flour. I take exception to that statement. I do not believe it is true, and I do not think any gentleman who inquires of any miller in this country will get a reply that will warrant him in making such a statement.
As to the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton that the bulk of the wheat for milling was bought last September, I want more than the hon. gentleman's unconfirmed word. I do not think there is money enough in all the milling companies to buy sufficient wheat to keep all the mills of Canada running for twdlve months. That would be an enormous amount. No doubt they would buy as they could, but I venture to say that somebody has been buying wheat from that time until to-day. Who was buying it? The milling companies. No doubt they are buying wheat to-day and have been buying it every business day since last September. They axe buying it to grind it into flour, and it is being ground into flour.


Frank Oliver: I think my friend has
thoroughly established the truth of the statement that there was a profit on flour to the miller up to $5 a barrel.


William Wright: The hon. gentleman says so; I certainly did not.


Frank Oliver: His argument substantiates that fact, and if there is any doubt about it, he can find that $5 a barrel right in the dividends of the milling companies. He could find it last year, and I am satisfied he will find it this year because, if they made a killing last year, they made a double killing this year.
I do not think that the hon. gentleman is right in quoting me as objecting to the Government fixing a price for wheat. My memory is that I was anxious to know if a 
price had been fixed for flour. Whether I said so or not in connection with the price of wheat, I think it would have been only fair that, when a maximum price was fixed for wheat, a maximum price should also have been fixed for flour. That is the position I took, and that is the position I still take.
I plead guilty to having asked the minister questions in regard to the difference in price between Winnipeg and Minneapolis, and I have no apology to make for having asked them. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) will recall a very lengthy lettergram which he received from an association in Calgary, who were certainly in very close touch with the farmers, because they are entirely an association of farmers, in regard to this very matter. I did not find fault with the Government for having fixed a maximum price for wheat. Recognizing war conditions, I am of the opinion that speculation should, so far as possible, be cut out; that is to say, that no man should be allowed to take advantage of the needs of the country by reason of his special position of advantage in regard to money or anything else, and that it is perfectly right that, under war conditions, there should be a fixed maximum price for wheat. The question is, what is a fair price? It is not the business of the Government, in fixing a maximum price for wheat, to put that maximum below what is fair according to the world demand and the world price. I agree to the fixing of price as a means of cutting out speculation, of cutting out the obtaining of an undue profit by individuals or associations by reason of the exercise of what my friend speaks of as their best judgment in taking advantage of the situation. That, I quite agree, should be cut out; but I do not agree that it is any part of the business of our Government or our country to fix a price below what is fair according to the market prices of the world


William Wright: Does my hon. friend suggest that $2.40 is too low, that it should have been fixed higher?


Frank Oliver: As matters turned out, I say so, certainly. That was the point I had in mind, that when we found that, for almost one whole month, the price in the United States was anywhere from five cents to fifty cents a bushel higher than it was on the Canadian side and it was necessary to impose a prohibition on the export of grain to the United States-I say that was evi-

dence to my mind that the price had been fixed lower than it should have been, and I think it was perfectly legitimate on my part to call attention to that fact. I cannot [DOT]agree to the principle that the price of wheat to the farmer should be fixed simply at the whim of the Government or of the Board of Grain Supervisors or of anybody else. It should be fixed on the basis of the fair world's price at that time and from time to time.


William Wright: It was fixed, as I understand, at the price which prevailed at that time. .


Frank Oliver: I could not say anything about that. There is no doubt that the holders of grain in the prairie West lost, as a result of the fixation of price by the minister, a matter of not less than $3,000,000 in cold cash in the month of August. My judgment is that this country cannot afford to lose money'in that way, that it is not right that we should be put in that position, and that the judgment upon which the minister fixed the price was not well founded. That is my criticism, and I think it is a perfectly legitimate criticism. I have further been anxious to know what is to be the future course. We know that grain goes down in price as the supply comes in, and while $2.40 was the price fixed until the end of August, we are anxious to know what the price is going to be in September, if the same policy of a fixed price is to prevail.
It is understood that the United States has fixed the price for September at $2.20 a bushel. I am not altogether familiar with the matter, but my impression is that that is somewhat above the price at which September options have been sold. However, we are anxious to know what our Government is going to do, and what the fixed price in Canada is to be. I take it that the Government must now have reached some decision. This is the last day of the fixed price of $2.40 a bushel, and we are anxious to know what the price is going to be for September, or if there is going to be a fixed price, and whether it is going to be a minimum as well as a maximum price.


Mr. LALOR:: Did the hon. gentleman
make a statement in the House this session that the price of $2 per bushel was perfectly satisfactory to the farmer?


Frank Oliver: Oh, no, I never presumed to say what the farmers would be willing to take, but I was discussing some negotiations tl\at were in progress between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and certain representatives of the farmers last fall when it was suggested, on the one hand, to fix the price at $1.30, and the farmers' representatives, ak I understood, were willing so far as their influence could go, to close the transaction at $1.72. That is my recollection of the circumstances.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think, in answer to a question by myself, the hon. minister said the farmers of the West were perfectly satisfied, if they received $2.


William Wright: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is trying to get away from the contradictory positions which he has assumed in this House in the last few weeks. He took the ground that this Government was refusing to take action in setting a fixed price for wheat, stating positively that the farmers of the West had practically got rid of all their wheat, and were no longer interested in the price.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Wright: He said it was in the hands of the big concerns. He immediately turns around and seizes the opportunity of bringing a little political grist to his mill, and he appears to think that the farmers of the West got that wheat back again in some miraculous way, that they were interested, to a very serious extent, in the action taken by the Government in setting a fixed price, and that they lost a large sum of money, I think he said $3,000,000. Did the farmers lose that?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Wright: Or was it the grain dealer?


Frank Oliver: I said that in large measure it was the grain dealers, and that the grain was largely out of the farmers' hands. At the same time, any farmers who held grain would suffer the loss just the same.


George Green Foster: I was listening, and I understood the statement of the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to be as alleged by the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Lalor). I am quite sure he said-whether he meant it or not-that the farmers of the West had lost $3,000,000 by the fixation of the price at $2.40.


Frank Oliver: I would ask to have the statement corrected, because my memory is as I have stated. I may have said that the farmers had lost it, but I corrected that statement, and said it was largely the grain dealers, because the grain was largely out of the farmers' hands, but it was $3,000,000

lost to the business of the West, and we could not afford to lose that money in that way.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is so solicitous for the grain dealers that he would like to see them get $3 for the grain they held for speculative purposes, rather than $2.40, which would result in mulcting all the consumers in Canada in the increased cost of flour.


Frank Oliver: I hold no brief for the grain dealer, but I think he is entitled to the same consideration as any other business man. He is entitled to a fair profit on his business transactions, and to the money his property is worth, just the same as anybody else. My contention was that the board of grain supervisors fixed the price below what turned out to be the price of the world's demand, and to that extent we were losers, and the action was not well judged. With reference to the consumers of flour, until my hon. friend takes action to fix the price of flour, based on the price that he fixed for the wheat, he cannot say that the price of flour to the consumer is fixed by the price of wheat. It is fixed by the combine of the millers, not by the price of the wheat.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I do not know about that $3,000,000. The hon. gentleman will have to have some means of knowing the amount of wheat that was sold during August, and I am not in a position to contradict what he says, or to question his statement that $3,000,000 were lost, but I have extreme doubt as to whether any such amount was lost. After considerable agitation by some of us-not all on one side of the House-we got free wheat. Wheat went over to the United States. Whatever that market may be worth, we got it anyway, and the Government saw fit to give us free wheat. After the United States became our ally by going into this war, it was up to this Government to see that the same price was fixed on this side as they were getting on the other side. Further than that, the Government had no right to fix the price of wheat without fixing the price of flour. There is nothing coming to the millers of this country. If there is any class of men in Canada that has done the farmer, and done the people of the country, it is the miller. I do not refer to the small miller, but to the large _ millers of this country. They have been absolutely soulless, in my opinion. If I had anything to do with the Government. I would see that
[Mr. Oliver.1
the millers were brought to time, and I say that when the Government permits wheat to go to the United States free, they should not permit flour to go to that country.


William Erskine Knowles: The discussion which has been going on might be continued indefinitely, but probably there is no time to go into it further. It seems to have now more or less closed itself. It is fortunate that one of our hon. friend's own brethren on 'the other side finally gave the quietus to this argument. I thought the hon. gentleman from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) was a little severe on the Government, now that the war is on, when he said in such bold language, that the Government failed to do its duty. It would have smacked very much of disloyalty if an hon. gentleman on this side of the House were to make such a remark about the good Tory Government guiding the affairs of this country, but there is such a preponderance of truth in what the hon. gentleman from Souris says that we will have to agree with the statement he makes, namely, that the Government failed to do its duty when it left that great loophole. It put a maximum price which this millers' trust had to pay for the wheat, the very most it can be called upon to pay, and it leaves the price the millers could demand for their flour without any limit whatever, and the Government forbids the export of our wheat to the United States to the south of us, and we presume deliberately and designedly, because this Government is supposed to be a gathering of very intelligent and clever statesmen. Therefore, designedly and deliberately, they give to the flour manufacturer the opportunity of selling his flour at the very highest price.
It cannot be argued that they were trying to protect the consumer; if they were trying to protect the consumer they would think of what the consumer would have to pay. But they did not give any consideration to what the consumer would, have to pay; they put a maximum upon what their friends the millers would have to pay. It is a sad commentary upon almost the first step taken by the Government with a view to controlling prices that they should put a maximum upon what the farmer should get for his wheat, but enact no legislation, make no regulation, in respect of what the poor consumer would have to pay. This is so much in line with the chief characteristic of the legislation of this Government-benefits to privileged classes-that I am

forced to the belief that the member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) is quite justified in the more or less' savage attack that he has just made upon the Government.
' With respect to this item of $75,000 for salaries, rents, "wages and contingencies under the Canada Grain Act, I may point out that while we may be willing to give the last man and the last dollar for this war, I do not think that we can spare $200,000 extra for the Grain Commission unless some good reason is given for our doing so. I do not speak with finality in the matter, because the Government may be " able to give some good reason for bringing down this vote. The reason may have been given in my absence; I have not heard it. To me this increase is a surprising one: Last year the vote was about $600,000, so that the increase, roughly speaking, amounts to 331 per cent.


George Green Foster: I did give a
*brief explanation of this item; my hon. friend was not here. The additional amount of $75,000 is to give the 400 odd employees of this branch of my department a reasonable increase of salary. Every department of Government has given similar increases, which have been voted by the House on the ground that the cost of living has gone up and that such increases are, therefore, justified.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the increase in the expenditure under this item amount to 331 per cent in one year, as I figured it?


George Green Foster: The expenditure for 1915-16 was $659,000, and for 1916-17, $874,000. The main vote was $850,000. This amount of $75,000 added to the $850,000 makes a total of $925,000.


William Erskine Knowles: In two or three years, then, the expenditure has gone up 331 per cent?


George Green Foster: Yes. If my hon. friend will go over the list of employees and their salaries, I think he will not come to the conclusion that they are extravagantly paid. The permanent officers are employed upon a fixed salary basis; they come, in at a minimum and receive a yearly increase until a certain maximum is attained. That calls for a certain increase each year, and the increase for this year forms part of this vote. In addition, this year we have granted increases, not very high in any case, for the reasons which I have stated; and for that reasonable increase the remainder of the $75,000 is in most part required.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not offer unfavourable criticism of my hon. friend's administration of the Grain Act. I believe in giving credit where credit is due; I think that the minister has kept the administration of the Grain Act, as I have observed it, fairly free from cheap party politics, especially in respect of the personnel of the staff of the commission.
During this session I introduced a Bill providing that the employees of Government elevators should have the same status as employees in any similar industry. The persons employed, say, by the Ogilvie people in their elevators have the advantages of the privileges and benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Injuries are not infrequent in these different .elevators; they have occurred in Moosejaw and Saskatoon, as my right hon. friend is aware. Simply because the elevators to which I refer are under the control of the Crown, the employee does not receive the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act. An employee in His Majesty's elevator, therefore, is in a less desirable position than an employee in an ordinary commercial elevator. That is not a desirable condition of affairs. The purpose of the Bill which I proposed- which, of course, will not be reached again this session-was that the Government should put itself in the same position with regard to claims made upon it under the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise as that in which any other employer-such .as the Robin Hood mills, the Ogilvie .Elevator, or the Lake of the Woods Elevator -finds himself under similar circumstances. It is undesirable that His Majesty's employees should be less favourably treated than employees of these other commercial institutions. A year ago or more the Government was paying an accident insurance company for carrying the risk of damages which these men might claim because of injuries reoeived.. I am informed that the Government paid the same premiums as were paid by any of the companies carrying on private enterprises of a similar character. If that he so; if the Government evades the risk-so far as workmen's compensation involves a risk-'then the accident insurance company had a gold mine. Any one who is acquainted with the amount of damages paid by employers to employees, especially in Saskatchewan, knows that a substantially large part of them are paid because of the statutory compulsion involved in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Ocean Accident & Guarantee Insurance Company was being paid for carrying that risk, the

same as if they were insuring the employees of the Ogilvie elevator or of any other commercial institution. But they were not carrying the risk, because His Majesty was not liable to the Workmen's Compensation Act-a provincial statue. There was an anomaly; the people's money was being paid out for carrying a risk which was not being carried, and of which the employees in the Government elevators were not in any way the beneficiaries. The employees in Government elevators should surely be as well treated as the employees of any ordinary corporation employing men for similar purposes.
In my Bill I asked that employees in Government elevators might have permission to sue in the ordinary courts, the same as was granted by a special amendment to the law in connection with the employees of the Intercolonial. I once acted for a man who had to bring his case to the Exchequer Court at Ottawa. He had to have the claim printed, and, for a poor workman in circumstances like that he was put to great expense and trouble. That is an added handicap and disability under which His Majesty's employees are.


George Green Foster: On the main
estimates, I was prepared to take up questions with reference to everything involved therein, but on these supplementary estimates, I find that I have not my papers which I had at the time the main estimates were going through. It is, of course, impossible for me to carry all these things in mind, and I am not in a position to discuss that question. My impressions of it are something like this, and we do not insure our employees.


William Erskine Knowles: Not now. You certainly did a year ago.


George Green Foster: About two years ago I think they were under the Employers' Liability Insurance and.we did not insure them. We, however, discontinued that, because it is not the policy of the Government in any of the departments to insure their employees. Therefore, whatever may have been the ease two or three years ago, the condition of things now is that we are not paying insurance companies for carrying risks on employees. We have established the Exchequer Court, and the raison d'etre of its establishment was that it should be a court that would be peculiarly fitted to take up all cases of claims against the Government on the part of its employees for damages or for any thing else. It is considered that that is the TMr. Knowles.]
best policy to be pursued by a Government, You have a court which is specially instituted for that purpose and you have the rules of procedure thereof which are stated and uniform and not subject to provincial differences as would be the case if actions were brought under different provincial laws. The Department of Justice, to which I referred the matter, was very strongly of that opinion, and I receded from the position I had taken at first that we should put a general insurance policy over employees in Government elevators the same as is done in the case of employees in ordinary elevators. What is the reason we preferred to keep that policy which certainly has its advantage in the way of clearness and economy?


William Erskine Knowles: The minister did not speak to' the question as to whether it would not be better to put our employees in at least as good a position as employees of the Ogilvie Elevator company in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act.


George Green Foster: We have thou-ands of employees throughout the Dominion and they have always been placed upon a uniform basis; the Government have never been accused of dealing harshly with reference to claims for compensation which have arisen.


William Erskine Knowles: The Department of Justice contests the case very keenly when the claimants go to litigation.


George Green Foster: You have to contest the cases pretty keenly, but where you have a deserving case, the Government always recognizes it, as the votes from year to year show.


William Erskine Knowles: Is there still hope that a sample market may be opened at Moose-jaw? Some years ago, when the Canada Grain Act was going through Parliament,
I urged very strongly that a sample market be placed at Moosejaw, and I gave reasons which I thought were good. Moosejaw is the railway centre of the country north and west, and is directly connected by rail with Minneapolis where there is a special opportunity for the sale of wheat through a sample market. Although I am a Moosejaw man, I think, on the merits of the case, that there is more ground for having a sample market at Moosejaw than at any other place. It is so situated that the wheat would "funnel" right through it to Minneapolis.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend very rightly brings forward the claims of

Moosejaw, but there are others in the Northwest who bring forward the claims of other towns with equal strength. Sample markets have been put on at two points: Fort William and Winnipeg. It is not intended to open sample markets at any otheT points in the West this year. As things develop, it is quite probable that other points will from time to time be chosen. Wherever you have a sample market, you have to make certain provisions for .sampling and inspection which involve demands upon labour and interference, to a certain extent, with transport. This year, on account of the scarcity of labour and the inadequacy of transport, we would not be justified in opening up additional sample markets. In establishing the sample market, we have not made either Winnipeg or Fort William an order point to the extent of necessitating an overlay of twenty-four or forty-eight hours. That has not been done, because to do it would have made an interference with transport this year which we did not feel, under the circumstances, it was proper for us to make.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister kindly make a short statement as to what special authority constitutes a sample market?


George Green Foster: A sample market, as my hon. friend knows, is a market in which buyers and sellers congregate and make their bargains with each other for the purchase of wheat upon the inspection of the sample of the car which is to be sold. In the first place, you must have samples taken west of the point in which the sample market is established.


Frank Oliver: I am aware of the conditions of the sample market. What I wanted to know was what regulations or what changes of authority had been made in order to constitute a market.


George Green Foster: The Act itself gives the authority for the constitution of the sample market. My hon. friend will find the provision in section 57 of the Canada Grain Act.


William Erskine Knowles: The places are named in the Act.


George Green Foster: No. On that
authority the Grain Board acts, and the points are named at which sample markets may be established. More or less time is given for deciding upon the routing and destination points, and for the examination of the samples. The Government has no responsibility for the sample market, so far as the carrying on of its operations is
concerned, and simiply designates the order points, so to speak. The two points that have been designated so far are Fort William and Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: The authority is the
authority of the Board of Grain Commis-missioners.


George Green Foster: The basic
authority is the Act. The Grain Commissioners make their recommendation, and by Order in Council the sample market is established. Then the Board of Grain Commissioners make rules and regulations which are embodied in an Order in Council.
I am quite willing to lay on the Table the Orders in Council that have been passed, for the information of my hon. friend.


William Erskine Knowles: Has the Board of Grain Supervisors been appointed for the duration of the war?


George Green Foster: No stated period was mentioned in the Order of Council appointing them, which simply confers upon them certain powers which they are to exercise so long as the Order in Council remains in effect. The Order of Council can, of course, be eliminated by the same authority that called it into existence.


William Erskine Knowles: Under the War Measures Act?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: The operation of the Order in Council would automatically cease with the ending of the war?


George Green Foster: Yes, or before.


Frank Oliver: Is there any connection
between the Board of Grain Supervisors and the Grain Board?


George Green Foster: No. They are entirely separate.


Frank Oliver: Is there a separate item for the expenses of the Board of Grain Supervisors?


George Green Foster: As the board has been created on account of the war, its expenses are paid out of the War Appropriation fund.


Frank Oliver: I was under the impression that the Grain Supervisors are not salaried.


George Green Foster: None of them are salaried. There is a paid secretary, but the supervisors receive simply their expenses.


Frank Oliver: How big a staff is employed?


George Green Foster: I know of no staff that has been appointed, except the secretary and his stenographer.


Frank Oliver: Do they not receive any allowance for the time they spend on this work? One of the members I know is from Alberta. Any members of the board who live outside of Winnipeg would be put to considerable expense in attending the meetings.


George Green Foster: They are quite willing to give their services as a contribution to the war.


Frank Oliver: There is this other point. If men of not unlimited means are serving without remuneration, it is just possible that there may not be quite the same readiness to respond to the needs of the service as if they were being paid by the country. I am not speaking on behalf of any one, but the idea occurred to me just at the moment.


George Green Foster: I think there is a great deal to be said on the other side. These gentlemen were quite willing to give their services. If my hon. friend has followed the course of events in the United States, he must have observed that nine-tenths of the men on the great committees, composed of men of all sorts and conditions and representing a great many interests and activities, are giving their services as a contribution to the nation. That is a splendid illustration of the public spirit of the people of the United States. Their territory covers a great area, and these different committees have often to be summoned to Washington. They get their expenses, I imagine, but outside of that their' services are voluntary.


Frank Oliver: I asked a question of the minister in regard to the proposed action of the Board of Grain Supervisors fixing the price of grain from August 1.


George Green Foster: The Board of
Grain Supervisors have been considering that question. In the action they had to take covering the month of August, the board were at a disadvantage, and our Food Controller ihas been at a disadvantage also in fixing the prices of different commodities, especially flour. Although there is close correlation between the United States and Canada, the United States had no authority to act, and that meant that for a period of one month-the month that has just passed 
-we had either to do nothing but wait until the United States had received authority for the fixing of prices and had acted upon it, or do the best we could in fixing prices for that intervening month. But now that legislation has been passed authorizing the authorities in the United States to act, our Board of Grain Supervisors and our Food Controller are on more solid ground, and action may be expected from the Food Controller which could not have been taken with the expectation of good results, until co-operation with the United States had been provided for.
My hon. friend and some others have spoken of the foolishness and injustice of putting a maximum price on grain and not putting a -maximum price on flour. If things were normal it would be inconsistent to fix the price of one and not of the other, but there was no certain knowledge of what conditions would be at the end of this intervening month, and we could not very well fix a price for flour made of grain that had been bought in the undetermined period. But now that the period is determined, now that the fixation of price in Canada will be for a period, as it is in the United States, the price of flour will be fixed having regard to the price of wheat.


Frank Oliver: Does the minister wish to get this item passed this afternoon?


George Green Foster: I should like to.
I shall be glad to -give any information regarding this matter on any other item in
the estimates.


Frank Oliver: I just wish to make this statement, so that I shall not be caught in cross-fire by my hon. friend from Muskoka in the future. In any fixing of -the price of grain in Canada, now that the price is being fixed in the United States, I claim that there should always be recognition of the difference in value in grades of the same name as between Canadian and United States grain.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend understands that from the 11th of August the new system of grading has been in effect in the United States.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight, Mr. Rain-ville in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Militia and Defence-To provide for an increase in salary to the Assistant Deputy Minister to $4,000,

$150; to provide for an increase in salary to the Director bf Contracts to $4,000, $150; to provide for an increase in salary to the Assistant Director of Contracts to $2,800, $200 ; to provide for a clerkship in First Division, Subdivision A, for R. P. Brown, in lieu of one in First Division, Subdivision B, $2,800; to provide for four clerkships in Second Division, Subdivision B, at $1,300, $5,200-$8,500.


Frank Oliver: Are these statutory increases?


Albert Edward Kemp: There is no increase in the last two items. These officers *are put into another class but at the same salary. There are increases in the first three items of $150 to the deputy minister, $150 to the director of contracts and $200 to the assistant director of contracts. The only way in which these officers could get increases was by putting the' amounts in the Estimates.


Frank Oliver: I thought there was provision for statutory increases to all officials of the inside service. Are these outside of the statutory increases?


Albert Edward Kemp: That is the reason these slight increases are put in the Estimates, -they are over and above the statutory increases?


Frank Oliver: Have these officers received their statutory increases?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, they would be entitled to them; but $100 is all that the statutory increase amounts to. These officials have done very laborious and faithful work since the war began and it was thought, in the interest of the service, that we should give them some slight recognition in this way.
Militia and Defence-to cover expenditure by party of officers of the Canadian militia attending British, French and Swiss army manoeuvres in 1913, as per detailed statement, Auditor General's Report, 1913-14,	,p.	65,


Frank Oliver: This seems to me a rather remarkable item. Would the minister give an explanation of it?


Albert Edward Kemp: This is a formal matter more than anything else. The Auditor General asked that the item should be put in the Estimates because he thought it was not legal unless it was voted, ifhe expenditure occurred in 1913-14. In that year and in the years following it w.as thoroughly discussed in the House.


Frank Oliver: Has the money been paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Supposing the House did
not pass the item, what would happen?
*330
Would the fabric of the constitution dissolve?


Albert Edward Kemp: It would be rather an unfortunate situation, but the Auditor General would not consent to its going forward until it was passed. It is not an extraordinary item in any sense. Money appropriated for this purpose was spent for many years under the administration of Sir Frederick Borden.


Frank Oliver: When was the money paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: The money must have been advanced at the time. These items for years had been paid out of the vote for " annual drill." That has been the custom, I know, since this Administration came into power, and it was the custom under the previous Administration. Now, the Auditor General has insisted that the amount shall be included in the Estimates.


Mr. KYTE:: If it is not an unusual item, why has it been held up by the Auditor General?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Auditor General addressed a letter to the deputy minister in which he said:
I would suggest that an item be placed in the Supplementary Estimates as directed by the Treasury Board, and also additional sum of $3,194.13 to cover the account for motor hire. Until this is done I shall have to refuse to pass certificate for the payment.


George William Kyte: Is that the final determination, I assume that there must have been a good deal of correspondence leading up to it between the Auditor General and the officials of the Militia Department.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is only one letter on record from the Auditor General, an extract from which I have read'. The treasury board asks that it be intimated to the Auditor General that an item will be placed in the Estimates. This has been discussed in the House time and again, and I thought it was all over and done with. It occurred before the war.


George William Kyte: Why has this vote not passed Parliament long ago if, as the minister says, it is not an unusual item and similar expenditures were incurred by Sir Frederick Borden in the past? There must be some difference between the conditions under which this expenditure was incurred and the cases referred to by the minister.


Albert Edward Kemp: ^The only explanation I can give is that tne Auditor General only brought it up on July 23, 1917.


George William Kyte: The fact that the expenditure was incurred in 1913 and was only proposed to be voted now, proves that there must have been a great deal of trouble in relation to the payment of the item.


Albert Edward Kemp: The only question raised by the Auditor General is that it has been a payment out of the vote to which. I referred-" annual drill." The Auditor General referred it to the Treasury Board for a ruling and the Treasury Board orderd that it be placed in the Supplementary Estimates, to make it regular.


George William Kyte: The money voted by Parliament for annual drill could not have in contemplation this large amount for an entirely different purpose.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is part of the training for an officer, and has been taken out of the vote for "annual drill" for many years past.


Frank Oliver: How does the amount of this item compare with the amounts in previous years?


Albert Edward Kemp: The pay of each of the officers is the same, but more officers went on this trip.


Frank Oliver: What was the bulk sum, say, in 1911 or 1912?


Albert Edward Kemp: I find that the exMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes),
speaking in this House on May 7, 1914, said:
Annually, for a number of years, my predecessor sent military officers to the old land. In 1907-S, seven officers and six non-commissioned officers were sent. They cost the country $26,772, or two and' a half ordinary good town drill halls. In 1908-9, my predecessor sent six officers and six non-commissioned officers. Mark you, these were all of the permanent force and these moneys were voted hy this Parliament, my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition being then Prime Minister, supported by hon. gentlemen opposite. For these six officers and1 six non-commissioned officers the cost in 1908-9 was $32,601, or three drill halls and a half.
So that, after all, the sum is not exorbitant compared with the amounts paid in 1908 and 1909 for a similar purpose.


Frank Oliver: With all due respect to my hon. friend's predecessor, I would prefer to take the accounts of the department as given by the minister rather than the ex-minister's statement.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am satisfied my predecessor was speaking by the book in giving these items. -


George William Kyte: Would the minister give a list of officers and the total entourage, and their expenses on the tour?


Albert Edward Kemp: The statement is as follows:
Aug., 1913, Secy, of State, passports	$	56.00
Sept., 1913, High Commissioner's Expenditures:
Coi. J. Lyons-Biggar, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913 ....	299.99
Lt.-Col. H.	J.	Cowan,	advance	travelling	expenses	manoeuvres,	1913	....	299.99Lt.-Col. F.	J.	Clark,	advance	travelling	expenses	manoeuvres,	1913	....	299.99Lt.-Col. H. F. McLeod, advance travelling expenses, manoeuvres, 1913..	400.00Lt.-Col. S. C. Mewburn, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913	299.99Lt.-Col. W. S. Buell, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913 ....	299.99Lt.-Col. A. G. F. Macdonald, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913	299.99Lt.-Col. R. G. E. Leckie, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913..	299.99Lt.-Col. M. S. Mercer, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913 ....	299.99Lt.-Col. F. C. Jamieson, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913..	,299.99Lt.-Col. F. A. Howard, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913...	299.99Lt.-Col. D. Watson, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres, 1913....	400.00Lt.-Col. C.	H.	Rogers,	advance	travelling	expenses	manoeuvres,	1913	
400.00Lt.-Col. J.	T.	Ostelle,	advance	travelling	expenses	manoeuvres,	1913	
400.00Lt.-Col. E. S. Wigle, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres,	1913	
400.00Major P. Davidson, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres,	1913	
400.00Major S. G. Robertson, transportation expenses, Picton-Quebec	
23.64Major S. G. Robertson, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres	
400.00Major L. Leduc, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres	
299.99Lt. Bvt. Capt. W. H. Beil, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres	
299.99Col. E. A. Cruikshank, advance travelling expenses manoeuvres	
299.99Lt.-Col. F. J. Clark, transport	
4.34Lt.-Col. A. C. Macdonnell, advance, army manoeuvres	
400.00Army and navy stores. Fares, officers, London-Boulogne	
161.41
Col. J. Lyons-Biggar, account travelling expenses, officers attending
manoeuvres	 1,216.66
Pay-officers attending manoeuvres	 3,984.00
Oct., 1913-High Commissioner's expenditure:
Col. J. Lyons-Biggar, account Canadian officers return	 486.67
Wolseley Tool & Motor Co., motor hire, officers attending manoeuvres.. 6,904.00
Total	$ 19,93 6. S5


George William Kyte: That is not the total amount, Sir EDWARD KEMP: The total amount the total was $24,620.33.	is made up as follows:
Pay of 16 officers of the Active Militia	$ 3,984.00
Subsistence 16 officers of the Active Militia )
Subsistence 5 officers of the Permt. Militia j	 8,399.87
Estimated steamship passages 17 officers	 3,330.00
Motor hire of party in England and on continent	 6,904.26
Other transport and travelling expenses		1,284.74
Incidental expenses disbursed by Col. Biggar	 129.46
Subsistence and travelling expenses two private secretaries and two orderlies	 588,00


George William Kyte: One of the items is for the pay of officers while attending the manoeuvres. Were these officers not in the employ of the Militia Department?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, they were in the Militia Force, but not on the permanent staff. There were about twenty militia officers who were not on the pay roll.


George William Kyte: Is there any report in the Department of Militia as to the result of manoeuvres that were performed?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have no doubt that there will be a Report in the department in connection with this trip. I think the country has benefited greatly by the visit of these officers in Europe. They would be able to learn a good deal about warfare in the continental armies, a great advantage which they would not have if they had never made this trip. Some of these officers have been engaged actively at the front ,and some have been killed.


George William Kyte: One of the advantages is the valuable suggestion Miss McAdam received while attending these manoeuvres, which resulted in a shovel being patented by the Militia Department, and a considerable expenditure of money involved in it. Is there any item of the minister's own expenses there, apart from the expenses of the other officers?


Albert Edward Kemp: There would be no details in respect of the minister's travelling expenses.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be charged to the general expenses of the militia, would it not?	*


Albert Edward Kemp: There is an item for contingencies, and I presume it would come under that, but there is no account of these travelling expenses. It is not a very large item.


George William Kyte: Would the minister be able to say what use was made of the large
330i
quantity of shovels which were purchased from the Midvale Steel Company, and sent across with the first contingent of the Canadian troops that went overseas in 1914?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am informed that the shovels to which the hon. member refers were sent to the Old Country. Whether they were sent to the front I am not prepared to say.


George William Kyte: Does the hon. minister know whether any use was made of them or not?


Albert Edward Kemp: I could not possibly answer that question.


George William Kyte: This being rather an unusual item, and as there is a desire on the1 part of a great many members of this-Mouse to get full particulars, I think it would be well to let the item stand over till further information has been obtained1.


Albert Edward Kemp: The expenditure has been discussed in the House almost every year since it was made, and the total amount expended is not in excess of amounts spent by previous ministers. Under those circumstances, I hardly think it fair that the item should stand over. I have read what the ex-minister stated in regard to the amounts spent formerly, which were larger than the item before us.


George William Kyte: The item has been discussed in a general way from time to time, but, inasmuch as the vote of Parliament was not asked to defray the expenses incurred on this trip, the public would not have so much interest m it. But now that Parliament is asked to pass the vote I think that further discussion is very desirable. With all deference, I do not think the hon. minister has given a full explanation of the reasons why this item should be delayed for four years without Parliament being asked to make the vote. I think a good deal of correspondence must have passed between the Auditor General and the Department of Militia and Defence,

and I think some further explanation should be made as to why the item has been held over and an attempt made to get it through Parliament at the present time. It is more particularly desirable to hold the item over because the hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) who, when minister, incurred the expenditure is not now a member of the Government and not now in his seat. If he were here he would probably be in a position to give information which the hon. the Minister of Militia is not able to give this evening. I think it is very desirable that we should obtain more information, and, obtain it, if possible, from the ex-Minister of Militia himself.


Albert Edward Kemp: Hansard is full of explanations in regard to this particular matter. Question after question has been asked, and the item has been in the Estimates year in and year out.


George William Kyte: No estimate for this item.


Albert Edward Kemp: The ex-Minister of Militia has made an explanation in regard to it, and I think the hon. gentleman is raising more serious objection now than previously. The matter has been threshed out in the House, the Estimates have been passed each year, and questions have been asked. Questions were asked on February 16, 1914, and the matter has been the subject of many discussions, but no protest so severe in its character as the one my hon. friend now makes was ever made.


George William Kyte: We would like to know what was the exact expenditure incurred by the predecessor of the ex-Minister of Militia. The hon. minister has not that information. He has read a statement made in the House by the ex-Minister of Militia. While I am not questioning that explanation, I think that under the circumstances he should have the exact amounts from the Militia Department to compare with the expenditure incurred in 1914 for this particular service.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is nothing new about this matter. As I read a few moments ago, the expenditure in 1907-8 of a similar character was $26,772.


Frank Oliver: Is that for the two years?


Albert Edward Kemp: That is for the fiscal year 1907-8. In 1908-9 the expenditure was $32,601..


George William Kyte: It is quite possible the last item given by the hon. minister in 1907-8 includes items other than those included in

the item we are asked to vote this evening. In order that a proper comparison may be *made between this expenditure and the expenditure by Sir Frederick Borden for this service, we should know absolutely whether the items correspond or not.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know, I am sure, that the items would absolutely correspond. I am satisfied these officers were just as economical in the expenditure of money as the officers were on any pre-vioue trips. I think my hon. friend should permit the item to pass, because the money has been spent, and the item has passed the Treasury Board and has been placed in the Estimates. Moreover, the matter has been up every year since the occasion referred to. The pages of Hansard have been filled with the discussion of it, but no such severe criticism was made as has been made tonight.


George William Kyte: The fact that the pages of Hansard were covered with discussion of this item from year to year since 1913 goes to show that there was something extraordinary about it. If the item were the same as, or similar to the one placed in the Estimates by the late Sir Frederick Borden, Hansard would not be filled with criticism of the expenditure; there would not be repeated inquiries for information. The reason given by the minister for allowing the item to pass is a reason why it should not pass until we have more detailed information.
Mr. .1. J. HUGHES: The minister has stated that certain military advantages were obtained by the presence of the officers at these manoeuvres in Switzerland in 1913. That may be correct, but certain disadvantages resulted from this expedition. The ex-Minister of Militia stated that it was at these manoeuvres that Miss McAdam con-[DOT] ceived the idea of the shovel. This brought upon the country an expenditure of some $40,000, and, so far as we can learn, no advantage, military or otherwise, ever resulted. What became of these shovels is not very clear; the minister himself does not seem to know'. That is another reason why the item should stand until the minister obtains further information.


Albert Edward Kemp: This item has
nothing to do w'ith the shovels.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: The ex-minister
stated that the shovel idea was the result of these manoeuvres; the tw'O matters, therefore are very closely connected. It would

be advisable to get all the information possible in connection with this matter, because quite a number of people are interested in it. There is considerable mystery about it, and this item should stand until it is cleared up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have not seen any item in the Estimates providing for an increase in the pay of the soldiers. The conscription Bill is now in force, and there is no doubt that the pay received by soldiers is not in any sense equal to the pay of labourers employed in this country at the present time. When I spoke on the conscription Bill I expressed the opinion that the pay of the men should be increased. I know that many of the men are anxious to get an increase of pay; it need not be given them while they are in France or in England; it would be desirable that they have something more coming to them when they return to this country. I know that this would mean increasing the cost of the war, but it is an added expenditure that the public would be very willing to meet. I am quite sure that there would be no objection on the part of the people if the men were paid at least fifty cents a day more than they are getting now. The average labourer throughout the country is getting from $2.50 to $3 a day. Although the price of munitions has been very materially cut down, I understand that in some of the munition factories the men are earning from $3 to $8 a day. The last time I was home I heard about a man who was getting $8 a day. Ordinary mechanics in factories get a great deal more in proportion than the men who are asked to risk their lives for our country. I appreciate the fact that the men do not go for the purpose of drawing pay; they enlist for the purpose of defending their country. At the same time, there is no reason why the country that they are defending should not pay them more than they are getting now. I hope that the minister will take this matter into consideration, and that if he does decide to increase the pay, he will make the provision retroactive in respect of those men who have enlisted since the outbreak of war. The ' result would be that they would get a good start when they came back to Canada

it would not be necessary to pay the money to them while they are in Europe-and they would not be depending upon the public for assistance. They do get three months' pay when they are discharged, but that is not anything in proportion to what they could save if their pay was increased at least fifty cents a day.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Would my hon. friend have every soldier paid the same salary that he was receiving when he enlisted?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Why not?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would have every soldier paid the same amount.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That would not be fair; some men- might have been earning more before they enlisted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be perfectly fair. It does not matter what the men were earning before they enlisted; after they join the colours they are all in the same service.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is juet as- fair now as it would be that way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think not. The men are being paid for what they are doing now. A private is a private, h corporal a corporal; one man is supposed-, so far as the defence of the country is concerned, to be as valuable as another. I think their pay ought to 'be equal.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They are all paid the same now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, but I want their pay increased.


Mr. HANNA:: How much?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Fifty cents a day.


Albert Edward Kemp: Although the Canadian soldier is paid at a higher rate than the soldiers with whom he is fighting side by side, no one would say that he can possibly be paid in money for the services that he is rendering to hie country.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You could not pay for his services in money.


Albert Edward Kemp: No. The service which the Canadian soldier is rendering to his country by fighting in France is beyond payment. The ordinary private soldier's income, with his pay of $1.10 a day, taking into consideration a certain amount per month for clothing and subsistence, and, if he is a married man, taking into consideration, also, his separation allowance and the .amount given by the Patriotic Fund to his family if his family needs- it, comes to about $95 per month.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The amount of the income -depends upon the number of children a man has. He would have to have a number of children for his income to reach that amount.


Albert Edward Kemp: Not many. It has been estimated in the press that the average income was about $100 per month, but, roughly speaking, it would be about $95 per! month. These soldiers are the very flower oi the country, and it is heartrending to think that so many of them are being killed or wounded and that the country is going through such a severe trial in these terrible losses. The single man is obliged to leave half of his pay with the Minister of Finance and he receives interest upon it. That accumulates while he is away, and & good many million dollars are accumulating in that manner. The private soldier who is married assigns $15 to his wife or his family.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The married man receives a separation allowance of $20, which is in excess of what the single m.an gets, is it not?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The allowance for subsistence and clothing would be equal to about $1 per day. That is why I say that the unmarried soldier should be paid $1.50 per day and field allowance of ten cents, or $1.60 per day. That, with subsistence and clothing, would amount to $2.60 per day. The married man receives a separation allowance of $20 per month. As a country, we have nothing whatever to do with the Patriotic Fund. That fund is supported by voluntary contributions, and the married soldier should not have to receive assistance from a voluntary fund. The separation allowance should be increased, and the people should not be called upon to give these voluntary contributions, because those contributions are not equally distributed. Some men pay a great deal more in proportion to their wealth than others do. In the county from-which I come, the county council and the towns that are separated from the county assess so many mills on the dollar and pay over the amount collected to the Patriotic Fund, so that in that case the contributions are equally distributed. The income of the married man, counting his pay, clothing, subsistence, separation allowance and Patriotic Fund contribution may come to $95 per month.
I have not figured it up, but the amount depends upon what he gets from the Patriotic Fund. If he is a married man without children, he gets less from the Patriotic Fund than if he has children, and if he has a number of children, the amount he receives from the

Patriotic Fund is fairly large. The mere fact that, even if we paid the soldier $100 a day, we could not compensate him for risking his life for his country does not affect the principle. We should pay him a sufficient amount so that he will be able to have something saved up by the time he returns. The minister says that a certain amount is -held back on which interest is paid. That interest, however, does not mount up very quickly. I have had occasion to take up cases of back pay of men who have been killed, and the paymaster general has been very courteous in looking after those matters, but the back pay coming to the relatives of those men has never amounted to more than $85 or $86, and that is not very much. If the soldier were paid fifty cents a day allowance while he was in Europe and a dollar a day held back, he would have quite an amount coming to him when he returned to this country, and I am pleased to say that the bulk of our troops will return. In that way they will have something to start with when they come home and will be able to retain their pride in themselves. There is no reason why the country cannot pay that amount, and I believe the country would be perfectly willing to pay it.


Frank Oliver: While I do n ot know that it is quite in order to discuss this question and I will not delay the House for any time on it, I just wish to repeat what I have said so often before in this House, that the time has come when the separation allowance to the dependents of our soldiers should be increased so that there would not be any necessity of the the work of the Patriotic Fund as is the case at present. We know that the cost of living has increased since the beginning of the war. We have raised the salaries of our employees at Ottawa, and in many cases working men have had their wages increased, and justly so, because of the increase in the cost of living. We are, however, paying the same separation allowance to-day as we did when the war began, and we are placing the same dependence upon the Patriotic Fund as we did then. The time has come when we should decide on an increase in the allowance to our soldiers' dependents that will meet the increased cost of living and what is now drawn by them regularly from the Patriotic Fund.


George William Kyte: There appears to be some laxity in the militia office in London with respect to the assignments of soldiers' pay. There have come to my notice several cases in which men who have enlisted f>
* over-

seas services have, shortly after their arrival in France, written their parents at home that they have assigned their pay, but no payments have been made to those in whose favour the assignments have been drawn. I took the matter up with the officials of the department, and I am bound to say that they manifested every courtesy and determination to investigate thoroughly all those causes of complaint. In every *ease I find that the difficulty does not exist in the Militia Department here, but, in some way or another, the trouble is on the other side. In many cases months and months have elapsed without a single dollar being paid to the parents of those men. After taking the matter up With the department, I have been able to get the assigned pay to begin from the time I made the complaint, but the back pay which has been assigned has never been handed over to the parents. There must, therefore, be some laxity, no doubt due to the large quantity of business of that character which has to be dealt with.
It is a great disappointment to the parents of these men that the pay which has been assigned to them by their sons overseas is not being regularly paid. In cases where it is ultimately discovered that there was an assignment, there is no reason why the pay that was withheld should not be paid from the date from which the assignment was made effective. I desire to call the minister's attention to this, because cases of this kind are very numerous and are becoming more numerous every day. If there is any way of getting a better line on that particular branch of the work of the Militia Department in London it is eminently desirable that steps should be taken without delay.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is my hon. friend speaking of the unmarried or the married man?


George William Kyte: The unmarried.


Albert Edward Kemp: The unmarried man is not obliged to assign his pay, and very frequently does not do so until his regimental paymaster perhaps draws his attention to some inquiries that have been made from this side. Cases such as my hon. friend has mentioned will always occur, of course, but it must be borne in mind that they are very few in number compared with the thousands of cases that are handled without any hitch at all. The complaints are certainly not as numerous proportionately as they have been in the past.


James Joseph Hughes: A good many complaints have come to myself, and so far as my experience goes, I wish to bear testimony to the fact that all the officials in the Department of Militia and Defence are very anxious to do t.he best they can, and that has been particularly noticeable during the last five or six months. One cannot help remarking on the courtesy and the desire on the part of the minister and h>s officers to have all these cases straightened out.
To cover hire of motor cars for Major General Hughes, then Minister of Militia and Defence, during his visits to England and Prance in 1912, 1913 and 1915, $3,194.13.


George William Kyte: There was an item for $6,000 covering the cost of motor cars for the minister and those associated with him in his trip to Europe in 1913. How is it necessary to have another item of this amount to cover the same expenditure?


Albert Edward Kemp: This item is to
cover a bill which has been certified as correct, which has been accumulating with the Wolseley Motor Car Company during the years 1912, 1913 and 1915.


Frank Oliver: What was wrong with
1914?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has this anything to do with that famous junketing trip? Is the minister quite sure that he is not mixing up some motor cars in Ottawa with some on the other side? Any one who lives in Ottawa and watches the string of beautiful motor cars that drive up to the Chateau and the well-groomed gentlemen, and sometimes ladies, who get into them, all driven by men in uniform, might be pardoned for the suspicion that part of this amount should be charged to Ottawa instead of to the other side. But possibly the item is all right.
Monuments on battlefields-Grant to Women's Wentworth Historical Society towards the preservation of the monuments at Stoney Creek, $125.


Mr. COPP:: I wish to direct the minister's attention for a moment to some battlefields in different portions of the province of New Brunswick. Some years ago the question of preserving and taking care of the old forts in the province of New Brunswick and elsewhere in the Dominion was brought up in the House. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) and the late Mr. Emmerson succeeded in getting some expenditure made on Fort Beausejour, and having the premises fenced in. I 9 p.m. have been recently informed by a letter from the Daughters of

the Empire that the fort at Annapolis has been taken over by the Parks Branch, and also a fort at St. John.
Sir EDWARD KEM'P:	Who made the
expenditure my hon. friend has referred to?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Probably my hon. friend from Cumberland could say. I understand that it is under the control of the Militia Department. I think it is well that these old battlegrounds which are falling into decay should be taken care of by the Government and preserved as a memorial for future generations. I would ask the minister if something cannot be done to preserve these old forts in New Brunswick and elsewhere.


Mr. ROCHE:: I might explain that the Parks Branch is in the Interior Department. An arrangement was entered into comparatively recently under which these particular properties are being converted into Dominion national parks. It is our intention to conserve them for that purpose.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is Fort Beausejour under consideration for this purpose?


William Roche: The Annapolis one was taken over, but I cannot say as to the other.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that Fort
Annapolis was transferred from the Militia Department to the Interior Department?


William Roche: Yes.
Gratuity to the widow of the late F. G. Anson, employed at the Royal Military College, $6X6.46.


George William Kyte: Some weeks ago a return was brought down, on the motion of the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin), giving the number and salaries, amounting to some $400,000 a year, of those employed on the headquarters staff in Military District No. 6, Halifax. Has that number been reduced or increased since that return was brought down?


Albert Edward Kemp: Some changes have been made, although not very important ones. Changes are alwavs taking place in regard to such an important district-No. 6 Military District includes New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I had the matter investigated recently by one of our best officers. I have not had a full report from him of his views in reference to the matter, but in a conversation with him he told me that, while there were some officers whose services could be dispensed with, there were places where more officers are needed. I am not

. in a position to tell this House about all the military operations that are going on, particularly on the coast of Nova Scotia. I will go so far as to say that, confidentially,
I shall be glad to discuss the matter with, and to explain the exact situation to, any member of (the House. The Maritime Provinces comprise the district which is nearest to the seat of the war. We are carrying on all kinds of defences, not only in Halifax, but in other places around the coast, and * doing many things which we did not have to do even a year or two ago. While the list to which my hon. friend refers is a long one, yet I want to assure him that the officer of whom I apoke tells me that these officers are necessary.


George William Kyte: Then there has been no material reduction in the expenditure of the headquarters staff in that district?


Albert Edward Kemp: There has been no material reduction. The matter is under consideration. Whether it may be reduced or not I do not know. If it can be reduced it will be, but I doubt very much whether it will be advisable to reduce it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I realize that the minister is not responsible for the condition of affairs, and I would not expect him to say too much in condemnation. But surely the business ability of the minister must teach him that there is a condition with regard to the general staff that ought not to exist.
I went over that return and I found 176 officers.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does that include nurses?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. The nurses were outside of that; there were 57 nurses. I have nothing to say about that; wounded and sick men have to be looked after; I assume that the nurses are properly employed, and therefore I make no comment about that. One thing I did admire was the ingenuity of the officers down there in creating the offices which you will observe by reading the list. There were all sorts of initials before and after the names, initials that I do not know the meaning of. I have been out of the militia for about ten years, but I used to know something about militia matters and I know what all the ordinary officers were, but the initials before and after these names were like Greek to me. One thing that impressed me was the enormous number of medical men at Halifax on the list. I do not believe there is a Conservative doctor in Halifax

who is not on the pay roll. Now, I come to St. John, which I do know something about. It is true that in the winter time soldiers come through in quite large numbers and that there have been a few regiments permanently in New Brunswick since the war began, but the number of gentlemen travelling around that city in uniform is legion.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are they members of the headquarters staff?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, they have the red tabs. I know the difference between a staff officer and an ordinary army or fighting officer. The hotels are filled with them. You meet them travelling on railway trains wherever you go. Sometimes it is impossible to get accommodation because it has all been taken up before hand. In addition to the staff there are t'he names of numbers of gentlemen who are rendering no military service in the Maritime Provinces, but who are drawing down big salaries. I am speaking of men who iare outside of the staff entirely, because I know whether they belong to the staff or not. I saw them. I know some of these people in New Brunswick, and I know a lot of gentlemen who have been drawing pay for three years who have rendered no service to the country. The number of men who are paid by the Militia Department but not employed in any useful serivee is nothing short of a scandal. I cannot believe, notwithstanding the statement the minister makes-and I know he makes it in good faith-that it is necessary to have 176 officers on the general staff to look after the small amount of business there must be in the Maritime Provinces. My hon. friend speaks of the defences along the coast, and things of that kind. These are all necessary, and we do not expect the minister to give any detailed account of them. But the gentlemen on this staff are not looking after the military defences on the coast of Nova Scotia. These are fellows who are drawing pay and doing nothing for it. The man who is performing service is all right; nobody objects to that. It is necessary to have the defences of the country looked after. But when anybody tells me that it is necessary to have 176 officers, I am bound to say that I cannot accept any such statement. In addition to the salaries paid to these officers, their wives are drawing big separation allowances, and in addition to that you have a whole army of stenographers, batmen, footmen, messengers, and all that sort of thing. I do not think I am extravagant when I
say that $600,000 a year will not pay the expenses of the general staff in the Maritime Provinces. The list which was laid on the table of the House a few weeks ago totals up to $398,000-practically $400,000.
I figured it at that including the nursing sisters. I think I am perfectly justified in adding $200,000 on account of separation allowances and the army of unemployed which is attached to the general staff in the Maritime Provinces. We do look to the minister as a business man to see that this condition of affairs is remedied. We do not believe it is necessary. While I realize that there must be some staff officers, as far as the office work in New Brunswick is concerned I could find twenty-five men in that province who, with two first-class clerks and four stenographers could do all the business. There cannot be any great amount of work to be done. It is not possible, bceause the men are not there. There is some correspondence, I will admit, but three or four good stenographers and a couple of first-class clerks will turn out a lot of that work in a day. The country is full of these officers. I do feel that, with the enormous financial burden that this country has incurred and with a condition of affairs which I would not dare to speak of in Parliament in connection with military matters, there can be no justification for this expenditure.
Munitions plants, I am told, have been closed down on forty-eight hours notice. It seems to me a most horrible thing, with this financial condition staring us in the face, that $600,000 or $700,000 a year is being expended on what you might call the overhead expenses of looking after military matters in. the Maritime Provinces. The services of three-quarters of these men could be dispensed with. The minister shakes his head? I say I live in that country, and I have some idea of what is going on. I tell him that, outside of the staff, there are officers by the dozen in the Maritime Provinces who have managed to get shifted from one unit to another, who have never gone across the water, who never intend to go if they can help it, and who are simply a burden upon the country. These are the men who ought to be conscripted first in Canada, not as officers, but as privates in the rear rank. I can give the minister the names, although I do not want to speak about them publicly. What is true in the Maritime Pirovinees is true of Canada as a whole. There is a whole army of these unemployed officers throughout this country and everv member in this House

knows it; men who have managed in some way to work themselves into the army, men who draw down pay and whose wives draw down separation allowance, but who render no service and never intend to; and who, when their unit goes overseas, always manage to get transferred to another unit. I can tell of some men who have been transferred three times, and then, when they could not put off going overseas any longer, they got into the Forestry Battalion. And so it goes. There is work to he done in this country; I have .always believed that the present minister had the business ability to do it, and I am pointing out some of the conditions that exist in my part of the country. I hope he will apply his business principles to these matters and see if he cannot clean up some of these conditions that are disgracing the country in army matters in that part of Canada.


George William Kyte: I desire to read an editorial from the Quebec Chronicle, a newspaper owned and edited until the outbreak of the war, by General Watson who has been at the front for some time. This newspaper is strongly in sympathy with the present Administration:
A shameful thing.
An unusually large number of officers returned from England to Quebec yesterday. While some of them were casualties, there is no doubt that very many of them were men who would not revert or sacrifice a grade in rank in order to go to the front. Quite a few of them have been kept in England for many months at Government expense. In fact, we believe that the cost of paying officers that never intended to go to the front has been appalling and we are convinced that the matter should be aired in Parliament at an early date. These are the first men that conscription should reach out and gather in.
That editorial is written with knowledge on the part of the person who wrote it. If such comments appeared in newspapers unfriendly to the Government, they might be passed over without any remark; but when a newspaper of the standing and of the well-known sympathy with the Government of the Quebec Chronicle makes a statement of that kind, it gives great cause to the people of this country to look well into militia matters as they are being carried on by the present Administration. This editorial contains a charge which it is necessary for the minister to refute at the earliest possible moment, by giving actual figures as to the number of officers enlisted in Canada since the war broke out for overseas service and who have been kept in England under large pay and living allowance up to .the present time, but who 
absolutely refuse to go to the continent because they are not willing to revert to a lower rank.
Referring to the headquarters staff at Halifax, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has spoken of the large number of medical men in the city of Halifax who are drawing large salaries and apparently not giving very much time to the work for which they were appointed. There are medical men in Halifax who attend to their general practice day by day, at the same time drawing large sums in salaries which might be saved to this country if there was a desire on the part of the Minister of Militia and Defence to economize in respect to that expenditure. Some weeks ago I was asked the following question to which the Minister of Militia replied:



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ivyte:
1.	What is the amount of pay and allowance and monthly separation allowance paid to Dr. B. A. Leblanc, Arichat, Richmond County, Nova Scotia, since his appointment with the Army Medical Service Corps?
2.	What is his rank, and date of appointment?
Sir Edward Kemp:
1.	Pay and allowances, $624.50. No separation allowance paid.
2.	This officer was appointed a lieutenant (supernumerary) in the Army Medical Corps on 28th February, 1917, and a captain in the Canadian Expeditionary Force on the 30th June, 1917.
Dr. Leblanc is the Conservative member for the county of Richmond in the Provincial Legislature. He obtained a commission while the Legislature was sitting in Halifax and was appointed supernumerary lieutenant in the Army Medical Corps, and captain in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, on the 30th of June. In the return brought down some weeks ago to which reference has been made, Dr. Leblanc's name appears as Captain Leblanc employed as medical officer, field hospital, at a salary of $1,916. He was in Halifax since his appointment and remained there, and it was stated that he was going overseas. As a matter of fact, he did attempt to go overseas a few. weeks ago. He went on board a transport for the purpose of going to England to perform such services in the Canadian Expeditionary Force as might be allotted to him, but he states that after he was on board the transport he received a telegram from Ottawa not to go overseas but to remain in Halifax. The telegram arrived about the time that the resolution to extend the life of Parliament was considered in this House and the Prime Minister announced that, for reasons which he then

stated, no further effort to have the term extended would he made, but an election would be held in due course. After Dr. Leblanc enlisted for overseas service and attained the rank of captain at a salary of $1,916, certainly it would be necessary for him to go overseas in order to perform the duties assigned to him. He has not gone over. It is well known, it is common gossip among his friends, that he received a telegram from Ottawa not to go overseas because his services would be required in the coming election. That is not an isolated case; the country is full of political military officers who are drawing large pay and who are kept upon the ground in order that their services may be available when the election comes. The same condition of affairs prevailed in Nova Scotia in 1916 when the provincial election was on. Several military officers were given commissions and at the same time given nominations as Conservative candidates. These men, instead of going overseas or remaining in training for the work to which they were to be assigned, became candidates on behalf of the Conservative party and, while officers	and drawing pay, they devoted their time to political work. It is also well known that at certain polls, where military officers were Conservative candidates, electors who have enlisted as privates received telegrams from the commanding officers telling them that they must vote for these particular officers. We are going to have an election in a short time, and there is every indication that the whole machinery of the Militia Department, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, is to be employed, not to win the war, but to win the election for the Government. I am not making too strong a statement when I say that. I say that the facts connected with the appointment of Captain B. A. LeBlanc, member for the county of Richmond, and the instructions he received not to go overseas after he got on board ship, are proof positive that his services are to be enlisted for political purposes, instead of for the relief of the sick soldiers at the front. He never did any work. While he was a member of the legislature he obtained his commission and uniform, and since then he has been under pay, and his name appears in this return at the salary of $1,916.
Mr. PROULX; Is he receiving his pay now?
George William Kyte: Yes, and if I can judge from the east, he will continue to draw his pay
while acting for the Conservative party in the constituency of Richmond.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; I was very much surprised at seeing the very large amount of money necessary for the upkeep of the military establishment of Military District No. 6. A layman cannot very well criticise that return, not having the necessary military knowledge. But when you realize that it means $400,000 for the administration of Military District No. 6, I submit that it becomes quite a serious question, and, as the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has suggested, that probably does not include, by any means, the entire cost of administration of that district. When hon. gentlemen on this side of the House suggest that many of these appointments are unnecessary and political, the minister may say that we have no evidence. To a large extent that may be true, but I think the burden is upon the Department of Militia and Defence to satisfy the country that there is any necessity for such an expensive military establishment in the Maritime Provinces. I tell the minister now that, if he would make an honest effort to remove politics from the administration of that military district, he would at once get rid of a large number of men. It is a fact that in the city of Halifax many civilians have more to do with the running of some military matters than the officers who are supposed to do the work. The officers in charge of the military hospitals in that city are not being treated properly by the department, because the department permits the local politicians to interfere with their work. I desire to ask the minister to remember my remarks particularly in connection with military hospital matters, and to make some investigation. I would like him to make sure that the officers in charge of the hospitals are really and truly in command. They are being interfered with daily by politicians; they are doing things every day which they do not want to do. They are employing help frequently for which they have no need, but they are obliged to do it, owing to the demands made by local politicians.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the hospitals under the Military Hospitals Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I refer to the Militia and Defence hospitals. The minister should instruct his officers that they are supreme in their positions, and that

they need take no instructions or advice from anybody except the heads of the department at Ottawa. If this were done I am sure he should have very much better administration. We would not require to employ so many men, nor would the minister require to spend as much money as he is now spending for these purposes. It is very difficult for one to tell whether all the doctors now employed at Halifax are necessary. 1 doubt very much if they are. If all these doctors are necessary, then I think the very best medical men available should be employed. I think the minister will agree with me in that respect. If the Militia Department at certain points in Canada must employ the services of doctors in connection with sick or returned soldiers they should employ only the leaders in the profession. I am not so sure that in Halifax it is necessary to employ doctors and pay them. I have an idea that if the medical profession in Halifax were asked to give their services to the military hospitals free of charge they would do so. That is the practice there, in so far as other hospitals are concerned, and I think is true of every city in Canada. Ordinarily medical men are willing to give their services free to hospitals, and I think that if the leaders of the medical profession in Nova Scotia were asked to give their services to the military (hospitals they would do so, and would ask no remuneration. We ask men to go across and fight in France. We do not attempt to pay them at rates at all commensurate with the services rendered, and now we propose conscripting men. Why not conscript medical services and compel the doctors to give their services at nominal rates to the military hospitals? According to this return, I find that a number of recruiting oflieers in the Maritime Provinces are still employed. It seems to me altogether too many are employed for -this purpose. I do not think they can do very much successful work at the present time and, therefore, I think the Minister might well ascertain if a number of them could not be eliminated. I observe that a number are employed as recruiting officers in Prince Edward Island. I think there are hardly any recruits being obtained these days in Prince Edward Island, and it looks as if these men were continued in their positions just because they obtained those positions when there was really some work to do. I notice on this list the name of an officer, Major Purney. I understand that he is doing re-
cruiting work in the New England States. Is that correct?


Albert Edward Kemp: I think so; he is somewhere in the United States.
Mr. A. Iv. MACLEAN: He might as well go to any other country to search for recruits-not because no recruits are available in the New England States, but because he is not the right kind of man to send there to do that work.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has he not been at the front?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, but I say that he is not qualified for this particular work in the New England States. I have in mind a gentleman who has been in the service in Canada-he has never been overseas-a Nova Scotian by birth, who resided in the New England States for twenty or twenty-five years. He knows that country pretty nearly as well as any man living. He has from time to time offered his services to the department; he has informed me that he could get not many hundred, but several thousand recruits in the New England States-men who would rather join Canadian regiments than be drafted into the United States army. This gentleman, however, has been unable to get any satisfaction from the department. I have nothing against Major Purney, but he does not know the New England States; he has not the qualifications for recruiting work there. Even though a man has been overseas and has done good work there it does not follow that upon his return he should be given a military position in this country. I have no doubt that the list of men in Military Division No. 6 could be very considerably reduced. I hope the minister will not be satisfied with the report that he has recently received from the Maritime Provinces with respect to the number of men employed there.
I wish to bring to the attention of the minister also a matter in respect of which criticism is openly made by many people in Halifax, regardless of political considerations. I refer to the number of batmen who attend the officers there. I do not present this complaint through any personal knowledge of the matter, but a great many people in Halifax during the past two or three years have complained persistently about it. You see these batmen caring for officers' gardens, officers' horses, carriages and automobiles-having apparently little else to do. When people see a great number of men employed in this way, nat-

urally they become very critical, particularly in view of the fact that our war expenditure is so exceedingly heavy. The expenditures in Military District No. 6 will bear a very thorough investigation. I think that the minister will find upon examination that a gTeat many men could be eliminated from the list and the expenditure materially reduced.


Mr. VERVILLE:: I wish to call the attention of the minister to certain things that have happened at public meetings in Winnipeg, Sydney and Toronto. I would like the minister to tell the committee what attitude soldiers are supposed to adopt in respect to their attendance at public meetings. I quote the following paragraph from the King's Regulations:
An officer or soldier is forbidden to institute or take part in any meetings, demonstrations, or processions, for party or political purposes, in barracks, quarters, camps, or their vicinity. Under no circumstances whatever will he attend such meetings, wherever held, in uniform.
If these regulations .are not applicable to the soldier who has returned from the front, he may lose that respect on the part of the people that he has justly acquired by his services on the other side. Any one who wishes to command respect must himself respect others. We know what a group of rnen are likely to do when they meet together; we know what they did in Toronto -some officers themselves let them do it.
I am very much afraid that sometime the people will bring back to their senses men who act in that way. I bring this matter up because I am desirous that soldiers who return from the other side shall be respected-and surely they cannot be respected if they themselves do not respect the freedom of this country. In Winnipeg a meeting was held; whether it was conscriptionist or anti-conscriptionist makes no difference. A large group of soldiers broke up the meeting-my hon. friend knows about it as well as I do. In Toronto they even went into the Labour Temple and broke almost everything-my hon. friend knows about that, too. As to the occurrence in Sydney, I am credibly informed-I can prove it-that politicians in Sydney incited these poor soldiers to do what they did. I really believe that if the soldiers were left alone, they would not do anything of this kind; but if they are incited by politicians, as they were in Sydney, one cannot tell what may happen.
In Halifax there was no trouble because there was no meeting, but it was understood in that city that if they had decided
to hold a meeting they would be holding it regardless of the people who were there. My hon. friend can see the danger of that as well as I can. One man is, in certain circumstances, as good as another, and there is liable to be trouble. We want to avoid that in this country. The minister should give orders that the King's regulations must be observed, and if soldiers are not satisfied with any speech they may hear, all they have to do is to walk away. That is what we do ourselves:	If we do not
like the speech of some speaker, we walk away. This is a free country. In a very short time we shall engage in a political battle, and it would not be safe for soldiers to interrupt a meeting. If they were to do that, it would not be respectable for the country, for the soldiers or for the citizens. If we are going to engage in a political fight, the minister should ask the soldiers to abide by the King's regulations. Far be it from me to ask the minister to prevent *soldiers from attending meetings. They are free citizens and they have a perfect right to attend meetings, but the minister should ask them to keep the peace. The minister knows that sometimes any one in uniform in a big meeting is like a red flag before a bull. It is often the case that, if a police officer is around, there is trouble. I do not believe there is one soldier who would go one step to disturb the peace unless he was incited by some politician behind him and for reasons that my hon. friend can imagine, to attack a man like myself. I am asking the minister what he intends to do. The matter was raised in this House, I believe by my hou. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) who asked if it was the intention to give to the soldiers on this side of the water the same orders as were given to our soldiers on the other side. From the experience we have had lately, it seems that matters are going to get worse and worse, and if it is possible to avoid that, it would be better for the country, better for the soldier and better for the citizen at large.


Mr. ARTHURS:: cause they want to be in uniform, but because they must remain in uniform until their pensions are adjusted. They have all the rights of citizenship; they should not be debarred from attending any meeting, and it is in very poor taste for any hon. member to say in this House, as the hon. member has stated, that it would not be safe for those men to go into public meetings. It would not be safe for whom? For the soldier or for the anti-conscriptionists in the hon. gentleman's county?.


Alphonse Verville: I said that it would not be safe for either side.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman
thinks it is right that he or any other gentleman may, in the province from which he comes, address public meetings that, to say the least of it, are not -very loyal, but he denies the right of soldiers to attend those meetings or any others. That is absolutely unfair. Those men should have the right-


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Just a few
words about those meetings we had in Montreal.


James Arthurs: Is the hon. gentleman going to make a speech? I thought he was going to ask a question.


Médéric Martin: I do not want to make a speech, but I want to correct my hon. friend.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Verville) said that those soldiers misbehaved themselves at Sydney. I presume the meeting on the occasion to which he referred was one to be addressed by a friend of his, Mr. J. C. Watters, I do not think the people of Canada have anything against the soldiers for having broken lip that meeting, if they did so.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: It was a labour association. A labour man is sometimes as good as a soldier in this country.


James Arthurs: The soldier is as good as the labouring man. The soldier is a man who has proved his worth so far as this country is concerned. If a man goes to the front, is wounded and comes back and, whether he likes it or not, has to remain in uniform, he is surely entitled to every privilege that any labouring or other man in Canada may have. Those soldiers should have the absolute right not o ly to attend public meetings in uniform but to join any political clubs, whether Conservative or 
Reform. They should have the absolute right to attend those meetings in uniform for the simple reason that they are not permitted to attend them in any other costume. Any man who knows the circumstances knows perfectly well that those men may be retained, and that, for many months after they return to Canada, they have to appear before board after board. During all that period, in order to draw their pay, in order to live, they must abide by the military regulations, which state that they must be in uniform. Does any man in this House think it fair that those men should be deprived of the ordinary rights of citizenship, whether at election time or at any other time, simply because they are forced into that position and have to appear in uniform if they appear at all? There is not a gentleman within the sound of my voice who does not believe with me that those men have the same rights as anybody else. I am not asking that they receive greater rights than the labouring men, or Mr. J. C. Watters, or any other man.


Alphonse Verville: The hon. member does not seem to understand me correctly.


James Arthurs: I cannot understand any hon. member making an argument of that kind.


Alphonse Verville: Those men should have their rights or they should not have them.
I stated frankly that I did not mind whether a soldier attended a meeting in uniform or not, and if my hon. friend did not understand me, it is not my fault. I have as much respect for a soldier as my hon. friend has. My hon. friend would not say that they have a right to go into any meeting and break it up. Although they have the right as free citizens to attend meetings the same as any one else, whether they are in uniform or not, they have not the right to break up a meeting. I asked the minister what the Government were going to do about the matter. When I am addressing a meeting, I do not mind seeing any number of soldiers. They have a right to attend meetings, but they have no right to use their positions as soldiers to break them up. From now on there will be more soldiers in this country than ever before, and those men will surely have a right to hear whatever is said at any place, but if they are going to utilize their position in uniform as soldiers to break up a meeting of a body of men, that is wrong for the soldier, wrong for the country and wrong for the citizen. When I bring this matter

up, my hon. friend must not put into my mouth statements that I have not made. I like the soldiers just as much as he does. I want this to be well understood. Whatever has happened, my hon. friend always refers to another province. I have mentioned the places where trouble has arisen, and it has arisen in Winnipeg, in Sydney, Cape Breton, and in Toronto. Surely I am not going to be accused of having had anything to do with that. When J. C. Watters addressed that meeting in Sydney he was simply exercising the right of all free citizens in this country, whether soldier or civilian.


James Arthurs: Does my non. friend say that Mr. Watters had the right to express the views he did in Sydney?


Alphonse Verville: 
Médéric Martin: I declare to this House and the country that the man who started the meeting against conscription and asked the people to revolt was a man from Ontario. His name was Villeneuve, and he came from St.- Eugene in the county of Prescott.


James Arthurs: He knew enough to go to Quebec.


Médéric Martin: On the occasion of the first parade in the city of Montreal against the high cost of living, I permitted the citizens to make a demonstration on the condition that they would be quiet, but trouble was started by an assault made by a soldier. There were 25,000 people in the parade, and as it was going east on St. Catherine street a regiment of soldiers going north came along and the parade was stopped to allow the regiment to pass through. Just as the regiment had passed the last soldier snatched a French flag from 10 p.m. some one in the parade and threw it under his feet. The people in the parade had not said anything to the soldiers, and the trouble was all the fault of this soldier who tried to insult the French-Canadian people. There was a fight, and I do not know whether the soldier was killed, as I have not seen anything about it in the newspapers. I remember that a meeting at the park five weeks ago, which was called by me, was attended by 150,000 people. A soldier started to insult my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), who was giving an address. I did not want the people to attack the soldier, but I had a hard time saving him from injury. Eventually I got him to the car with some constables. I admit that the soldiers have the right to attend meetings, but they have no right to provoke the people. They are the ones who are making the noise. I do not allow anybody to make speeches such as have been made this week in Montreal. I do not allow anybody to preach revolt, because we have enough on our backs already with conscription. The minister must tell his soldiers to respect civilian citizens, not only in the city of Montreal, but everywhere else in the Dominion, and then there will be no trouble. The soldiers sometimes go in groups of twenty or fifty. I have often gone to them and said: "Boys, don't do that. Go back to your regiment. What is the use of trying to provoke the French-Canadians?"
In this House, when the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was speaking against conscription, one man in uniform in the gallery used insulting language against the French-Canadian race and against the hon. member for Rouville, which I will' not repeat in this House. He was drunk, and perhaps was not responsible for what he said. But think of it! A soldier right here in the House of Commons insulting the French Canadian
52.34

race in language which I would not repeat. If any trouble happens it will be the fault of these people. I do not say that all the English-speaking people are like that. He was only one, but he insulted the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux). I had for witness Mr. Ashby, a member of the Quebec Legislature. He was sitting next to this soldier, and said it was terrible to listen to him. I know the Minister of Militia is a gentleman and does not like trouble, and I ask him to give instructions to his officers in the different cities that the soldiers must not provoke the French Canadians and incite them to fight. I will try to stop these meetings that are advertised in tonight's papers. If I am obliged to go on the platform I will go. But I will allow no more meetings. If anything happens it will be the fault of the Prime Minister, through passing this conscription law without giving the people a chance to pronounce upon it by means of a referendum. It is not only the people of Quebec who are opposed to this law, but the people of every province in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the people are going to do all that it is possible to do when you try to get them to enlist. You cannot put that law into force. The people will not enlist, and you have no way of locating them as the different classes are called. If anything happens in Montreal, I shall be very sorry, because I do not like trouble; but if any trouble happens the soldiers will be responsible for it. The minister must stop the soldiers from drinking, because when they are drunk they do not know what they are doing, and they are trying to force the French Canadians to fight. I have often said to the soldiers, "Do not do that. What is the use of it"? I respect the soldier, especially those who have fought for the flag. I repeat, it is not only the French Canadians of Quebec who are against the conscription law, but the people of every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If anything happens, if blood flows in the streets of Montreal or any other city, the fault will be with the Prime Minister and with those who helped him pass that law.


Mr. SUTHERLAND :: I think we have just had, possibly without exception, the most remarkable exhibition that has ever taken place during the whole history of Canada. The mayor of the greatest city in Canada, present in this Parliament, knows that for the past two weeks statements have been made at public meetings and statements
fMr. M. Martin.]
have been published in the press which demand his presence in that city in order that he may see that the law is observed by all its citizens. Instead of that we have him here to-night making statements that are not a credit to the representative of any *constituency in this Dominion. He has tried to put the blame for the condition that exists in Montreal and in the province of Quebec on a returned solditr, on the Prime Minister, on the Minister of Militia and particularly on some resident of the province of Ontario. A more inflammatory speech was never made by the representative of a constituency in the whole history of Canada. A greater responsibility rests upon the mayor of that city than upon any other person to see that the people are given to understand that they cannot violate the law. We have heard from another hon. gentleman from the same city to-night (Mr. Verville). He points to the flag and says: "This is a free country, we should enjoy free speech, and if we cannot enjoy free speech then tear the flag down." The free speech that we are complaining about is not the free speech that ought to he tolerated by the Mayor of Montreal or by any representative that we have present in this House to-night. He tries to inflame the passions of the people of that city by saying that somebody from the province of Ontario is responsible. During this session we have had speaker after speaker from the province of Quebec trying to make excuses for their province and putting the blame upon Ontario for the fact that Quebec has not done its duty, a fact which has made it neeesaxy to enforce the Military Service Act.. If that province had done its duty, as other provinces have, it would not have been necessary to put that law on the statute book. But it is the law of the country today, and yet you find the representative of the great city of Montreal trying to make it appear that the Prime Minister is the guilty party and that to him is attributable . the condition of affairs in the province of Qubec >and in the city of Montreal. He also -blames a returned soldier. He says that the remark of a returned soldier could set the whole city on fire. He speaks about a returned soldier in the gallery.


Médéric Martin: I did not say that he was a returned soldier.


Donald Sutherland: You said that he
was a man in uniform.


Médéric Martin: Yes, right here.


Donald Sutherland: The chances are
that he was a returned soldier, a man who has arrived back from the front who realized what the conditions are, as you do not realize and as your province does not realize. He realizes that this country is at war and that the Military Service Act is necessary at this particular time if we are going to carry the war to a successful conclusion. It is a shame and a disgrace to make the statements that you have made here tonight. If you were doing your duty you would be in your city-the city you are supposed to represent but do not represent. I believe that there never has been, during the whole history of this country, a more inflammatory speech made than that made by you to-nigiht. In so far as. the province of Ontario is concerned, you do not need to trouble yourself about that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. D. Stewart):: If
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) would address himself to the Chair he would be more in order.


Donald Sutherland: I tow to your ruling. I want to say to the hon. member (Mr. Martin) who represents the city of Montreal that he would be attending to his duties much better if he would pay a little more attention to the province from which he comes rather than trying to put upon some solitary individual, who he says comes from Ontario, but who may be a resident of Montreal, who has a French name, and who comes from the county of Prescott, the responsibility for these disturbances. I do not think it strengthens the hon. gentleman's case very much when he refers to that, but it certainly does emphasise the fact that he knows what is going on there at the present time. In the face of these inflammatory speeches that are being made there night after night, he knows what the law of the land is to-day and he knows that these speeches are in defiance of it. If he were careful in regard to what his duty is, and if he were anxious to see that the people of that city did their duty, he would be looking after the interests of the city, and he would not be in this House to-night.


Médéric Martin: I am sorry to see that my ihon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) never reads the papers. I gave orders before I left Montreal to the chief of police, Mr. Campeau, that if any one opened his mouth to encourage the people to revolt, he should be arrested. If I am not in Montreal to-day, or if I was not there last night, it is because 331
I thought it was my duty to vote against the Bill to buy the Canadian Northern railway. I had to be here. If you look at La Patrie you will see what we say about Villeneuve:
(Translation) : Villeneuve is the man whom Mayor Martin threatened to have arrested the moment he opened his mouth in public, to preach revolt.
I am doing my duty in Montreal more than the hon. gentleman is doing his duty here. I gave orders and I tried to stop all these meetings. I am willing to go myself on the platform and try to stop these young people. Their proceedings are not in the interest, not only of Montreal, but of all Canada. I do not know why I should be reproached by the hon. gentleman because he does not read the papers. Since the conscription law has been passed I have been doing all I possibly could to counsel our citizens to remain quiet and to obey the law, since the law has been passed. If they do not want to enlist, well and good. These young men are responsible, especially those who come from Ontario. I do not know why they have been sent from Ontario to try and throw the blame on the city of Montreal and province of Quebec.


Mr. PROULX:: I do not see why my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (M-. Martin) should single out an individual who happens to come from my county. I know young Villeneuve. He has a brother who went to the front and came back wounded He is not living in Montreal. He came up to Prescott with a young man. He must have been impressed by the company he kept in Montreal. Villeneuve did not begin the agitation in Montreal, there were many who carried on that agitation before he took part in it. He has been most moderate. I hope the hon. member ior Montreal, St. Mary's, will not be too hard on this young man who comes from my county and who has been speaking against conscription in Montreal.


Dugald Stewart: I
think we have spent enough time on matters that are not at all relevant to the item under consideration which has to do with gratuities and compensation to retired staff officers and others. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has asked certain questions, and if the minister will make the explanation, then perhaps we can get back to the subject matter properly under consideration


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) asks what

52^6

I am going to do. I do not have to do anything in regard to the matter. Every meo -oer of this House knows what is right an(l what is wrong with respect to the conduct of private individuals and of soldiers. 1 would not want to admit-in fact I would take exactly the opposite position-that the soldiers who have enlisted have conduced themselves in any but a soldierly and gentlemanly way, with very fsw exceptions. There are exceptions in the conduct of civilians and time may have been exceptions among the soldiers; but, so far as I am able to judge, they have been very few indeed. There have been no serious complaints to the department in regard to the conduct of soldiers. Perhaps on some, occasions they have been blamed when they were not blameworthy, but, as I say, the commanding officers know what their duties are, and I feel that the soldiers will conduct themselves as they should. The blame must not be placed on the soldiers on all occasions because we know of many occasions when the civilians were at least as blameworthy as the soldiers. I do not think that the incident to which the hon. member refers, or the circumstances arising out of it, are sufficiently grave, to base an argument upon, and I do not anticipate anv difficulty in the future.
The hon. members for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell) and Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) raised a very important question and I do not at all complain of their- doing so. We have done a big thing in this country with regard to voluntary enlistment. We went at it in a certain way, adopting the system of recruiting by battalions, appointing recruiting officers and making as many appointments as were necessary. As the war went on, there accumulated overseas and in Canada a large number of officers. Many of these have been retired to private life in the last three or four months. It is sometimes a good deal easier to get the uniform on a soldier than to get it off, but most of the soldiers are willing, when there is nothing further for them to do and they have performed their full duty, to revert to civil life.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not find fault with the employment of returned soldiers. I think that the man who has gone overseas and returned is entitled to anything the country can give him. I found fault with the men who never went overseas. I was told in St. John, I think it was two weeks ago to-day, by a returned soldier, that, of 176 officers of the staff of the Maritime Provinces, only 14 or 15 had ever been over-

seas. I have no personal knowledge of the matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: The question
whether or not a man has been overseas is sometimes important, and sometimes not, in deciding questions of employment. I have had an investigation made with respect to the headquarters staff and the staffs of different divisions to ascertain if any men could be let out and allowed to revert to civil life. This is a big and difficult task, hut the investigation has been completed and we have made great progress. In the division from which my hon. friend comes, No. 6, it is necessary to have a great many officers. That has just been investigated, and I have not yet received the report in respect to it. I wish to assure hon. members that it is not the policy or intention of the department to allow abuses, if there are any. On the other hand, I think my hon. friend will admit that, perhaps, sometimes when they see men in uniform there is a tendency to think they are doing nothing. Hon. members may be entirely mistaken. A man who wears a uniform is a marked man. I have heard this question raised very often and I have heard decent hardworking officers criticised, when the parties criticising did not know the real occupation of the officers. There are hundreds of officers in this country who would have made just as good officers, if they had been able to go to the front, as those who were fortunate enough to get to the front. As a general rule, an officer is considered fortunate if he is able to get to the front. An officer said to me the other day: We have been held in Canada and we have been asked to do the dirty work-using that term in the same sense that there is not as much kudos in doing work at home as in going to the front. There are a lot of men in Canada, who have performed splendid service, and it is not their fault that they have not been able to get to the front. Because of our system of organizing by battalions and appointing a full quota of officers, we have had more officers than were needed. The situation is not an easy one. It- has caused me concern; but I am prepared to handle it in as fair and decent a way as possible. I am glad that the question has been raised by my hon. friends from Halifax and Carleton counties, and I am prepared to discuss it frankly. I have no fault to find with the remarks made by the hon. gentlemen.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I do not think we
should leave this subject without the min-

ister telling us he will do something to improve the situation at Halifax. This matter is not new, it has been before the House from time to time. It commenced as soon as the war broke out. At the short session of Parliament, in August, 1914, we learned that the politicians in Halifax were becoming active and endeavouring to get all the money they could out of the department by interfering with military affairs. The matter was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister at that date, and we got an assurance from him that it would be stopped, It has never been stopped, it is going on today, and we have the junior member from Halifax stating to-night that the military hospitals cannot be run without the interference of local committees, who order everything that is bought for the hospitals, doing all the business over the heads of the men who ought to do it and who should be entrusted to do it by the minister. That is very easily stopped; the minister could stop it with a stroke of the pen. Let him instruct his chief officer at Halifax, whoever he is, that he must not accept any recommendation from any local politicians, or. any man who interferes with him in conducting the loeal business. Let him do that in good faith. Let him tell his officer that if he wants to purchase goods for the military hospitals, or wants to do anything at all in the way of repairs or spending money -and there is a good deal of money being spent-he will have a free hand to do it, in a business way, and that if he refuses to accept the orders of local politicians the minister will stand by him, that he will see to it that he does not suffer by that refusal. If the minister will tell us that he will do that, I think it will cure the whole business. I think he should give us an assurance to-night, because this is a complaint of long standing, and should not be allowed to go on from year to year without something being done about it.


James Joseph Hughes: Coming from one of the Maritime Provinces, I am somewhat interested in this matter, and know a little about it. I was somewhat disappointed at the minister's attitude, because he seemed to take the ground that the military establishment at Halifax was not overmanned. The headquarters are at Halifax for the three Maritime Provinces.. When that list was published a few days ago, it was really startling to see the number of names, and the enormous aggregate of salaries. And the list is not complete. How many were left off the list I do not know, but I know that some are left off, because
I see only one medical man from Prince Edward Island. Every business man knows, no matter what his business is-and I presume this applies to military as well as civil affairs-that if you have too many men in your employ you get less work and inferior work from them. They are falling over each other, and I think this is the case at Halifax to-day. I will give some concrete cases which will illustrate the point.


Dugald Stewart: I ask the hon. member to be as brief as he can. His remarks are not at all relevant to the matter under consideration, and I thought we had agreed that, with the statement of the minister, we would come back to the busihess properly before the committee, and I may say to the hon. gentleman, also, that as I understand bis remarks, they are not much more than a repetition of what has been said by others who preceded him, and I can see no harm in his shortening his remarks, so that we can get down to the work properly before us.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is closure invoked?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order, order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am asking a question. Are we to be shut off?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. gentleman understands me. I only want to get the committee back to the discussion of what is properly before us. I have no desire to restrict the debate, and I do not think the minister has any such desire.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is a rule that great latitude is allowed in committee. We are on the militia estimates, which provide the money of the country for military purposes, which, of course, we are glad to expend in a proper way, but I think it is unwise for the Chairman to draw the line too sharply when the discussion is in regard to the expenditure on militia matters.


James Joseph Hughes: I will endeavour to comply with the Chairman's wishes in regard to the brevity of my remarks, and I believe I would have been through now if I had not been interrupted. I was saying that the overmanning of any staff leads to inferior work, and less work, being done, and I was going to give some concrete instances. I have been informed, for instance, of the case of a young man from Prince Edward Island who is now at Halifax. His mother wished to communicate with him

because his brother was seriously ill, and she wrote him several times, getting no reply. She kept writing, and he got fourteen letters all at once. She sent him a telegram that his brother was. seriously ill, and he did not receive the telegram until he got leave of absence for *other reasons, and went home. This young man has a brother at the front. In connection with this case, I wish to direct the minister's attention to this fact: that young man enlisted, but when he reached Halifax he underwent another medical examination, and was pronounced unfit for overseas service. Being unfit, he wished to leave the army, as there was no use remaining there any longer. This happened six months ago, and he has not received his discharge yet. His brother is seriously ill, and there is no person at home to take charge of the farm, ' his mother being a widow'.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has the hon. gentleman reported the matter to the department?


James Joseph Hughes: No, I just got the information the other day. The soldier's uncle gave me the information, and I understood it has been reported to the department.


Albert Edward Kemp: What answer did they get?


James Joseph Hughes: No answer.


Albert Edward Kemp: Oh, they must have received an answer.


James Joseph Hughes: I will take it up with the minister and the department, and give him all the names and facts in connection with it. The amount mentioned in this return Is exceedingly large. I want to bring another fact to the minister's notice, showing clearly, I think, that there are entirely too many officers at Halifax. Last winter in my home town there were eighteen men, in barracks. The captain in command of these few men had been in his father's office for some years; he was a business man of considerable experience. He had under him a lieutenant also a man of considerable business experience. Yet an officer was sent from Halifax to that town to purchase the food required by these eighteen men. Surely that was waste and overlapping; the captain of that detachment could surely have done that work himself. In fact, it was generally known that the officer from Halifax was sent to that town in order that he might have something to do. These things make a bad impression

upon the country; they lead the people to believe that actual waste is going on. Any business man would come to that conclusion. Moreover, the employment of a large number of recruiting officers at salaries of over $2,000 each, when no recruiting is being carried on, is surely a serious waste of public money. The department cannot be wholly without knowledge of these conditions; it is time that they were taken up and remedied.


George William Kyte: Is there any difference between the pay of officers of the militia and that of officers who have enlisted for overseas?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


George William Kyte: Which is the larger?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Canadian
Expeditionary Force rates are higher than the militia rates.


George William Kyte: The general officer commanding Military District No. 6, Halifax, General Benson, receives a salary of $3,675, while the officers under him receive much higher pay. Take for instance, Brigadier-General McLean, who is getting a salary of $6,012 a year. Lieut.-Colonel Powell is receiving Canadian Expeditionary Forces pay at a much higher rate than that at which General Benson is paid. These gentlemen are not performing overseas services; they are enlisted in Military District No. 6; they are under the command of General Benson, yet their salaries are much in excess of his.


Albert Edward Kemp: The return brought down in respect to the matter is misleading. The pay and allowance of an officer commanding a district is $4,600 per annum. General Benson receives that salary, but certain deductions are made on account of house rent, fuel, light, etc., bringing the amount down to $3,675 per annum. The return is misleading also in reference to Brigadier-General McLean; the amount of $6,012 is too much by $720. There was an error in respect of the separation allowance; it should not have been included. Brigadier-General McLean is on the Canadian Expeditionary Force and receives the pay of a Brigadier-General. He is temporarily employed, receiving the same pay as an officer overseas.


George William Kyte: As a matter of fact, he is not overseas; the ordinary mind finds it difficult to understand why the pay is so large. This list shows that Major Purney received last year $2,972. Is he getting overseas pay?


Albert Edward Kemp: If he has been overseas he is still in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


George William Kyte: Is it the rule of the department to continue overseas pay to officers after their return from overseas?


Albert Edward Kemp: That has been the rule. They are temporarily employed until they receive their discharge.


Edmond Proulx: I see in the newspapers
that over a hundred officers have come back from England without going to the front. Tiiey would not go to France as privates. Will these officers get their discharge?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, they are being discharged all the time-hundreds of them -upon t-heir return to Canada.


Edmond Proulx: Will they be liable to service under the Military Service Act?


Albert Edward Kemp: I will have to refer my hon. friend to the Act; some might and some might not. Off-hand, I should not want to speak with authority in the matter.
Compensation to Mrs. Mary Hannon for loss of lier husband who received injuries while employed as foreman at Valcartier Camp, which caused his death, including $25 for medical and funeral expenses, $2,025.


Frank Oliver: Is this the sum usually
allowed in such cases?


Albert Edward Kemp: In the absence of a Dominion law or a central authority governing such matters, the Pensions and Claims Board recommend that, under the provisions of the revised statutes of the province of Quebec, 1909, there be paid to the widow, Mrs. Mary Hannon, in full compensation, the sum of $2,000 and that she be further paid the sum of $25 for medical and funeral expenses in connection with the death of her late husband.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You are paying just what would have been recovered under the Workmen's Compensation Act?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The department, then, proceeds upon some system in regard to the payment of death claims?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, the Compensation Act of the province in question.


Frank Oliver: Of course, the Compensation Act of the province does not really govern the case.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is a basis upon which to act.


Frank Oliver: The department establishes as a principle that they accept the terms of the Compensation Act of the provinces in case of death?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Act is used as a basis for compensation.


Frank Oliver: The Militia Department, of course, not being under the control of the provinces, can accept the provincial law as a basis and yet, in the superstruction raised on that basis, not come altogether close to the provincial law. I am asking only for information. If I am to understand the minister as saying that they, in effect, adopt the provincial law, then I understand. But if he says: We use the provincial law as a basis, then I do not understand.


Albert Edward Kemp: The provincial law is used as a basis or a guide on which to settle such claims. These claims come before the Pensions or Claims Board and are adjudicated by the Board. The awards are made in that manner.


Frank Oliver: It is not the Provincial Compensation Act that governs, but the Pensions Board?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, the provincial law is used as a basis or guide.


Frank Oliver: Therefore, as a matter of fact, there is no standard. The award is whatever the Pensions Board may decide?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If it is the departmental policy to compensate dependents for injuries caused to persons while in the service of the department, that means the adoption of a very wide rule. I have had some correspondence with the minister about the case of a man in Halifax who was engaged in doing some work on the forts. While he was so engaged, there was a premature explosion of powder, and he lost the sight of both eyes. That case would be just as strong as this could be.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did my hon.
friend take it up with the department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, with the
minister himself.
* Sir EDWARD KEMP: With my predecessor?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, with the present Minister of Militia, but I do not, of course, anticipate that he is dealing with the matter personally. I think, in a case ot that kind, such a person is entitled to some compensation because he is unable to work and never again will be able to return to his former occupation. It is true he has not lost his life, as did the husband

of Mrs. Hannon, but the case is a very serious one. Still, I can bring the matter to the attention of the officers of the department later on.


Albert Edward Kemp: What was the answer I gave in the case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That it was having every consideration.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is under consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, it has been considered for a whole year, and I have very little hope of any action being taken. But, after having heard the minister's explanation about this claim, I give him notice that I shall call upon him personally some day soon.


Albert Edward Kemp: All right, I shall be delighted.


Frank Oliver: Is it the policy to recognize claims for injuries as well as for claims for death?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, we are doing that all the time.


Frank Oliver: On the basis of the provincial Act?


Albert Edward Kemp: It is taken, as I said, as a guide.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that apply especially to the Militia Department, or does it apply to other departments of the Government?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: On page 17 there are a number of similar cases of compassionate allowances paid to widows.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a great variety of ways of dealing with these cases. A few evenings ago it was drawn to the attention of the Government that the dependents of a man in New Brunswick received $600, and another allowance of $1,000 and another of $2,000 were referred to. There should be some way of dealing fairly with all the cases in all the departments. I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) a case in my constituency in which I was unable to get anything at all for a helpless child, the dependent of a sailor who had died in the service of the department he contracted a cold from exposure and died in a hospital. The case was one of great hardship. I do not know if there is any universal rule about these matters; there does not seem to be. But the min-

ister should bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues in the other departments, and a system should be adopted to apply to every one alike.


Frank Oliver: I would very much prefer to depend upon the provincial law, and if the Pensions Board, in considering a claim, would consider it not only upon the basis but upon the terms of the provincial law, that would be much more satisfactory to all concerned. The Pensions Board, so far as they have yet gone, judging by many reports that I have, seem to be under the impression that their business is to stand people off instead of to provide for the payment of claims. If they are dealing with those cases of accidental death or injury on the same basis, that is certainly not very gratifying to the parties who have suffered.
For payment to Mr. George McArthur of Interest at "three per cent on security cheque, $189.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does that mean?


Albert Edward Kemp: It is a security cheque deposited with the Government, and this is the interest on it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is not this a new principle to adopt?


Albert Edward Kemp: The interest is three per cent.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the security was with the Government in the shape of a certified cheque, there is apparently to be a refund for interest during the time it was held. Was Mr. McArthur a contractor for the department?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, and this is interest on his cheque held by the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The reason I am interested in this matter is that it has been the policy of the Government and of all departments to decline the payment of interest upon securities lodged with the Government. Was that security lodged during the time tenders were being called for?


Albert Edward Kemp: The cheque was, by inadvertence, held in the department instead of being deposited with the Receiver General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this man from St. John or Sussex, N.B.?


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I know the man. This is all right.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All I want to say about the matter is this: I am not very much interested in this particular item, but it is not the practice in other departments to allow interest.
Sir 'EDWARD KEMP:	The Receiver
General allows three per cent interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so.


Albert Edward Kemp: We could not take millions of dollars on deposit without paying interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not done by the Public Works Department.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am surprised to hear that.
' Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: I have often thought it was unfair not to pay interest.
To provide for the following gratuities: Professor A. Laird, on his retirement from the 'staff of the Royal Military College, 13,271.67.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How is it these are all
revotes?


Albert Edward Kemp: They were all
voted last year, but were not paid.


John Howard Sinclair: Why did Professor Laird leave the department?


Albert Edward Kemp: Because of illness.


John Howard Sinclair: If these amounts were
voted, why did not the parties get the money?


Albert Edward Kemp: The financial year had expired before the money was voted.


John Howard Sinclair: They will get it now?


Albert Edward Kemp: I hope so.
,Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	Professor Laird
has since died; the money cannot be paid to him.


Albert Edward Kemp: No, it should be
paid to his estate, and I move to amend the item accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: What is the explanation
of the next payment of 82,628 to the widow of the late Major Kilborn?
Sir EDWaRD KEMP:	This is based
on one month's pay for every year the man has been in the service.


Frank Oliver: It is on a pension basis: The reason I ask is that lower down I see a gratuity to the widow of the late Mr. Gibson for only $365.


Albert Edward Kemp: The gratuity depends upon the length of service and the rank.
To provide for the payment of the value of loss of timber licenses by reason of expropriation of land for site of Petawawa camp grounds to Robert Booth estate, $16,077.59, Samuel Bromley, $9,553.76; James R. Gillies, $12,724.40-$38,355.75.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think this item requires some explanation. I remember a great many years ago, when Sir Frederick Borden was Minister of Militia, we used to have a good deal of discussion in this House over the claims for compensation by owners of timber licenses at Petawawa camp. I do not know whether the claims were settled in 1911 or 1912, but I think two large amounts were paid. This is certainly a large amount of money we are asked to vote. I used to go to Petawawa ten years ago. I suppose there may have been some timber there, but I never saw it. All I ever saw at Petawawa was sand and a sort of sagebrush, but there must be timber up the river. I often wondered on what ground these men based their claims for such enormous sums of money. I think 'he country is entitled to some explanation why this amount of 838,000 should be paid after so many years, unless of course it is a new expropriation, or something of that kind.
Contribution in aid of sufferers from an explosion in mine No. 3 of the Crow's Nest Pass Coal Company, on the 7th of June last, $537,250.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In this explosion 38
miners lost their lives, leaving 24 widows and 52 young children. This compensation is to be distributed by a committee composed of the mayor of the town of Fernie, the manager of the Imperial Bank, the manager of the Home Bank, and three miners.
. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: Is there any system of compensation in British Columbia which would have been available for these people?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not sure as to that, but I know a contribution t.us made by private individuals amounting to about $11,000.


George William Kyte: I would draw the minister's attention to the explosion that took plac^ in the town of New Waterford some weelS ago, in which 62 miners lost their lives. I should like very much if the minioter would take that into consideration and, following the precedent he has established in this case, make some provision for tbv depend-

ents of those who were killed at New Waterford. I suppose the minister has all the particulars, and I would once more urge upon him to consider whether the department could not make a similar allowance in this case.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As soon as I heard of the accident at New Waterford through a press despatch, I communicated with our agent there for full particulars. I then tcok the matter up with the mayor ot Sydney and one or two other prominent men, and they all wrote to say that they did not desire any donation, that the company was^ making ample provision for the dependents of the men who had lost- 'iieir lives.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Saturday, September 1, 1917.