1917-07-12

APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICIAL.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of His Honour the 'Speaker laid upon the table of the House on the 29th ultimo., respecting the appointment of Joseph Luager Parr as clerk in the Library of Parliament be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
QUESTIONS.	,
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government or any department thereof to construct any building or buildings on the Aldershot Camp Grounds in Kings County, N.S., this year?
2.	If so, will the Government invite public tenders for their construction?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No, not as far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



REQUEST FOR SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I call the attention of the Minister of
Militia to the following communication which I have received from the Rev. G. S. K. Anderson, Evangelist, of Escuminac county, Bonaventure:
Escuminac, P.Q., July 9, 1917.
Hon. Charles Marcil,
Quebec, P.Q.
Dear Sir:-
I write at the request of Mrs. Nelson Court of Escuminac, P.Q. She is anxious to secure the discharge of her son from the fighting forces of France. She has already given two of her sons to the country. George was killed in France on June 3, 1916, and John fiieci pneumonia on February 5, 1917, in a military hospital at North Battleford, Sask. She wants this son home to look after John's homestead. His full name and address is as follows:	No. 4188300, Private Harry Ivan
Court, R.C.R. Battery, "C" Company, No. 10 Platoon, France, C.E.F. Do what you can for her or direct her to the proper authorities.
Respectfully yours,
G. S. K. Anderson.
In view of the fact that this lady has already given two of her sons to the country, I would ask the Minister of Militia to consider her request for the discharge of her other son.	,


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: If the hon. member would forward communications such as this direct to the department they would receive every consideration. The department receives hundreds of such letters every week.
I. can assure my hon. friend that I will give this matter my attention.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service-Sir Robert Borden (resumed from Wednesday, July 11).
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: When the committee
reported last night we had just passed section 4; section 5 had already been passed. Subclause 3 of section 6 was allowed to stand pending further suggestion as to how the board of selection might be made up. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) that the local or provincial boards might have sole control for their own provinces; that instead of establishing one board we should establish nine-or really eleven', to take care of the Yukon and North West Territories. We hardly think that could work out. It is suggested, subject to any further suggestions which may be made, that this board of selection consist of say four members from' the province of Ontario, four
32S6

members from the province of Quebec, and two members from each of the other provinces. In the carrying out of the work outlined, the recommendations of the members from the provinces would be taken as to each province, but the report of the board would be the report of the whole board, which would make it much more simple than if we were to have the reports of nine boards. The boards could consist of members or senators, or those who are neither members nor senators. That is the suggestion of the Government in the matter, but if there is anything that will improve on it we will be glad to hear it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Does my hon. friend stand by the present disposition of the Bill to have one of the members of the board appointed by the Senate and the House of Commons?


Arthur Meighen: To have them appointed by ,a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons, but of course to be appointed in such a way that one from each province, except Ontario and Quebbc, will be selected by the Opposition in the Senate and in the House. In Ontario and in Quebec the Opposition will select two in each, the same principle applying to the Government side in the Senate" and in the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend is aware, I voted against this Bill, and am not much in sympathy with it. If I wanted to carry out my own views, I , think I would favour the recommendation of the Government, because, as I understand it, it is an impediment in the way of the Bill. If you have a selective board appointed by the two Houses of Parliament, it can only act when Parliament is in session, and should there be a vacancy in the board it could not be filled until the ensuing session. I do not object to that at all.


Arthur Meighen: That can be easily
cured by the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: What resolution could you frame that would cure it?


Arthur Meighen: There would have to be a resolution empowering them to sit and act when Parliament is not in session.


Wilfrid Laurier: But you appoint two men by resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. Suppose the two men died, or are prevented from acting, how are they to be replaced by another 
resolution of Parliament if Parliament is not in session. So far as I am concerned, I do not object to this impediment in the way of the Bill. I would suggest you might have^ one of the members of the tribunal appointed by the judicial authority, in fact I see no reason at all why the two members should not be so appointed. The chief justice, or the two senior justices could perform the duty. Yesterday I heard the compliment which was paid the judiciary by the Solicitor General, and the compliment he paid the late Government in respect to its appointments, and I feel that the chief justice in each province could perform that duty as well as anybody.


Arthur Meighen: There are objections to that, and they have been given some consideration in the course of the preparation of the Bill. I think the better course for the present would be to let clause 3 still stand, and possibly the Prime Minister might consult with the leader of the Opposition on the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have given my view.


Charles Marcil: Another point that might be considered is: what becomes of those appointees on the dissolution of Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The appointment will be made by Parliament under such a resolution or such legislation as would provide that the appointees should not cease their functions when Parliament dissolves. The rest of the clause passed with the exception of subsection 5, which remained over at the request of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), with a view to. the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment. I think the suggestion is a good one, as I intimated at the time. Subsection 5 provides:
Any person duly appointed a member of a local tribunal shall, unless relieved in writing: by the authority appointing him, perform his duty as such member, and any person who without reasonable excuse fails so to do, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars.
It was pointed out that this might lead a man to purchasing himself out of performing this duty. I think the same objection might exist if an alternative penalty were provided, consequently I beg to move:	,
That for the words "a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars" there be substituted the following words: "imprisonment for any

term not exceeding two years and not less than three months."


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I thought my hon.
friend said five years last night.


Arthur Meighen: No. Five years is the penalty for refusing to report.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Do I understand that the fine is to be replaced by imprisonment?


Arthur Meighen: The punishment should be imprisonment only for those who refuse to act without being relieved in writing by the appointing authority, and without being excused.


Mr. PEOULX:: Are members of parliament liable to be called upon to act?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I cannot
relieve the mind of the hon. member on that point. I am afraid they are.


Edmond Proulx: Then I would suggest we should be disqualified.


Arthur Meighen: The suggestion does
not appeal to me at the present. I do not think members of parliament should ask, any more than any one else, to be relieved of duty in connection with the war.
Some hon. MEMBEES: Carried.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: On Tuesday, while discussing subsection (f) of section 11-


Arthur Meighen: We will come to that in a moment.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I want to raise
a point of order. When we were discussing clause (f) of .subsection 1 of section 11, which provides that exemption may be granted to a man on the ground that he conscientiously objects- to undertaking combatant service. The Solicitor General and the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) -answered that this subsection would be taken in along with the following. When I was discussing the question I h-ad before me the French co-py of the Bill, which says:
Que sa conscience ne lui permet pas d'entre-prendre le service a, titre de comijattant,
That makes a different and altogether distinct reason of exemption, -according to conscience. Is the English -copy or the French co-py right?


Mr. DOHEETY:: I think there can be
no doubt that the error is in the punctuation of the French version. I do not see *why there should be the word " combatant." There is no doubt that the -section as drafted
contemplated what is provided in the English version, that is that these two things should combine; that be should have conscientious objections and that his objections should be based upon the tenets of a religious denomination to which he belongs.
It is a -regrettable mistake, but the mistake is unquestionably in the inserting of the semicolon.


Louis Audet Lapointe: It is not only the punctuation, because in the French version *there is altogether different and distinct cause, as it goes on -after the first semicolon:
que cela lui est dfefendu.
Another description of conscience.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood the hon.
gentlemen to attribute the difference to the -presence of the semicolon. He now states that they have also omitted the translation of the word " and." I think that, instead of the semicolon, the wo-rd " et " should have been inserted. Certainly to translate the English version that word ought to have been -inserted, -and there ought to have been no semicolon.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Which is correct?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The English version is
correct.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Before taking up the amendments to clause 7, I would ask the Solicitor General if he does not think there should be some modification of clause 2 of section 3, which reads:-
For the purposes of this section any man married after the 11th of June, 1917, shall he deemed to he unmarried.
Does he not think it would be advisable to give the tribunal power of exemption if a marriage had been arranged prior to that date, although actually consummated afterwards? Would it not be better to leave some discretion in the tribunal?
'Mr. MEIGHEN: We shall have to return to this clause, as it has not been adopted, and in the meantime I shall consider the suggestion.	.
Mr. MoCKANEY: Has the minister considered the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), that a county or district court judge should be a member of each tribunal, instead of the nominee of the judge?


Arthur Meighen: That has been very carefully considered, but it is not deemed practicable. There m-ay be cases where there is only one judge in a county, and he would

not be 'able to attend to the duties of the tribunal except in his own district.


Charles Marcil: Is there anything in the law to provide that members of local tribunals must be residents of the province in which they are to serve?


Arthur Meighen: There is no provision as to where they shall reside, but no one except those who reside in the district could perform the duties. We have sought to avoid divisions by districts, as we do not want to have any questions of jurisdiction.


Charles Marcil: If <a man is not required to reside in the province in which he is to act, a man from Nova. Scotia might be named to serve in British Columbia.


Arthur Meighen: I would not say that was legally impossible under the Bill, but it would be manifestly impossible for such a man to perform the duties, and he would never be 'appointed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Should you not restrict appointments to local tribunals to men residing in each county?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is necessary owing to the men who make the appointments, the judges on the one hand and a board of selection named by this Parliament on the other.


Charles Marcil: Are there any special qualifications required of the men who are to serve on local tribunals?


Arthur Meighen: None are named in the Bill. The qualifications are good common sense and strength of character.


Charles Marcil: A man might Ibe taken from Ontario and appointed to serve in Quebec, or vice versa. Does the minister not think that, in the interests of the law, it should be provided that the men appointed should possess the respect of the community in which they reside and be known as equitable and fair-minded men, rather than to 'bring strangers from outside?


Arthur Meighen: If it were necessary to insert a provision in the Act to produce that result, we might consider framing a clause; but, on account of the authority which names the members of the tribunal, the county court judge on one hand, and the Board of Selection of Parliament on the other, who might perhaps name members of Parliament on one side or members on the other, it would seem to me rather ridiculous to suggest that they might name men who had not the respect of the public, 
and that these men should be enjoined by Parliament against sending men from Ontario into Quebec, or vice versa. Such a thing seems to me utterly inconceivable.


Wilfrid Laurier: The objection of the hon. gentleman from Bonaven-ture is certainly remote-rather academic than practical. At all events, he is objecting to the vicious principle of the Bill, in [DOT]regard to the appointing of the local tribunals, and I submit to my hon. friend- and I think I will be supported in my view *by hon. gentlemen in the House-that the members of the local tribunal ought to be judges. The judges are appointed by this Parliament in every community to settle disputes between man and man; they are' the arbiters appointed by law to settle difficulties in a community, and, therefore, you ask the judges to appoint members of the tribunal, but you do not ask that the men who are appointed to the tribunal should be judges. In my estimation-and I submit it in all sincerity and candor-the members of that tribunal should be men who, by their profession, are acting as arbiters between man and man. These men will have to decide whether a man is to be exempted or not. They will have to decide whether a man is fitted to be in the trenches, or whether it is better that he should be left to his own avocation. Who can settle that question better than the judges appointed by the Minister of Justice? It seems to me, in the nature of things, that the members of the tribunal should 'be the local judges, who know almost everybody in the community and who are familiar with the condition of things in the district, and who have a knowledge of the men in the community. You will, of course, find men who know the country as well as the judges, but they have not had the same training.


Arthur Meighen: I am inclined to agree, that, if it be possible for them to do the work, they are the best qualified. I have in mind the county court judge of Portage la Prairie, and I cannot conceive how any one man could, in any reasonable time, take care of the work delegated upon the tribunal by the Act in that county court district. Even if the judge had nothing else to do, the district is too large, the population too great, and the applications for exemption possibly too many for the judge to deal with. It seems to me there is very great danger of practically damning the progress of the Act by such a provision. Of course, we must not frame the provision on account

of conditions in one county only. We would not refuse to adopt the suggestion, merely because there were two or three counties where it could not be applied, but I do not think, speaking generally of Canada, from what knowledge I have at the present time, that the county court judges should be fairly asked to do all the work.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie admits that the best qualified man in his district would be the county court judge, but he says that the county judge is so busy that he has no time to attend to the duties "which would be assigned to him under this Act, and, therefore, we must go to some one else. To whom shall we go? There is probably a merchant in the town, a very fine man, and quite competent, but he himself is too busy with his own business to be able to attend to it. Or there may be other prominent men who would be competent to do the work, but they are too busy in their own business. You will have to get somebody who will make the sacrifice.


Arthur Meighen: We could appoint several men, and they would take time to hold their meetings.


Wilfrid Laurier: You could appoint several men, and if judges are to be had, they should be appointed, and if there are no judges available, appoint some one else.


Mr. GRAHAM:: We are making precedents all the time, and I have a practical suggestion which might work out. In every community, there is a first-class lawyer who could act as judge, and release the judge for this work. Let him be appointed as a judge, for the time being, while the judge is performing this work.
Mr. .MEIGHEN: That might be practical, if one tribunal composed of a judge could do all the work of a county. I have stated really all that I am in a position to state on that subject.


Charles Marcil: Can the hon. gentleman
tell us what was done in England?


Arthur Meighen: They did not appoint
judges at all. They had large local tribunals, composed of laymen. They did not find it possible to appoint judges there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All the work of these
tribunals will be subject to correction by the judges, so that you have the supervising and controlling influence of the judges, to correct errors that may occur from lack of experience on the part of members of the
tribunal. Therefore we think that, in the most practical and effective way, we avail ourselves of the undoubted competent services of the judges.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is stated
that appeals are never to be encouraged. I should like to see such a class of tribunals that appeals would be limited, as much as possible. If you have a class of tribunals!, in the first instance, whose composition leads you to think that it is necessary to make provision for an appeal, that is a poor arrangement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we could absolutely avoid appeals, it would be a desirable thing from many points of view, but I think that would be very difficult. The best of judges are liable to err, and it would be an unfortunate situation if any number of men found themselves subjected to the judgment of one individual, without any opportunity whatever of rectifying any possible error that might creep in. I think, to meet that, we must provide for a system where there shall be a right of appeal, and if we do that, I come back to what I said before, that I think we get the best service from the judges by giving them supervision and control to rectify any mistake that may be made in the tribunal of first instance. I may s.*y that, while the questions to be determined are of very great importance, in view of the results of that determination to the individual affected and to the country, the questions, as a rule, would not be questions involving, or necessitating for their decision, any very profound knowledge of law. The question that will arise in a large number of cases, will be purely questions of fact-such 'questions as, in a great many provinces, it is thought well to leave to the decision of laymen, that is to jurors.
In many of the provinces, including our own, it is thought better, even when we have the judge, sitting there in the court, that questions of fact should be determined by laymen. It is difficult to see what questions of law will arise before these tribunals; certainly the bulk of the questions arising will be questions of fact that could he fairly dealt with by men of practical common sense. I am sure that we could repose in those men the same confidence that the law reposes in jurors, even in preference to judges.


Mr. ROSS:: My hon. friend's argument would surely not apply to Ontario, where almost every county has two' county court judges. One of those judges could be re-



leased from his ordinary work in order that he might (perform the work required by this Act.
Mr. DOHERTY; In some counties in Ontario the work of the county -court judge is not very considerable; in others it is. But it must be remembered that we shall have to have more than one tribunal for each county; if the county court judge has to be on every tribunal, we cannot have more than one tribunal per county. Having regard to the population of the counties in Ontario, I fancy that it would take a long time to have all applications dealt with by one and the same tribunal. It would be anomalous to make such distinction's between the character of the tribunals that in the same county some persons would be applying to a tribunal presided over by a county court judge and others would have their cases dealt with by tribunals of another character. When you have county court judges on the tribunals, you limit the number of tribunals available for the purpose of hearing such appeals as may arise. The inadequacy of the number of judges is a very substantial objection to our constituting these tribunals of judges only. As I have said, the questions which will arise will not be such as to call for training in the law, except in exceptional instances. In those exceptional instances, if any error be committed, there will be ample remedy by appeal to the judges who under this system will be 'available for the work of correction.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Is it pro-posed that the
evidence -heard before the local tribunals shall be taken down by stenographers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I do not think that is in contemplation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then in what manner will it be possible for the judges in appeal to decide upon questions of fact if there is no factum before the court for decision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Appeals of this kind will be dealt with as appeals in criminal cases are dealt with. That, in- effect, means that the appellant tribunal will hear the evidence and re-try the case.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think it is important that county court judges be retained as members of the local tribunals. I am in favour of having the county court judge himself act or preside rather than that he should appoint some one else for that purpose. The suggestion of the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is a good
[Mr. Ross.l
one. In Ontario, and, I fancy, in 'all the other provinces, in cases where the judge desires to be relieved for a time from his official duties, there is power to appoint a practising barrister of certain qualifications to attend to the judicial work of the county while the judge is absent or otherwise engaged. If a county court judge, undertaking the work assigned to him under this Act, should find that the additional work is too much for him, it would be an excellent thing to give him power to appoint some one to perform his judicial duties while he is thus engaged. Perhaps a special regulation would have to be made in regard to Quebec; certainly the law in Ontario works very well. In many cases judges obtain leave of absence for periods of three or six months and a barrister of good standing in the county is appointed to take his place. I do not think that in any instance in Ontario, unless it be in Toronto, is a county court judge overworked. I know of no junior or senior county court judge in the province who does more than four or five days' work a month. I think, therefore, that so far as Ontario is concerned there will be no difficulty in having a county court judge act in all cases-though conditions may be different in other provinces. Perhaps a general rule might be established that would clear up the whole difficulty. If I had been here when the clause was under discussion a day or two ago, I would have suggested that the tribunals in Ontario should consist of the county court judges and the wardens of the respective counties. I think that arrangement would be fair, having regard to the political parties and to every other consideration that has to be had in mind in connection with this Bill. I do not know what the municipal institutions are in the other provinces or -how such an arrangement might affect them; in any case, I think that the county court judge should himself preside over the local tribunals and that he should not have power to delegate his authority to another.


Arthur Meighen: The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) contemplates that there will be only one tribunal for each county court district. I feel quite sure that more will be necessary in very many county court districts. Further, assuming ail ne says to be correct, a county court judge can be appointed, and I think would be appointed, by the board of selection in such a case as he has in mind. Assuming that in Ontario the county court judges all have time to perform these duties, the board of

selection can name them in every case in which they do not name themselves. In any event, this clause stands, on account of the present position of the discussion with regard to the board of selection. I fancy, therefore, that we shall get along faster if we proceed to clause 7.
Subsection stands.
On section 7-appeal tribunals:


James Hamilton Ross: How about appeals from a tribunal one of whose members is not a county court judge?


Arthur Meighen: In connection with
section 7, the/suggestion made by the mem-her for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) has been, in the main, accepted. I thought first that it would be possible to arrange for two county court judges always to sit in appeal if a county court judge sat on the local tribunal. The difficulty, however, is that that would necessitate, in the event of their disagreeing, provision for carrying a stated case to the central appeal judge. There did not, however, seem to be the same difficulties in the way of insisting that a higher court judge should sit in appeal wherever a county court judge sat in the local tribunal, because it would be possible for the registrar to collect the cases and so allocate them that much inconvenience would be avoided in sending higher court judges to hear the appeals. I, therefore, beg to move:
That there be added to section 7 the following proviso :
Provided that appeals from the local tribunal on which sits one or more judges shall be heard and decided by an appeal tribunal constituted of a judge of a higher court.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Is there any definition of the term " higher court?"


Arthur Meighen: I do not think one could give any simpler term, or any term that required less definition.


Charles Avila Wilson: The Minister of Justice is aware that a judge of the superior court in Quebec may -act as judge of the higher court in his own district, or a judge of the superior court in Montreal or Quebec pray act -as the judge of the court of criminal assizes. That is the reason why I put the question: Is there any definition of what will be considered a judge of a higher court? A judge of the superior court may one minute sit as an ordinary judge of the .superior court, and the minute after he may ascend the King's Bench for the criminal assizes, and thus become a judge of a higher court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite certain that a King's Bench court is. higher than a ,superior court. I had the idea that all our courts stand on a parity, although they exercise different jurisdiction. The other day I intimated that I thought, for the province of Quebec, there should be a modification in the section, so that we would make quite clear what were the courts whereof the judges should be named of this -appellate court, and I, therefore, beg to move:
That section 7 be amended by inserting after the word "tribunal" in the fifth line thereof the following words:
"In the province of Quebec one judge of the Court of King's Bench or Superior Court of said province, and in the other provinces."
The reason for that will be obvious to ail hon. members from Quebec where we have not the same judicial system as prevails in the other provinces in which there are a large number of judges, not judges of higher courts, but judges of courts with very considerable civil jurisdiction. To retain the words "any court" in the case of Quebec would leave it possible (which I think would not be desirable) that a judge of a stipendiary magistrate's court or possibly of the court of sessions might be appointed, and I think it more desirable that 4 p.m. we should keep the appointments to the two courts mentioned in my amendment. It was pointed out the other day that in the city of Montreal there is a circuit court, but it seems hardly desirable to introduce in this legislation a special system for Montreal. The other day the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) stated that the circuit court judges of Montreal have all the work they can possibly do, and to appoint circuit court judges might possibly constitute a very serious injustice to the numerous litigants who come before them and who, in the great number of cases, are of that class of persons who can ill-afford to have any unnecessary delay in disposing of their cases, or any interference with the cases that are being heard.


Charles Avila Wilson: Suppose a case comes before a judge of the superior court of Terrebonne and a decision is arrived at, and the man appeals; will he have to take his appeal to this higher court, the Court of criminal assizes, presided, over by a judge of the same district, or will he have to go before a court of appeal in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member will look at the section, he will ,see that in the province of Quebec it is not contemplated that judges of the superior court should sit on the local tribunals of the first instance.

From the preceding section the hon. gentleman will note that the local tribunals will be composed of persons who are named by a judge of the superior court. In the districts of Quebec and Montreal, where there are a number of judges serving the district, the person will be selected by the Chief Justice or the acting Chief Justice of the province, as the case may be. In the other districts, the members of the local tribunals will be named by the district judge of each district, and it is not contemplated that he will name himself, nor that a judge of the district of ^Montreal will name a superior court judge to sit on the-local tribunal.


Charles Avila Wilson: Will there always
be a judge of the superior court on the local tribunal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No; it is not contemplated in any case that on the local tribunal a judge of the superior court should himself sit.


Charles Avila Wilson: He may sit in appeal? He will be considered as belonging to a "higher court?''


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The hon. member need not be troubled about the term "higher court." Under the amendment I have just moved, it is provided that in the province of Quebec the appellate court shall consist of one judge of the court of King's Bench, or of the superior court of the province.


Hugh Guthrie: Has section 7, as
printed, been passed?


Arthur Meighen: There are two amendments proposed; one by myself, which is a proviso, and the other by the Minister of Justice. Outside of that, the section is as printed in the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a suggestion
I would like to make, -but I may be too late. The section reads:
The Chief Justice of the court of last resort in each province .	.	. shall establish.	.	. Appeal Tribunals-
And so on. The language is mandatory, not permissive. Then there is a reservation:
In case of his absence, or failure to act, then a judge of that court designated by the minister.
Why not "designated by the said Chief Justice?" If the minister is the proper person to. make the appointment, he should do it in the first instance.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not get the exact meaning. The Chief Justice is to make the appointment of the judges, who themselves will be the appeal tribunals. If he fails to act, if he fails to name those appeal tribunals, then the minister names a judge who will name them.


Hugh Guthrie: Why should not the
Chief Justice name that judge?


Arthur Meighen: If the Chief Justice
fails to do the one thing, the probability is that he will fail to do the other. We do not, however, contemplate any such failure except on account of physical dis-*ability or necessary absence. If any one should fail to appoint the tribunals, they would likely fail also to appoint a judge to appoint the tribunals, so we take care that the tribunals shall be appointed by giving the minister power to name some one else to take the place of the Chief Justice in case the latter fails.


Charles Avila Wilson: I see that subsection 3 of section 6 states that the tribunals shall consist of two members. What is the meaning of the word "members"? Can an ex-convict or a woman; or a man engaged in military service be appointed a member of a local tribunal? I think the word "member" should be defined.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Surely the hon. member does not apprehend that any judge of the superior court is going to appoint to these tribunals a penitentiary convict, or a woman, or any of the classes of people whom I am sorry to see my hon. friend grouping together. If we had to define what kind of a man is to be appointed I think it would lead us into giving a great many details. If we put the appointing power in the hands of the most competent and reliable people we can find, I think we can trust to their judgment to appoint the right class of people to sit on the tribunals. We have, on the one hand, the judges, and on the other, the selective board, the formation of which has not been absolutely settled, but which at all events will clearly be a body enjoying the confidence of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. I think under those circumstances we can be satisfied that no objectionable person will be appointed to these tribunals.


Charles Avila Wilson: I have confidence
in the good faith of a man, but I think it would be safe to have the word " member ' expressly defined in the Bill.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 10-appeals:
Mr. ME'IGnHEN1:	Paragraph (b) of subsection 3 was allowed to stand, some members objecting to the proviso that the Minister of Militia and Defence may, as of right, enter and prosecute an appeal to the central appeal judge. In deference to the opinion of hon. members I beg to move that this proviso to paragraph (b) of subsection 3 be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 11-application for, and grounds of exemption:
Arthur Meighen: This section was carried with the understanding that I should speak to the committee with regard to suggestions that had been made. One suggestion, in regard to which I wish to move an amendment, is with respect to paragraph (f)-the "conscientious objectors" clause. It was urged that an earlier date should be fixed than the date of the passing of this Act regarding the existence of religious denominations opposed to military service. I therefore beg to move that for the words "at the date of the passing of this Act" there be substituted "on the 6th of July, 1916."


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What religious denominations will be exempt? Will a man be exempt who declares before a tribunal that he cannot conscientiously take arms for the killing of another human being?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What the Bill requires is not merely that a man shall have conscientious objections to military service, but that he be prohibited from combatant service by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada. Now the questions, what are the tenets and articles of faith, and what is an organized religious denomination well recognized in Canada, are all matters of fact susceptible of proof otherwise than by the mere statement of the applicant.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: A man, then, will have no right to decide according to his conscientious beliefs?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He can decide his conscientious beliefs for himself, but in order that he should be entitled to exemption it is required not merely that he himself should conscientiously object, but that he should be a member of a religious organization well recognized in Canada whose tenets prohibit his acting as a combatant.
So he has two things to prove: not only the state of his own conscience, but the further fact that the state of his conscience is the result of his conforming to the tenets of any organized and well recognized religious denomination existing in the country at the time mentioned.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Chairman, in order to be better understood, I shall speak in French to submit the following point:
I find that the English statute does not go as far as the Bill now before us. Why should we exempt the .party claiming as an exemption the fact that he belongs to any religious sect whatever, and why could no't the judge hearing the applicant's objections consider the conscientious motives of another party claiming the same exemption?
We already have in the law of evidence in the province of Quebec and generally in the Canadian law of evidence exemptions of this nature. For example, if a man refuses to take an oath upon the Bible he is allowed to be sworn in some other way, or to make a solemn affirmation, and his scruples are recognized and respected.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have previously pointed out that, under this Act, it is not only required that the applicant objects to serve as a soldier on conscientious grounds, but, moreover, that he actually belongs to a church or religious sect whose tenets forbid all its adherents to serve as soldiers.
The tribunal undoubtedly will implicitly believe whatever he states as to his beliefs, but when it comes to determine the two other facts, firstly, whether he belongs to a certain religious sect, and, secondly, whether the tenets of that same sect forbid his serving as a soldier, I do not believe that it would be fair to allow.him by means of this only statement in the form of a yes or a no what prohibitions do exist according to the rules and regulations of that religious sect. This is a fact readily proven, because it must be remembered that it applies only to religious obligations generally established and recognized in this country. As for the case recalled by the hon. member, when you only have to know what is a man's belief, he is perfectly free to state it. But here you need a further fact, which is quite independent of his own beliefs, and is, as a matter of fact, to be proven independently of his own statement.


Charles Avila Wilson: In Montreal very recently, they went pretty far; they

refused to accept the oath of a witness who had refused to give it on the Bible, because he had declared he did not believe in God. His belief was to that extent respected.


Charles Joseph Doherty: His belief shall be duly respected, in accordance with the prohibitions of the church [DOT]or religious denomination to which he belongs.


Mr. BELLEMARE (Translation):: Would the hon. minister allow me a question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly.


Adélard Bellemare: We have in some of our classical colleges ecclesiastics, some of whom are in the minor orders, others in the major ones. What I want to know is whether an ecclesiastic who has only received the tonsure, which according to our church is a real order, is, under the Act, exempted from military service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may inform my hon. friend that the word "clergy" in this Bill comprises every one who has received holy orders, and that the tonsure is an order.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very easy to
see in reading this section that the questions which will be decided by the tribunals will be simply questions of fact. The local tribunals will have to decide whether it is expedient in the national interest that a man should be employed in the military service or in any other work, or whether his exceptional financial or domestic situation prevents him from going to the front. That is absolutely a question of fact. As every one knows, the decisions of lower courts on questions of fact are never reversed by the higher courts, unless gross injustice has been committed. Why then so man$r appeals? In the first place we have the local tribunal, in which a judge may sit because the Solicitor General told us that if the judge is not very busy in his district he may be appointed to serve on the tribunal. The decision of this local tribunal as to whether a man shall or shall not go to the front will then be confirmed or reversed by the higher court on the same question of fact. Even that is not sufficient, 'because he may have to go before the Supreme Court, where one man may reverse the decision of three or four others who have seen and heard the witnesses and who are personally acquainted with the circumstances of the particular case. I really believe that this provision is inflicting a great hardship on

those who will have -to go from one court to another, and it is contrary to the accepted principles of law and equity.


Arthur Meighen: But, the hon. member
forgets it is not strictly an appeal. The leader of the Opposition naised the point in the first place, and it was clearly indicated that what is allowed is of the nature of an appeal from summary conviction, and new evidence may he made; consequently it is partly in the nature of a new trial. While it is true the matter before the local tribunal is one of fact, still there may be errors in the application of the principle deciding the question of fact, and it is well that those errors should be passed upon by a man who has the training of a judge.


Ernest Lapointe: But the member of the first appeal tribunal has the training of a judge. Why then go further than this appeal? Why bring the appeal to Ottawa?


Arthur Meighen: To bring it before the
Central Appeal Judge.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Why?


Arthur Meighen: With a view to securing the uniform acceptance and application of the principles. What is before the committee is an s amendment to tne effect that the date of the existence of the denominational body be fixed at, say, July 6.


Mr. CURRIE:: Apparently some of the hon. members find objection to this clause on the ground that some fake religious organizations may be established with a view to keeping men away from the war. If the words " well recognized toy the law in Canada " be inserted, and a date fixed, it would cover the difficulty. No matter how small a religious organization may be, it must have an Act which enables 'it to hold property. This would establish it as a matter of fact, and give its members -a status before the tribunals. There are certain branches of the Socialists known as the Individualists, who might claim they are entitled to exemption under thiis law. Their existence might be recognized because of their meetings and so on, tout, to give them a status under this Bill, they should be recognized by the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I did not have any reference to any sect whatever. I wanted to know how far -a man's individual thought would toe considered by the law, or whether he had to belong to some particular sect or denomination


John Allister Currie: The Act should be made more specific in that respect, so that the onus -would not be on the tribunal to say whether some small local organization, such as may exist in various parts of the country, and which has no status whatever, should be recognized. If it is recognized by law, then there should be some organization behind it. I think possibly that would avoid all that difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: The governing test
should be the reality and bona fides of the denomination. That reality and bona fides could not be determined by the mere fact of the body having a corporate existence. There might be a very real and thoroughly sincere denomination without such a corporate existence-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But not recognized by law.


Arthur Meighen: Not recognized by law- a body who had not gone to the trouble or had not seen any object in taking out letters of incorporation or in becoming recognized by law. That would appear to me to be an arbitrary test to apply. It is a question of fact whether such an organization really exists and is recognized.


Charles Marcil: Are the local tribunals versed in the theology of all these various sects?


Arthur Meighen: It is not a question of theology, but merely of the existence of the denomination and its recognition in the community. It is a question of fact which the local tribunals will decide in the first instance.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My understanding is that this relates to the Mennonites, the Douk-hobors, and the Quakers.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: And the Christa-delphians.


Arthur Meighen: Those would be included; there may be more.


John Allister Currie: They are all incorporated and hold property and are well recognized organizations. I do not think the minister could mention any organization with an article of this kind in its creed that is not already recognized by law and has not its chapels. Those who are not in that position are those who cannot come out in the light of day and show themselves. I do not think they are entitled to exemption.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that even so outstanding a body as the Quakers have any incorporation. There may be individuals incorporated as a church, but I
think it would be risky to say that every sect of Quakers in Canada, wherever located, have legal incorporation; but, even if one could say that, it would be more risky to say that every other body entitled to exemption has incorporation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend in mind the same exemption that is provided for in the Militia Act, or is this section entirely new and introduced with a view of exempting other persons than those who were mentioned or entitled to be mentioned in the Militia Act?


Arthur Meighen: The experience in Great Britain would go to show that it would be very dangerous to accept the wording of the Militia Act as it now reads. That leaves out the persons who, from the doctrines of their religion, are averse to bearing arms or rendering military service under such conditions as may be specified. My hon. friend would hardly suggest that the matter could safely be left in that form.


Charles Marcil: Did I understand that the Christian Brothers were to be exempted?


Arthur Meighen: I did not specify any denominations.


Charles Marcil: There are a number of Christian Brethren in my constituency, and I would like to know whether they are to be exempted or not.


Arthur Meighen: That will be cleared up by the proper tribunal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What has been the actual experience in England under the last conscription law? I see that the conscientious objectors are exempt. Does that include certain sects, or are individuals who do not belong to any specified sect exempted?


Arthur Meighen: Under the first Act as it was introduced a man was able to secure exemption merely by convincing the tribunal of his own individual predisposition in the matter. The application of the law had to be tightened, as they found that the number who conscientiously objected to going to the war was very large indeed. This section embodied the good points of both the British and the United States sections.


Mr. NESBITT:: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General was to take into consideration an amendment moved by yourself (Mr. Rainville) to subclause (a), with re-

ference to agriculture. Did he take that into his consideration?


Arthur Meighen: It was moved by the hon. member for Chambly-Vereheres (Mr. Rainville) that there be added after the word "in" in the third line of (a) "agricultural, industrial or." Objection was taken by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that the effect would be to require the interpretation of the word "other" oil the principle of ejusdem generis, and consequently to imperil the right of those engaged in such occupations as transportation to secure exemption. Whether those engaged in transportation and similar occupations would be shut out by the principle of ejusdem generis is a question which it might now be perilous to raise. Take teachers in schools and institutions,
should be afraid that the principle of ejusdem generis would shut out their right to secure exemption.
of my hon. friend were accepted, it would not make any difference in any other work. I would not say the duties of a school teacher should not be called work, because sometimes he has pretty heavy work.


Arthur Meighen: His duty means work ail right, but, agriculture rand industry are mentioned .specifically. The other work would need to be of the same nature and kind-ejusdem generis-as industrial work: consequently, teachers might be excluded. As to the third British Act, I think, if the hon. gentleman will read the title to the Act, and the preamble, he will see that it has not the effect, or the wide application, he thinks it has. The title is:
An Act to enable the exception from military service of men excepted on the ground of previous rejection, or the previous relinquishment of, or discharge from, naval or military service, or unsuitability for foreign service, to be reviewed.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They would come under (c.)


Arthur Meighen: No, they are not in
training; they are training. Then there is this objection, that notwithstanding the very strong claims of agriculture, speaking generally, to exemption, which claim doubtless will result in adequate exemptions for agriculture, the same argument could be made for the classes suggested by Mr. Girard, say those engaged in fisheries,-who are producers of a food more and more required by reason of war conditions, and other similar industries might be particularized. Consequently it was thought that, especially since this clause has worked satisfactorily in Great Britain under this wording, it would be better to keep it in its present form.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The clause in the British Act specially mentions agriculture, if I read it correctly. Speaking of the exemptions, the section says:
Provided also that the powers under thi: provision shall not extend-
(a) to any man who is for the time beim engaged in agriculture, and whose work i: certified by the Board of Agriculture anc Fisheries (or, as respects Scotland, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) to De work ol national importance, and who was engaged on such work on the thirty-first day ol -t larch, nineteen hundred and seventeen.
When my hon. friend suggested it, he did so because in the interpretation it specially mentioned agriculture and did not mention anything else. So far as I can see by this clause, if the suggestion 
The Act proceeds:
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same.
Then it is provided that the powers under this provision shall not be extended to any man who is, for the time being, engaged in agriculture, and so forth. It has not the effect of exempting agriculture from the general provisions of the Act. It simply says that, in this combine at this stage, there shall be these exceptions. I may not have stated it as strongly as I should have, from my standpoint, but, at any rate, I have not stated it too strongly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not understand my hon. friend to propose that agriculture should be excluded altogether. I only meant that it should be emphasized in the exception.


Mr. BOULAY (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before the exemption clause is finally adopted, I would like to again express my regret that the 'Government have not seen fit to accept the suggestion offered by some of the members in order to exempt the farmers from compulsory military service. After all that has been said in this House,
I am led to understand, that under subsection (a) every one or almost any one can be exempted from military service; I believe the. hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has thus expressed himself. I perfectly understand that the farmers may be placed under this head, but at .all events, they will be no less under the obligation of

appearing before some tribunal within a certain delay, just as will be the case for all men between twenty and fonty-five years o.f age, while, if a general exemption had 'been provided for in the Act itself, they (would have been relieved of such an obligation. Moreover, this obligation cannot but entail numerous inconveniences, specially if this Act should be enforced during harvest time. Some members have expressed the opinion that such a clause would be an insult to the agricultural class. To me this argument does not seem a serious one, inasmuch as our farmers are not over scrupulous on the subject, and that they could enlist anyway whenever they saw fit. The farmers are so necessary in Canada that they should not be enticed to enlist in any way whatever.
I now want to draw the attention of the House to a charge which has been laid here by three members, a charge we ought to investigate as I believe.
I stated when I spoke in this House on June 27 ultimo that I had heard that a large number of young Englishmen had emigrated to Canada during the first months of the war in order to evade compulsory military service enacted in England. The hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) made the same assertion in this House on July 5th, last Thursday. I will quote his own words:
Frequently, we see steamers coming into port with some 700 or $(00 young Englishmen on board; we see them strutting, with a new walking stick, along the streets of Montreal. They come over to our country to fill the places of our French Canadian boys who are expelled from our stores and our mills, in order to force them, in a sense, to enlist.
At this point the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paqnet) interrupted the hon. member for Montcalm and asked him:


*Mr. PAQUET (L'Islet) (Translation) :: Will the hon_ member allow me one question?


Mr. LAFORTUNE (Translation) :: Certainly.


Eugène Paquet: Has the hon. member information to justify his assertion that the French Canadians are replaced in the munition factories by Englishmen just come from the British Isles?


David Arthur Lafortune: Certainly, I am not afraid to assert it.


Eugène Paquet: The charge is a most serious one.


David Arthur Lafortune: Most
serious, I admit it; hut I do, nevertheless, declare that, in many cases, French Canadians are turned out of doors and that their places are given, a few days later, to your Englishmen just landed from London. The very thing happened in a shell factory In my own village; these French Canadians were told: " Why don't you enlist? Why don't you go and help the Empire"? They were thus forced to sacrifice themselves
and to give up all they held most dear, in order to save the Empire.
Now, I read in the Hansard of the 11th instant, another almost similar charge laid by the hon. member for Cbambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville) when he stated that some
73.000	men, after enlisting in the Canadian Army, deserted and disappeared.
He added, that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), referring to a Detroit newspaper, stated that it had been ascertained that 17,000 English Canadians, mostly from Ontario, were living in that city. Headed:	"We have some slackers
here from England to be found in insurance offices in Montreal"-And, more than that, relying on statistics which he must have had from good authority, he said that the immigration which had bad figured up to
43.000	men in 1914, I believe, had reached 85,000, in 1916, which means an increase of
42.000	for 1916. That is surely an extraordinary fact, and the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres stated:	"I would
strongly urge that these slackers who have gone to the United States should be brought back."
In both cases which I have just quoted, 1 believe there is for the Government ample justification for a searching investigation, and that would be of primary importance. These facts appear to me far more important than the charge made against people of the province of Quebec of having insulted soldiers -on their way through. In the latter case, a court of enquiry was immediately constituted, which tribunal did act and seems to have given satisfaction to all parties concerned. Now, I do believe that the charge laid against these deserters and these emigrants who have left their country in order to evade military service, is far more serious than the other I have just aliuded to; it would be only right, it seems to me, that the Government should make an investigation upon it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first part of his remarks, the hon. member for Rimouski expressed the hope that the farmers should be particularly exempted. It seems to me that what has already been said should suffice.
There is no doubt that agriculture, in this country, is of paramount importance, and that anyone .who is, "bona fide", necessary to farm production and who actually gives good returns for an. earnest labour, should have no reason to feel uneasy.
As for the suggestion of an invesgation in O'der to find out if it be true or not that a great number of young Britishers have come to this country and that many French Canadians were discharged from certain

manufactories in order to replace them by these British youths, I simply will draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this Act, when in force, will provide the opportunity of making such an enquiry before the very tribunals to be appointed. Precisely these facts shall be examined and cleared up, and if those facts mentioned in the different speeches which have been quoted by my hon. friend are established, those young Britishers will not be treated otherwise than any other British subject. Every British subject in Canada, whether he come from England or anywhere else, shall be brought under this Act.
Now, as to the third case to which the hon. member draws our attention, referring to those who are said to have left Canada since the war was declared, in order to escape military service, our ruling applies to every British subject at present residing in Canada, as well as to every British subject who did reside in Canada for apy length of time previous to 1914. I can say to the hon. member that the provision to include directly the latter class, was precisely inserted with a view to that class he has just mentioned, and I do not believe it will become necessary, in order to put it into effect, to make any arrangement with the United States authorities.
I have every reason to believe, and I do believe, that the hon. member may well trust that we will make such an arrangement by which these gentlemen who have attempted to evade the law, who have deserted their country in order to set themselves free from defending it, will come under the effects of the Act., just as well as those who have stayed at home.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I must approve the remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski. In our district, in the county which I have the honour to represent, the whole population, so to say, are employed at farming or in the fisheries. They are two classes of food producers. Had the farmers and the fishermen been exempted, this entire population would not have been obliged to appear before the courts to be exempted. That is what must happen throughout the district of Gaspe, throughout the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspe, Rimouski and in the maritime provinces. As I have just stated, that population is made of food producers and, if they do not show up before the tribunals, there are penalties enacted by our law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would beg leave to say to the hon. member,

in reply to his remarks, that when we pass an Act to demand from a certain part of our population the supreme sacrifice, even that of their own lives, it does not appear to me there can be any occasion for a serious reproach on the part of the farmers or the fishermen, because we ask them to kindly show up before the tribunals. Besides, we shall see to it, that the trbiunals be numerous enough and set under such conditions that they may hold court without exacting from anyone a serious derangement and the inconvenience of being summoned before such a tribunal will be reduced to its minimum. I would be greatly surprised if, under such conditions, we had any complaints, because, in the very interest of the general system, we only demand from those, who are exempted by their occupations, to simply take the trouble to go and submit their demand and expose the circumstances that may justify them.


Charles Marcil: The
tribunals will be plentiful, so they say, especially in that section of the province of Quebec where the distances are the remotest, As the hon. Minister is aware the Gaspe district alone contains ten thousand square miles; we have around there some townships just as large as any ordinary county in the province. Should the tribunals be somewhat distant, you will readily see the inconvenience arising therefrom.
If I rightly understand, the intent of the Act is that a producer is just as necessary and renders just as good a service to the empire as any soldier in the trenches. As all these people are producers, I am glad to hear that the tribunals will be plentiful and of easy access.


Louis Audet Lapointe: How is this proposed legislation going to work, assuming that the measure is put in force-though 1 believe that it never will be; at least, not before a general election. I say this because the Bill is one for the conscription of man-power, not of wealth, though it is stated that the measure may be followed by a measure of taxation on incomes. To my mind, the title of this Bill would be more appropriate if it were "Exemption Bill." Another name might be given to it, having regard to the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) it might be called a Bill for the conscription of liberty. Assuming then, that the Bill will be put in force, it will operate, if I am right, in the following way. Section 16, subsection 2, says:

This Act shall come into force on such day, after the passing thereof, as the Governor in Council may fix by proclamation.
This is the commencement of the Act, if I understand aright. Then we come to section 4, " calling out toy classes," wtoich reads:
(1) The Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation call out on active service as aforesaid for the defence of Canada, either in Canada or beyond Canada, any class or subclass of men described in section three and all men within the class or subclass so called out shall, from the date of such proclamation, be deemed to be soldiers enlisted In the military forces of Canada and subject to military law for the duration of the present war, and of demobilization thereafter, save as hereinafter provided.
This section is-


The CHAIRMAN:: We are discussing section 11. Will the hon. member kindly reserve his speech, which (is a general one, he will have an opportunity of making any general remarks he may desire?


Louis Audet Lapointe: I will do as you, Sir, have just stated. I was just going to suggest that. Then we come to section 12, " regulations," and subsection 2 of section 12, " publication." I am trying to illustrate how this Bill is going to work. If I am wrong in my illustration of how the Bill will work I would like the Solicitor General to set me right. Has the Solicitor General given any thought, or has he any idea, as to the length of time that should elapse between the proclamation of the Act as per section 16 and the proclamation authorized in section 4-the calling out toy classes-in view of the exemptions as provided for in section 11? In other words, what period of time will be given to those who would like to make lapplication for exemption, and in what way will the proclamation and the regulations' be published so that the whole Dominion will know?


Arthur Meighen: After the Act is passed, and perhaps before it is carried into operation, there will be undertaken the duty of preparing the regulations, and also the duty of selecting tribunals, under such regulations as may in the meantime have been formulated, and adopted. That done, or that proceeded with as far as may toe necessary, a proclamation will issue calling out men. I do not know how long a period will be fixed, and it would not be for me to say how long, but I will say on behalf of the Government that it will give ample time for every one who desires to do so to appeal to the appropriate local tribunal for exemption. The proclamation will set out all particulars, so that no one need be confused or in ignorance of the requirements. The man will be told where he should report and where the tribunals will sit, and the method of making application for exemption will be set out. The date for reporting will also be fixed. My thought is that the date for reporting will be subsequent to the sitting of the tribunal, so that at least the determinations of the local tribunals will likely be over before the date for reporting, and possibly further determinations of the appeal tribunals. I give this only by way of illustration of what is in my mind as to how the measure will work out.	_
The hon. member mentioned something about the publication. The proclamation has to be published in the Ga-5 p.m. zette. Such publication, of course, we acknowledge, will not reach the people, but it has the effect of establishing legal evidence that the proclamation was issued and that the call was made. It establishes proof, by production of the contents of the Gazette. It will also be published in newspapers and perhaps by means of posters. It will te thoroughly published so that every one will have knowledge of what is required of him. I think that covers the full request of the hon. member for St. James, Montreal (Mr. L. A. Lapointe).


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the Solicitor General purpose making any change in respect of paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of section 11? It was. suggested by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) that that section be divided; but if the minister intends making no change, I would like to have an understanding from him as to what is meant by "domestic position," and what exemptions would probably be granted under that definition.


Arthur Meighen: Speaking solely as an individual-because the interpretation of this, as of every other law, is for the judges -I would say that the best synonym for "position" would be "circumstances"- domestic circumstances; that is, having regard to a man's domestic obligation, not wholly of a financial character, but of every character. As to what exemptions will be granted, speaking in the same capacity, I would say that exemptions will be granted, based on the circumstances the man was in as to domestic obligations. For instance, a man who, although married, had relatives dependent upon him, perhaps a widowed mother, perhaps a crippled father, perhaps a crippled mother and- a crippled father,

perhaps younger children or other relatives
that would be a circumstance of "domestic position" that would, if it appealed to the tribunal, entitle that man to exemption.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was rather
anxious to have the minister's statement on Hansard. Since discussing this clause of section 11 the other day, I have had an opportunity of looking over the proceedings in regard to the Military Service Bill in the British House of Commons, and I noticed that there was considerable debate on this particular clause, and the clauses in the two Bills are now identical. The committee in the British House of Commons were always anxious to have from the minister in charge of the Bill a statement as to its probable meaning, and the Government did not hesitate to put their interpretation upon it. In many instances, that interpretation without any further amendment was acceptable to hon. members of the committee.
In the English Bill the word " position " read first of all, " domestic obligations." The word " obligations " was amended to " circumstances," and eventually that was changed to " position," and this last word was accepted by the committee without any opposition. It might be interesting to know just what was in the mind of ithe committee of the British House as to the scape of the word " position." Mr. Long, who was in charge of the Bill, stated that it would include a widow's only son, and also cover the case of a single unmarried son of a family whose other members had all enlisted. If that is intended to be the case here, it would be as well to have a declaration to that effect. Mr. Morrell, speaking on this point in the British House, said:
I was one of those who had an amendment down asking that the only son of a widow who has not yet enlisted should have an absolute exemption under this Bill, and I venture to say that the words used by the Prime Minister entitled me to expect that an amendment of that sort would be accepted.
Then he proceeds to quote from -a statement im-ade by ithe Prime Minister, a.s fol-tows:
I have had brought to my notice most moving cases of mothers who have sent three or even four sons to the war. They have been either wounded, killed, or at any rate disabled on active service. Where there is a single unmarried son left behind, it would, of course, he a monstrous thing if the State were to call for military service from a man in that position. He is as much entitled to exemption as any man in the Empire.
That statement by the Prime Minister was considered by the committee as tantamount

to an express declaration by statute that such cases would be exempted.


Charles Marcil: Were exemptions granted in England to men whose brothers had already gone to the front?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The sole surviving son of a widow is exempt.


Charles Marcil: Suppose that one son has gone to the front and two sons remain at home; would the two sons be entitled to exemption?
Mr. A. It. MACLEAN: I do not think they would both be exempted, but the tribunals would no doubt take into consideration the fact that one son had already enlisted. I suggested the other day that, the son of a widow be exempted, but if the Government would give to the words "domestic position" the wide interpretation given to them by the British Act, it would not be necessary for me to press my suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection at all to giving a general definition of any phrase in the Act as it appeals to myself, but I could not undertake, and I do not think any member of the British House of Commons undertook, to say how the Act should be applied in an individual case. Such a statement would be valueless in any case, because it is a matter for the tribunals to decide. In this connection I might point out that Mr. Long was written to by Mr. Gibson on this very subject, and in his reply, under date of February 23, 1916, he set out at considerable length the impossibility of instancing individual cases or classes of cases, and the necessity of leaving it to a statement of principle. His letter, written by his secretary, ended with these words:
Mr. Long trusts that these observations will prove of service to tribunals. He fully realizes the difficult nature of the task committed to them and the extreme importance of deciding cases which come before them in a manner which will command the fullest public confidence.
I do not wish to read the whole letter-
I will send it to the hon. member-but it establishes the position I have tried to take, that we must leave the application of the law in every individual case to the tribunals, and we must leave any differences there may be in the application of the Act to be corrected by the process of appeal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no objection to offer to the statement of the minister. I was anxious to have placed on Hansard

some statement from him for the guidance of the tribunals. Let me give him a case. In the original British Military Service Act the word " exceptional " -the last word of the second line- first of all read "special," but on the third *reading of the Bill the word "exceptional" was submitted for "special" after considerable debate. There was in 'the minds of the committee the particular case of the sole remaining son of a widow. Some members of the committee were pressing the Government for a declaration which would serve as a guide for the tribunals. Sir J. Simons', discussing the proposed amendment, said:
This is one of the cases where a clear declaration from the Government as to the sort of standard they were setting up would make a lot of difference. If my right hon. friend was prepared to say that if you take the only surviving son of a widow dependent upon her hoy's earnings and regarded that as a case that clearly ought to be exempted we should be satisfied that it would not make very much difference whether the exemption was "special" or "exceptional."
I notice that efforts were frequently made during the passage of the Bill through the British House to get a declaration from the Government, more for the guidance of the tribunals, I suppose, than anything else; in fact, I cannot see what other purpose it would serve. It was for a similar reason that I asked for a statement from the Solicitor General. I was not asking that the wording of the section be changed.


Arthur Meighen: It is important to observe in this connection that that service *can be readily performed by the Central Appeal Judge. In the first place he would toe more competent to perform it, and in the second place he would be a more fitting person to perform it. He could issue and place in the hands of the local tribunals such definitions and such general information, with such illustrations as he saw fit to give, concerning the application of the (various principles of exemption as in his judgment might be most useful to them, In doing that, I apprehend that he would have very close regard to similar information sent out to the tribunals in Great Britain, and to decisions rendered in Great Britain by their final tribunal. It must *be clear that we gain toy adopting their very language, because in that way we get more clearly and usefully the advantage of their decisions.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I read in, this morning's papers that the consumption of wheat, beef and bacon in Canada should be reduced by one-third.	*
I would suggest that it should be increased by one-third, and for that purpose I believe we should take the farmer's son into consideration. Under this Act are members of the local and appeal tribunals to' be provided with information by the Government in reference to farming products when an applicant appears before the board? Where will the board get its information in regard to the man on the farm?


Arthur Meighen: From the Bill; chiefly from paragraph (a) of subsection 1, section 11, and also from such information as may be sent him under the provision of this Bill by the central appeal judge, who will render all the assistance possible to the tribunals in the application of the provisions of the Bill which provide for the exemption of men necessary for agriculture and other purposes in the national interest.


Mr. OLIVER:: I took the liberty of discussing this clause at some length on a previous occasion. I now desire to take advantage of the copy of the United States law, which was laid on the Table, for the purpose of supporting and emphasizing the position I took in regard to what was to me the evident purpose of this section, and which was not related to a fair conscription of the man-power of the country. The parallel section of the United States Act reads as follows:
Kec. 4. That the Vice-President of the United States, the officers, legislative, executive and judicial, of the United States, and of the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, students who at the, time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools, and all persons in the military and naval service of the United States, shall be exempt from the selective draft herein prescribed; and nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to require or compel any person to serve in any forces herein provided for who is found to he a member of any well-recognized religious sect or organization at present organized and existing and whose existing creed or principles forbid its members to participate in war in any form, and whose religious convictions are against war or participation therein in accordance with the creed or principles of said religious organizations, but no person so exempted shall he exempted from service in any capacity that the President shall declare to be non-combatant; and the President is hereby authorized to exclude or discharge from said selective draft and from the draft under the second paragraph of section 1 hereof for partial military service only from those liable to draft as in this Act provided persons of the following classes:	County and municipal
officials; customhouse clerks; persons employed by the United States in the transmission of the mail; artificers and workmen employed in the armouries, arsenals, and- navy

yards of the United States, and such other persons employed in the service of the United States as the President may designate; pilots; mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; persons engaged in industries, including agriculture, found to he necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment or the effective operation of the military forces, or the maintenance of national interest during the emergency; those in a status with respect to persons dependent upon them for support which renders their exclusion or discharge advisable; and those found to be physically or morally deficient. No exemption or exclusion shall continue when a cause therefor no longer exists.
It will be observed that this provision of the United States Act covers, in a great measure, the same exemptions as are covered specifically in this provision of section XI of the Act we are considering, but it differs from section 11 on the very points I raised, and in support of which I expressed myself somewhat strongly. The conditions, of the United States being more closely parallel to those in Canada I think we might fairly look to the law of the United States for guidance in dealing with our conditions here; and as the legislators of the United States had the advantage of the British law, and reached the conclusion they did-a conclusion that is vastly different in its operation from the law we are now discussing-I contend that my position has very good support.
The first difference between section 11 and this provision of the United States 'Act to which I wish to draw attention is that there is a very much greater specification of exemption. I impressed upon the hon. minister the desirability of making more specific exemptions. He refused to make those exemptions, and demanded that I should give him even one exemption. I have quoted from the United States Act, and he is at liberty to consider that all the exemptions in the United States Act would be proper exemptions to be included in our Act.
The next difference to which I wish to draw attention is that in the United States Act there is no provision parallel to paragraph (b) of subsection 1, section 11, a provision of our Act, which I have taken the liberty pf saying has been inserted in the Bill for the purpose of using the threat of compulsory military service, as a means of securing labour for friends of the Government- engaged in industrial enterprises in Canada. There is no such provision in the United States Act.
The other feature I desire to draw attention to is that the tribunals organized under the United States Act are subject in their decisions to regulations framed by the Pre-

sident. They will be directed by the responsible authorities of the country, and I am one of those old-fashioned people believe in responsible government. I 'believe in the Government of our country being responsible for its acts of administration, particularly so where life and liberty and right are at stake. The efforts of the Bill to 'divest our Government of responsibility fpr whatever action may be taken by the tribunals is not a policy that appeals to my mind as being sound from any point of view, and I direct the attention of the House to the fact that it is not the system adopted in the United States. The President of the United States is held responsible for the regulations under which exemptions will be granted by the local tribunals.
Another difference is that certain of the exemptions are to be dealt with by what might be called the inferior tribunals. Another class of exemptions is to be dealt with by what we will call the appeal tribunals only. The reason for that distinction is very obvious, and I maintain that it is a wise distinction. I shall read the provision :
The President is hereby authorized, in his descretion, to create and establish throughout the several States and subdivisions thereof and in the territories and the District of Columbia local boards, and where, in his discretion, practicable and desirable, there shall be created and established one such board in each county or similar subdivision in each State, and one for approximately each thirty thousand of population in each city of thirty thousand population or over, according to the last census taken or estimates furnished by the Bureau of Census of the Department of Commerce. Such boards shall be appointed by the President, and shall consist of three or more members, none of whom shall be connected with the military establishment, to he chosen from among the local authorities of such subdivisions or from other citizens residing in the subdivision or area in which the respective boards will have jurisdiction under the rules and regulations prescribed by the President. Such boards shall have power within their respective jurisdictions to hear and determine, subject to review as hereinafter provided, all questions of exemption under this Act, and all questions of or claims for including or discharging individuals or classes of individuals from selective draft, which shall be made under rules and regulations prescribed by the President, except any and every question or claim for including or excluding or discharging persons or classes of persons from the selective draft under the provisions of this Act authorizing the President to exclude or discharge from the selective draft "Persons engaged in industries, including agriculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment, or the effective operation of the military forces, or the maintenance of national interest during the emergency."

The exceptions are those that come directly before the appeal tribunal and are not tried before the original tribunal at all. From beginning to end the purpose of the United States Act is plain on its face. That purpose is to raise so many men, to raise them on a basis of population, and to raise them with the object of finding men for the fighting line. It is because the Bill before the House differs from the United States Bill in those particulars that I, as a member of this House, object to it, and object to it most strongly. 1 took the liberty of saying that in my opinion the provisions of the Bill as we have it before us were as they were with the distinct idea in the mind of the Government not to administer the Bill with a view to laying an. equal burden of service upon all the people of Canada, and I further took the liberty of saying that that was made absolutely evident by the fact that no provision was contained in the Bill requiring such equality of service. I have read to the House the section of the American Act regarding exemptions. But the section concludes with a proviso as follows:
Provided, that notwithstanding the exemptions enumerated herein, each State, Territory, and -the District of Columbia shall be required to supply its quota in the proportion that its population bears to the total population of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: I need not refer to the portions of the hon. gentleman s speech which were repetitions of his stand previously taken. The UnJited States legislation makes certain specific exceptions, just as ours makes certain specific exceptions, and much along the lines of our exceptions in the schedules. It then proceeds to authorize the President to make more exceptions it does not make them-and included in the further exceptions which the President is authorized to make are pilots, mariners, and a great many people, and then persons engaged in industry, including agriculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment and the effective operation of the military forces or the maintenance of the national interest during the emergency. Then it provides that notwithstanding such exceptions that may thus be made, or may not he made, the men must be secured, so that if the securing of the men invades the exemptions the men have to be obtained all the same. What is the difference between that and ours? We also say that we exclude industries essential for the national interest, and we say that we exclude them only to such an extent as will enable us to get the men. 'What is the
real fundamental difference there? Does any one suggest that we in Canada should say that all engaged in industries beneficial to the national interest shall be excused? Does any one say that, out of mere idlers left in Canada, doing nothing, engaged in no industry whatever for the national interest, we could pick up the 100,000 men fit for military service, physically fit. No one would suggest that. We would have to do as they provide for here, if enough men were not secured without invading the exemptions then you would have to invade industries, first those not essential and then those essential. So, in effect, it is the siame. They establish tribunals to determine these things and do not say that the President shall exempt these men; they simply authorize him to do so. It is true that we have responsible Government here and it has a fairly faithful adherent in myself, so much so that on questions of very great and insistent responsibility I think it is the province of the Government to discharge that responsibility and not shift it to the people, not try to relieve itself of the responsibility. Such is my adherence to the principle of responsible government. But .the principle of responsible government is not impaired by leaving to the judicial authorities the determination of questions of law and fact, nor, I submit again, is it impaired by leaving to the jury of tribunals simple questions of fact such as are left to them by this Bill.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to pursue the discussion, hut I again ask the minister to state as shortly as possible the specific reason why the proviso of the United States Act does not appear in connection with the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: Because we in Canada prefer to regard the whole of Canada as one nation. In the United States it is more a collection of states, and their constitution is based on that principle. Here we are not a collection of provinces; we are one nation divided into provinces only for purposes of the local jurisdiction.


Frank Oliver: If that is the reason it is not a good reason, because if there is a distinction in parts of the United States on account of geographical or other considerations, these considerations are very much more marked in Canada, and, indeed, it is because of those distinctions, geographical and other, that Canada is a Confederation to-day, instead of being a country. We have the Federal system in Canada as they

have it in the United States, but my hon. friend, in this Bill, sees fit to ignore the existence of the federal system in Canada, though, I am compelled to say, with a purpose which would be absolutely prevented if this provision were adopted, with the absolute purpose of not having an equal enforcement of the Act as between the different sections of the country. Can the hon. minister give us any reason why the provision in paragraph (b), subsection 1 of section 11, which has no parallel in the United States Act, is inserted in 'this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur Meighen: I will have to read it.
I have not made a 'Statement which I cannot support. In section 4 of the United States Act, I find the following:
Such boards shall have power within their respective jurisdictions to hear and determine, subject 'to review as hereinafter provided, all questions of exemption under this Act, and all question of or claims for including discharging individuals or classes of individuals from selective draft, which shall be made under rules and regulations prescribed by the President.
Then it goes on to provide that the President .may authorize definite exemptions under the previous clause. Of course they can not evade the President's rule, unless of course they fail otherwise to secure the men. So that the President sets out the statement of principle which apply to exemption. Here We set them out as they do in England.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
Arthur Meighen: Yes, the only amendment that I propose as to section 11 is to change the words " 'at the date of the passing of this Act ' in subclause 1 (f) to " 6th July, 1917."

Section adopted.
On section 12-regulations:


Arthur Meighen: The only portion of this clause that stood was paragraph (c) of the first subsection. That stood over, in order to consider a proposal made by the leader of the Opposition, to the effect that there might be conflict of the different sets of regulations. Section 10 of the Bill provides for regulations to be made regarding appeals from the appeal tribunal to the central appeal, and those regulations must be made initially by the central appeal judge and approved by the Governor in Council. All regulations not made by the Governor in Council are approved by the Governor in Council, and, consequently, we are responsible for all the regulations made. Clause 12 provides for regulations that are made initially by the Governor in Council, and inasmuch as subclause (c) refers to the question of procedure on appeal, it was urged that it should go rather into section 10. The difficulty in meeting the suggestion exactly is that section 10 deals with the appeal tribunal and appeals from it, and, consequently, the whole of paragraph
(c)	would be rather inappropriate there, but it is fully met by an amendment which I now propose-that the words .''on the recommendation of the central appeal judge" be inserted before the first words of paragraph (c), subsection 1, section 12. It will then read:
On the recommendation of the Central Appeal Judge prescribe the conditions as to time or otherwise under which applications for certificates may be made, deferred applications received, appeals entered and heard and re-hearing had, and prescribe forms.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I do not understand clearly when a man may appeal. Is it after he registers? Supposing a man answers the call, comes in and registers his name, does he then make his appeal?


Arthur Meighen: The better word would be " report." There is no registration. He reports, as required by the proclamation under section 4. The local tribunal will, I think, sit before the date for reporting at all, and those desiring exemption will present their case to the local tribunals, and if they are aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal, they will enter their appeal at once, or at such time as the regulations provide, and send it to the registrar of the province, and, perhaps, the appeals will be all over by the date of reporting, and if the appeals are not concluded, he will be considered as on leave of absence, without

pay, until the appeal is decided. If it is decided against him, it is his duty to report.


Wilfrid Laurier: As soon as a man receives notice that he is enlisted, he must at once take advantage of the exemption provision, and send his application to the provincial register, saying,
" I claim exemption."


Arthur Meighen: The proclamation will state that the tribunal will sit to hear applications for exemption at such-and-such a place. Then, if you claim exemption, you go to one of these points where the tribunal sits, and make out your case. If it is against you and you wish to appeal, send the notice of appeal to the registrar, or hand it in to the tribunal, and the tribunal will forward it to the registrar, if the regulations so prescribe. At any rate, a notice of appeal should go to the registrar, as 'soon as the adverse decision is given by the local tribunal.


Wilfrid Laurier: He can make his application when he is notified.


Arthur Meighen: He can make it as soon as the tribunal sits.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the proclamation is issued putting in force this Act, the various classes are conscripted, ipso facto.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the proclamation is issued, those who are liable under the Act are conscripted.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know about that.	1


Rodolphe Lemieux: They need not register, but they are conscripted by law, unless they get exemption from the tribunal to which they must address themselves. Suppose I am conscripted by this law, the moment the proclamation is made by the Governor General, if I wish to be exempted, I address myself to the tribunal, go before them, and the tribunal may exempt me.


Arthur Meighen: The proclamation
bringing the Act into force does not call out any men at all. There must be a subsequent proclamation under section 4, which calls out a class of men, and the moment that issues all men in that class are soldiers, and it is their duty then, if they wish exemption, to go to the tribunals, which will sit on the day named and at the place mentioned in the proclamation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they called individually?


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is just a proclamation that such a class by proclamation are liable to service?


Charles Marcil: What is the meaning of these words?
And any person aggrieved by the decision of a local tribunal and any person authorized by the Minister of Militia and Defence may appeal against any such decision.
If they are not satisfied with the decision of the local board, must an authorization be obtained from the minister before an appeal can be registered?


Arthur Meighen: No, there is an absolute right to appeal.


Charles Marcil: Section 10 provides that
any person aggrieved by the decision of a [DOT]local tribunal, or any person authorized by the Minister of Militia, may appeal.


Arthur Meighen: Any person aggrieved
may appeal; that is absolute. Any one authorized by the minister may appeal; that is the other eide of the case. In a word, either side may appeal.


Charles Avila Wilson: As- my hon. friend knows, in the Criminal Code provision is made as to the time within which appeal may be made. Would it not be proper to embody in this Bill a provision as to the time within which appeal may be made from the decision of the local tribunal? If regulation in that respect is made by Order in Council, the House will not have a word to say about it.
Mr. MEIGHEN; Anything as to the period within which appeal may be lodged will be clearly set out in the proclamation itself, which will be published everywhere.


Charles Avila Wilson: Why not put it in
the law?


Arthur Meighen: There would be just
the same reason for working into the Bill all the other details of the law. The principles of the machinery of the Act are all here; the rest, which is mere detail, could not be embodied in the Act. There nsver was an Act of this kind in which such details were embodied. As a matter of fact, the proportion of work left to regulation is infinitely greater in the Mi'itia Act than it is in this Act.


John Allister Currie: I have had' inquiries by
letter whether a man will be allowed to be (represented by counsel before these tribunals. Will the Solicitor General inform me on this point?


Arthur Meighen: The Bill does not say
yes or no. The Bill leaves it to regulations formulated by the Central Appeal Judge, for this reason: It was the general feeling that persons acting as counsel should not be heard before the local tribunals. It was felt, however, that in certain cases coming before the local or appeal tribunals there might otherwise be hardship, and the matter was left open to regulation to be framed by the central appeal judge.


John Allister Currie: If the regulations that are to be laid down follow the customary military regulations, then persons will not be allowed to have or be represented, by counsel.


Arthur Meighen: I believe that is correct.


John Allister Currie: Then, unless there is a direct-


An hon. MEMBER:: This is not a military Bill.


John Allister Currie: Excuse me, it is a military Bill and will be dealt with almost entirely by military men. If the judges who frame these regulations follow military rule, they will not permit the employment of counsel. I think, therefore, that some provision should be put in to allow a man to have counsel.


Arthur Meighen: If the precedent of military courts is followed, I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman is right. But those having charge of the framing of the regulations would not be obliged to follow military precedent, because while this is a military Bill, the tribunals are civil tribunals administered by the Minister of Justice under civil law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do I understand that when the proclamation is issued the men do not have to report to anybody?


Arthur Meighen: The proclamation will fix a day for reporting, and they have to report on that day.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To whom?


Arthur Meighen: To whomsoever is named in the proclamation. I assume that there will be hundreds of places at which to report.
T'Mr. Meighen.]


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The men so called out, shall report and if they desire exemption they may appeal to the tribunals. Will the tribunals be set :up before the issuance of the proclamations?


Arthur Meighen: Before the date of the reporting, I think.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They will be mentioned in the proclamation?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The men do not report to the tribunals?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They appeal to the tribunals only for exemption?


Arthur Meighen: That is all. From the records kept of reports and appeals we shall be able to get what is, in effect, a full registration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I understand the machinery of this Bill, it is as follows: The Bill becomes law by proclamation. Then another proclamation issues, fixing the time and place of reporting. Then the local tribunals are set in motion; they are established by proclamation at different points throughout the country. Those who seek exemption will go before these local tribunals, which will pass upon each case as speedily as possible. Then there may be an appeal from the Minister of Militia or from the parties seeking exemption; that appeal goes before the appeal tribunals. Then there may be another appeal from that higher court to the central authority, and when the central authority has made its decision, the man is exempt or must report for the fulfilment of his duty. I understand the central authority will be a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. Has the Government selected a judge to fill that position?


Arthur Meighen: I am not in a position to state who that person will be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that a man seeking exemption can do so orally or in writing, in the briefest form possible. He may or may not be represented by counsel before the local or the appeal tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: According as the regulations set out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This will be set out in the proclamations or regulations issued? .Mr. MEIGHEN: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To whom will the appeals be sent if written?


Arthur Meighen: To the registrar. It
may be that provision will be made for the leaving of the appeals with the local tribunals, by whom they will be forwarded to the registrar. They must, however, reach the registrar, who allocates them for hearing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: While the appeal is being determined,' the applicant goes back to his ordinary employment?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


John Allister Currie: In every other conscription measure, provision is made as to where and to whom the conscripts must report. Provision is made for the enrolment and registration of the men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That will be done by proclamation.


John Allister Currie: I do not see what merit there is in omitting that provision from the Bill. I have been told that the purpose was to enable the tribunals to sit on the eases before the men were enrolled. What does it matter when the men are enrolled? In France the conscript reports to the clerk of the commune. In Canada, under the Militia Act, a man is supposed to report to some local militia officer, but if we follow this regulation we will find that we have no local militia officers left who can be called upon to perforin that service.
The militia of Canada, with the exception of four or five battalions, is all at the war. The other battalions are virtually denuded of officers. Perhaps there may be a lame lieutenant who cannot pass for overseas service. There are in the country no available officers whom you can utilize to go to those centres to take the men's names and attest them.


Mr. COPP:: There have come back from England some officers who are not doing anything.


John Allister Currie: There are not many of them altogether, and there would not be nearly enough of them for the work. I suppose the hon. member may know some in his county. He knows something about the militia there. There are no officers left to take charge; they are all either on overseas service or out of the service altogether.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Some from my province are in England doing nothing.


John Allister Currie: There are some on the opposite side of the House who have never gone to the war, and who are still drawing very large pay as members of this House,
211j
whilst all the other members belonging to-the Expeditionary Force are off the payroll and attending to their duties in this House. As in the greater portion of Canada there are no militia officers left to look after this work, civilian officials would have to be appointed, and for that reason I cannot see that there is any merit in evading in this Bill what is in every other Bill. I would like to know what was in the mind of the Solicitor General when, in drafting the Bill, he did not make some special provision as to whom the men should report to, for instance, the mayor, or the clerk of a municipality, or somebody of that kind. The Bill does not state to whom the men are to report, and it would help in the administration of the Bill if that point were clearly laid down.


Arthur Meighen: All that was in my mind was that there was no need of encumbering the Bill with a list of several hundred persons and places


John Allister Currie: That is not necessary.


Arthur Meighen: -to whom and at which men should report. That wd'l all be fixed by the militia authorities. There may be difficulty in getting such persons. I know the country is pretty well denuded of militia officers and men, but the Minister of Militia believes suitable men can be secured, and of course, suitable (places will not be hard to find. They will be set out in the proclamation.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The officers are supposed to keep a list of the men who report to them?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. By means of the tribunals before whom all who get exemptions will have to have gone and their records, and by means of the 'reporting officers to whom the men report and tlheir records, we shall have a register of every one, and I have not been able to see hoiw we oan either ease the work or add to the efficiency by duplicating that by a separate registration.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The only selection is
really by the exemptions?


Arthur Meighen: That is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the Bill at all. The Bill says that everybody who is notified is a soldier and remains a soldier until exempted.


Arthur Meighen: I (thought the hlon.
member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said that the real selection was by

the exemptions. Tihat is the case. The selection is made by the exemptions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Tlhe Bill says that everybody -who is notified is >a soldier. If he can be exempted, that is all right; if he cannot be exempted, he remains a soldier. There is good ground for the -suggestion made by the hon. member for North *Sim-ooe (Mr. Currie). If a man is a soldier, to whom is he to report?


Arthur Meighen: The same notice that
tells him he is a -soldier will tell him where he is to report.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When the Solicitor General w-as answering 1a question put by the hon. member for North Simcoe in regard to allowing counsel to appear before the different tribunals, did I understand ihim aright to s-ay that this was -a matter that was left to the regulations to be -made by the Central Appeal Judge?
Mr. MEIGHEN; Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did I also understand him to -say that all the -regulations made by the Central Appeal Judge were subject to the approval of the Governor in Council?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Amendment to section 12 -agreed to.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. On section 14-burden of proof:


Arthur Meighen: I move that this clause be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
If in any prosecution under this Act any question shall arise in respect of the matters hereinafter mentioned the burden of proof shall be upon the person charged to establish by satisfactory evidence-
(a) that he does not come within any specified class palled out;
(h) that he has duly reported in accordance with section 4 ;
(c)	that he comes within any of the exceptions set out in the schedule hereto;
(d)	that he has been duly exempted under the provisions of section 11.
And in the absence of such evidence the contrary shall he conclusively presumed.
This is much the same as the original section, but I think better expressed. It will be apparent at a glance that the proof in each case would he very readily at hand on the part of the person charged, but would be practically impossible for the prosecution to secure. For instance, the fact of -a man not coming within the class alleged de-
pends upon his age, and whether he is a British subject. Now, he knows his age; that ean he very easily established, -but it would be a very difficult matter for the prosecution to establish. With regard to coming within the exceptions, it is a principle -very frequently adopted in law that the exception must he proved by the party claiming it. Again, it is very easy for a man to prove that he has been exempted by producing a certificate, -but it would be very difficult for the prosecution to show that he had not been exempted. The burden of proof is also -on the person charged to show that he has reported-. If the bruden of proof was on the Crown they -might have to search the records of every reporting office in Canada, but the man can prove it very easily by producing evidence of it. So I think it is not only fair, but necessary, that the clause should read as amended.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will a man be given a certificate to show that he has reported?


Arthur Meighen: Very likely he will. I think they are always given a certificate on enlistment. But even if a man is not given a certificate showing that he has reported his own evidence would be proof of it, whereas to establish the negative would be practically impossible.


Frank Oliver: This provision applies, I suppose, to the case of men who desire to he exempted on the ground that by reason of age they do not belong to the class called up. In a country like ours with so large a portion of our population coming from other countries, and where there is so much moving about on the part of our people, it may be very difficult for a man to produce proof of his age. Has that been taken into consideration, and what steps will be taken to meet that condition?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is not,
I think, quite right in his idea that exemption is in any way related to this question. A man would not be able to go to a tribunal and say: "I, am not in that class at all; therefore, give me a certificate of exemption." If he believes that he is not in the class called, he should not go to the tribunal at all, but simply stay at home. Then if he should be prosecuted he would come and give the best evidence of his age that he could, and however difficult it might be for him to show his exact age, it would be infinitely more difficult for the Crown to show what his age was. He will be in the possession of the best evidence that is procurable, whatever that evidence mav be.


Frank Oliver: That latter instance is what I had in mind. I am sure the minister will appreciate the difficulty that a very large part of the population of our western coun-; try would have in establishing their age before a tribunal. I do not know whether it is possible to make a provision recognizing that difficulty, which is peculiar to our country and did not exist in any degree in England.


Arthur Meighen: To a great many it would be very, very difficult to establish their age. But this must be remembered; they will try to sbow their age not before any tribunal we are establishing but before the regular courts-before the magistrate or county court judge in appeal, as the case may be-because that is where any prosecution would take place at which they would have to show their age. While they, might not be able there to show their exact age, still they would be able to give much evidence as would persuade the judge one way or the other, and if he was of the opinion that the man was really outside of the class called up I have no doubt that on the ordinary principles of law he would say: "That is a reasonable excuse, anyway," and the man would not be punished.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose that A is called up but is really not in the class. He would have to furnish the best evidence he could that he was not of the age called up. In our province the best evidence would be a certificate of birth, and that costs something like a dollar. I know that from personal experience, because not very long ago I was asked by an insurance company with whom I had carried a policy for several years, to renew the evidence of my age, and I had to go to the registry office and get a birth certificate and pay for it. Where there are many young men in a community, quite a number of these certificates would be obtained from the registry office. Who is going to pay the costs?


Arthur Meighen: That is not provided for. While the production of certificates might be, I might say, final evidence, Still it is not the only evidence. A parent may swear to his son's age, and that is very strong, if not final evidence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that this Bill will be reprinted.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
On proposed new section 16-penalties:


Arthur Meighen: I move that paragraph 1 of the new section 16 should he the following:
Any person who comes within any of the classes set out in section 3. and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or regulations made thereunder, for which contraventions no other penalty is herein provided, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500, or to imprisonment for a term of not less than one month nor more than twelve months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
It will be observed that in this section as transcribed in Hansard the word "or" appears after "contraventions," and the word "and" appears after "$500." The word "or" should be "no," and the word "and" should be "or."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand it, under this Act the penalty is always fine and imprisonment.


Arthur Meighen: I think that would be the effect, as it reads.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does not the minister think that "not less than $100" is a very severe penalty for what may be a very trivial offence? There are a great many provisions in this Act, and a person may inadvertently transgress in a small way. If the court is obliged to say that he is found guilty of any offence under the Act, there is no alternative but to fine him $100 or more. It seems to me that is rather severe. I have always been opposed to those minimum sentences. I think there should be discretion left to the courts.


Arthur Meighen: Of course this is the first time the clause has been before the committee, and the Government will be very glad to hear the views of hon. members on the question of the minimum fine.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my judgment there is much more than that. This paragraph is most drastic. I do not believe it is possible to find in any law anything so vague, so general, and so severe. There are special penalties provided in the Act for specific offences. I have two in mind at the moment, but there are others. A man who neglects to report is liable to a fine, and a man who has not a certificate to exhibit to a peace officer is liable to a fine. Of course, I cannot find fault with the principle that there should be penalties for specific offences, but here is a penalty of $100 and an imprisonment of twelve months for a contravention of something which is not defined in the Act. Read it again, Mr. Chairman, and I will leave it to the common sense and fairness of both sides of the House. What contravention is here contemplated You have specific offences already provided for. but here is a vague

enactment that if any one contravenes something which is not defined he is liable to a fine and imprisonment. That is not fair or right; it is not justice. I cannot imagine what contravention is here contemplated, which would subject a man to a fine of $100 and imprisonment for twelve months besides.


Arthur Meighen: That is not at all an unusual type of section in a Bill. I am sure my right hon. friend will remember other Bills where a general clause is inserted providing against infractions not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I have in mind a clause in the Criminal Code, which is even a great deal more general than this. I think it was passed under my right hon. friend's Government, but of that I >am not sure. It says that any one contravening any of a certain class of laws not mentioned in the Code shall be liable to a certain penalty.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is disobedience of a statute.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly. Such contravention renders a man guilty of an offence, and the punishment is set out. A more extreme case than that can scarcely be conceived. It does not even say what the statute is.


Robert Laird Borden: It includes the provincial statutes.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asks me what is the offence contemplated. There is no special offence contemplated, but by reference to section. 12 it will be seen that the Governor in Council has power to make regulations to secure the full effective and expeditious operation and enforcement of the Act. Under paragraph 2, subsection 1, they may appoint such peace officers, or other officers, and give them such powers, and impose on them such duties as may be deemed necessary. Under subsection (g) they may prescribe penalties for peace officers or other officers appointed under the authority of the Act, who are convicted of neglect or refusal to perform duty without reasonable excuse. They may not only prescribe penalties for refusing to perform the duty, but may also make regulations binding on the men who come within these classes.
They may make duties in connection with reporting on the nature of their exemptions, etc. But it is well to have a general clause covering it. I am not insisting on the $100 minimum; in fact, I was impressed by the

suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that there might be quite a trivial offence, and that it would be well to make the minimum fine much smaller.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend's arguments confirm my objection. I can well understand that power can be given to the Government to make regulations under this Act, and, following the example set forth in paragraph (g), subsection 11, section 12, prescribe penalties which would be in accordance with the offences created by the rule. I have no objection, no one has any objection, to this paragraph (g), subsection 1, section 12, which reads:
Prescribe penalties for peace officers or other officers appointed under the authority of this Act, who are convicted of neglect or refusal to perform duty without reasonable excuse.
If regulations were made by the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council could provide penalties in accordance with the offences. The regulations may provide for punishment for neglect of a duty which is of a trivial nature, and then impose a penalty in accordance with that trivial offence. But here you provide a double penalty of $100 and imprisonment besides for an offence which is in the air, breach of a regulation which has not been made. The regulation may be absolutely trivial, and for the breach of that trivial regulation you have a double penalty of such a grievous character as this.


Robert Laird Borden: Why a double penalty?


Wilfrid Laurier: It provides for imprisonment or fine or both. It is an extraordinary penalty for an offence that may be most trivial. Let the Government take power to make regulations and to make penalties to suit 'them, but let them not make a penalty and then make the offence afterwards.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt that the specific nature of the offence is not stated in this section, but no man will be charged, nor will he be subject to be tried, for a general statement of contravention of this statute; when he comes to be charged he will be charged with some specific thing which it will be on the prosecutor to show was a contravention of this statute, or of such regulations as may be made.
As to the wide nature of the penalty, as the Solicitor General said, I quite appre-

&321
*eiate that it may be desirable to make the minimum lower than is fixed here; but *within the limit so prescribed it will be ithe function of the court to make the punishment fit the crime, and it is precisely because there may be varying degrees of ..gravity that we give this wide margin of punishment. No obligation is imposed upon the court, for any one of these contraventions that may arise, to impose the maximum penalty, but there may be contraventions of such gravity as to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty. Surely we are not exposing anybody who may he .guilty of violation of this Act to any undue consequence when we are leaving him in the hands of the court to appreciate the .gravity of his offence, and, within the limit ,fixed, to impose a penalty that may be suitably applicable to the particular offence.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Up to $100 you leave
the court no decision.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to that I think there will be no difficulty about reducing that minimum penalty. I havie no .objection to ^saying that it may be fixed at $10. Even in cases where specific eases are dealt with, the courts are given in most instances, a wide margin of discretion; you cannot determine the gravity of any particular violation in advance. You may have the same technical violation of the law committed under circumstances where the *court would impose a trivial sentence and under other circumstances where the court *would feel called upon to inflict a serious penalty. It is for that reason that we give the court this wide discretion. It is a most usual provision. I know of oases where one man has been sent down for fourteen years and another man for one month for what was technically the same offence. It seems to me that we would have been more open to criticism if we had asked for an indiscriminate power, on our own authority, to fix any penalty or punishment, without limit. This is a section which has been mentioned as being contained in the Criminal Code, 164:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who, without lawful excuse, disobeys any Act of the Parliament of Canada or of any Legislature in Canada by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless some penalty or other mode of punishment is expressly provided by law.
Here we have a penalty provided^ for any violation of any law of the Dominion of Canada or of any province thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: More than, that, of any law that any province may make in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that an example to be followed?


Robert Laird Borden: It is my right
hen. friend's example.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, not mine.
I have sins enough, but not this one May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) if he can suggest what contravention of this Act has not already been provided for by penalty? There are already six or seven different penalties in the Bill, and what is there left which is to be covered 'by this penalty?


Arthur Meighen: Suppose that in the
regulations certain duties were imposed ,on the man reporting; that is to say, as to how long he should remain at the office, or as to his duties during that time._ If a ' man were to report all right, but did not obey the balance of the regulations, there would he no penalty provided under the Act as it stands. No penalty could be provided under subsection, 9 of section 12; there-would be no way of punishing a man under it.
M,r. OLIVER:	The question simply
seems to be the imposition of a minimum penalty.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the
amount should be fixed at $10, and that the minimum, imprisonment be cut out.
Mr. LEMIE'UX:	Can the bon. minister
give a concrete case?


Arthur Meighen: I just gave one to my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. member repeat it?


Arthur Meighen: The regulation made in pursuance of this Act, under the authority of section 12, will necessarily impose duties upon men reporting in a class. It may impose duties on them in respect of their applications for exemption, should they moke any, or in respect of their reporting. I exemplified the duties, namely that they should remain a certain number of days, and hoiw they shall conduct themselves, and so on. If a man fails to report he comes under -another section, and is liable. Supposing he reports and fails to carry out the other provisions of the regulations, and so gets out of hand before he is placed on active service, there is no


Arthur Meighen: But in case where he
does report, and before being placed on active service, does not comply with the regulations.
Sir WI-LFRID LAURIER: Then he comes *under the Militia Act, .and there are numerous ways of enforcing discipline.
, Mr. MEIGHEN: But these remedies cannot be enforced till he is placed on active service.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is placed on active service as .soon afteT reporting as can be arranged. The words are " he shall report and shall be placed." But if men report at one time, they cannot be placed at the moment, and there should be .some regulation covering their case. Until they are so placed they do not come under the Army Act, iand consequently some penalty has to be imposed.


Frank Oliver: For the information of
the House, I will read the following provision in the United States Act.
Any person charged as herein provided with the duty of carrying into effect any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations made or directions given thereunder who shall fail or neglect to perform such duty; and any person charged with such duty or having and exercising any authority under said Act, regulations, or directions, who shall knowingly make or be a party to the making of any false or incorrect registration, physical examination, exemption, enlistment, enrollment, or muster; and any person who shall make or be a party to the making of any false statement or certificate as to the fitness or liability of himself or any other person for service under the provisions of this Act, or regulations made by the President thereunder, or otherwise evades or aids another to evyie the requirements of this Act or of said regulations, or who, in any manner, shall fail or neglect fully to perform any duty required of him in the execution of this Act, shall, if not subject to military law, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, or, if subject to military law, shall be tried by court-martial and suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct.
It will be observed that the principle in this Act is that there is no rmnirniu.ni punishment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will quote something better than the Act. I will quote [Mr. Meighen.j
the :hon. ministers own Bill, that a man is .a soldier enlisted the moment the proclamation issues.


George Perry Graham: Hear, 'hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Clause 4 reads:
4. (1) The Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation call out on active service as aforesaid for the defence of Canada, either in Canada or beyond Canada, any class or subclass of men described in section three and all men within the class or subclass so called out shall, from the date of such proclamation, [DOT] be deemed to be soldiers enlisted in the Military Forces of Canada and subject to military law for the duration of the present war, and of demobilization thereafter, save as hereinafter provided.


Arthur Meighen: That is quite true.


Wilfrid Laurier: And, therefore, the man would be liable to punishment.


Arthur Meighen: They are soldiers in
such a case and subject to military law. but we impose penalties on them while they are soldiers, for example, for not reporting. We enable penalties to be imposed on them by this provision, if, though they may report, still they consider they are not in the National Service, or in the hands of the military authorities, and commit an offence. If there is no offence the statute can dp no harm. I appeal to the clause read by the hon. gentleman from Edmonton, which is in exact spirit with this clause, but much wider.


Frank Oliver: But there is no minimum penalty; that is the point.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite agreeable
that there should be no minimum penalty as to imprisonment. In the United States they have no fine. We have a provision for a fine, and I do not think we should permit the magistrate to make it less than $10, because that would be enabling men to utterly evade the Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think $10 is far too high. I wish to point out to the Solicitor General that the policy of the criminal law in Canada is to inflict no minimum penalty.
If the hon. gentleman will run through the Criminal Code, he will find that the offender is liable to such and such penalty. He is liable to be fined the whole amount ot any small part of it. I cannot recall any case where the imposition of a minimum penalty is made obligatory under the Code.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The case which comes to my mind is the offence of stealing from the mail, for which offence a man must be sentenced to three years imprisonment, and

no less. I am quite satisfied there are others.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a grave and serious offence. We are dealing with minor offences. Stealing from the mail is one of the most serious offences dealt with by the Code, hut hon. gentlemen opposite always have the happy faculty of passing off anything on us that may appear to have gone through this Parliament when we were in power. One of the things of which the Conservative party in the country is proud -and they have reason to be proud

is that the Right Hon. Sir John Thompson was the father of the Criminal Code, and we always gave him credit for it, so that the Liberals are not responsible for anything found in the Code. But they throw the Code at us and say, " This thing is in the Code, and so you cannot complain of it." Although we are not responsible for the paternity of the Code, we are proud of some parts of it, and have no cause to find fault with many of its provisions. If my hon. friend will run through the provisions ol the Code with reference to assault, which sometimes are of a grave character, he will find that provision is made for a fine not exceeding $20. The Code does not say it must be $5 or $6, but simply says a fine not exceeding $20, or imprisonment not exceeding three months. It tapers to nothing, on the one hand, and may go as high as $20, for the gravest kind of assault on the other hand. I submit the question can be left to the discretion of the court, up to a certain amount. I am not very particular as to what the maximum will be, but I think it will be safe to leave it to the discretion of the judge, as to whether it will he one, two. or ten dollars. I submit that, for a trivial offence, the judge's hands should not be tied, and it should not be compulsory for him to impose as high a fine as $10.
Mr. MEIGHEN. I think we had better retain the $10 minimum. This is a very grave law, and it seems to me we had better take care that it cannot be violated with practical impunity, to the slightest extent.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is insisting, as against my contentions, that we should trust those whom we place in charge of the administration of the law. I am now asking that he himself have that confidence in those who administer the law.


Arthur Meighen: There is no question
about trusting them, but if we leave the penalty without a minimum it will hold out to the violator of -the law the prospect of getting off without punishment. An hour in jail is a great disgrace; a fine of fifty cents is not a disgrace. If it is left the way I suggest, the offender has no prospect of getting off without a fairly substantial penalty. While we have every confidence in the judiciary, it will be of assistance in the administration of the law if we point out to all who contemplate its contravention that they will be liable to substantial punishment.


Wilfrid Laurier: Any .offender
in this case would be young men without knowledge or experience, who might violate the law unwittingly. Under such circumstances a nominal fine and a lecture from . the judge would be the best punishment and the most likely to produce good results.


Mr. J. A. DESCARRIES (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I concur with the honourable members who have preceded me in asking the (government not to make $10 the minimum fine. As it was previously stated, the first called under this Act will be young men of twenty and over. Many of them without experience in life, may commit offences through thoughtlessness, not appreciating the seriousness of these offences. A great many young men of twenty, under age and moneyless, will certainly not have the sum of $10, which is the fine that the judge will have to enforce. Consequently, I think that it is proper that honourable gentlemen should urge on the Government the desirability of not fixing any minimum fine, but that the matter shall be left to the judgment of the magistrate who will decide upon whatever fine he will see fit according to the seriousness of the offence committed.


Edmond Proulx: In view of the fact that these complaints will come before magistrates, I am of the opinion that no minimum penalty should 'be stated; the matter should fee left to the discretion of the magistrates.


Mr. KYTE:: I assume that a certificate
of infirmity or ill-health might be accepted iby the tribunal as evidence of a man's unfitness. Is it intended to provide in the Act a penalty for the issuing of a false certificate, such as is provided in the United States Act?	.


Arthur Meighen: It would appear to me that one of the objections to putting in a penalty would be this:	It would indicate
that a certificate from a physician would be evidence to a tribunal that they should exempt a man. It is likely that the regulations would provide for exemption in cases where it was absolutely proved that the man in question could not come before the tribunal or, having come before it, was crippled or otherwise disabled and could not possibly become a soldier. We do not want to indicate to local tribunals that a physician's certificate is sufficient to enable them to exempt a man. However, I do not give that as a final reason why there should be no such penalty; it appears to me a substantial objection to there being one.


George William Kyte: The regulations to be drafted by the proper authorities for the conduct of these examinations might I assume, provide for the acceptance of a certificate of that kind. Is it not desirable, therefore, that 6ome penalty should be provided for the issuing of a false certificate or the making of an incorrect examination?


Robert Laird Borden: Is that point
not covered by the following provision of the Bill:
Any person who, for the purpose of obtaining a certificate or a condition in a certificate for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining the renewal, variation or withdrawal of a certificate, makes any false statement or representation, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months with or without hard labour.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that not as against the person applying?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it is in reference to a person obtaining a certificate for himself or for any other person.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand it, that reaches not the man who issues the false certificate, but the man who makes a false statement in order to get it.


Arthur Meighen: To get a certificate of exemption for some one else he issues a false statement which is his medical certificate. In that case he is clearly liable to the provisions of that section. I did not have that section in mind when I answered the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the effect of subsection 3 of the section we are now considering? Would it not take away the right of appeal? It is not very clear.


Arthur Meighen: I think that we had better proceed to subsection 2 now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection 3 does not in any way affect prosecutions taken before the courts for violations. It applies to the proceedings of the tribunals established under this Act; that is, the tribunals that deal with exemptions. But if a prosecution be brought against a man for violation of this Act, he will go to the ordinary court, if it is not a case of summary conviction or indictment, and he will be tried in the ordinary way for the offence. Subsection 3 says that no proceeding authorized or Pending before any of the tribunals provided for by this Act and no decision of any such tribunal shall be removed by means of injunction.
The subsection goes on to provide:
Nor shall any such proceeding or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered, collaterally in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal.
That is merely to keep within the hands of the tribunals established by this Act the decision of the questions submitted to them, but when the matter comes to a question of prosecuting a man for violating this Act, the tribunals provided by this Act are not going to try that. The ordinary courts of the country will try it.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 2 of proposed new section 16:
(2) Any person who by means of any written or oral communication or by any public speech or utterance advises, urges of advocates that the men or any of the men mentioned or Intended to be described or included in any of the classes hereinbefore mentioned shall contravene, disobey or refuse, neglect or fail to comply with all or any of the requirements imposed upon them by this Act or by regulations made thereunder or who wilfully resists, obstructs, hinders or impedes or attempts wilfully to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede, or persuades, induces or influences, or attempts to persuade, induce or influence any person or any body or class of persons to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede the due execution of this Act in any respect according to its true intent and purpose or for the purpose of obstructing, hindering or impeding the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption under this Act or the evidence available in support thereof, or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than five years.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend forgotten anything in that subsec-

tiou? Is there any possible offence that he has not reached by it?


Arthur Meighen: I hope no serious offence has been overlooked.


Frank Oliver: From what source has my hon. friend derived the suggestion for this section?	-


Arthur Meighen: Just from the ordinary and very common fund of intelligence that I have.


Charles Marcil: Is this provision taken
from the British Act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the American
Act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the German Act? Mr. MEIGHEN: No.


George Perry Graham: From the Acts of the
Apostles?


Charles Marcil: ' If this provision is not in the British Act, what is the object of inserting it in this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: I observed some threats that action would be taken to destroy the usefulness of the Act. That suggested it to me.


Charles Marcil: The Solicitor General is surely not acting on mere hearsay?


Arthur Meighen: We will not act on hearsay, unless it is carried into effect.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is a part of the subsection:
Anybody who hinders or impedes the due execution of this Act in any respect according to its true intent and purpose or for the purpose of obstructing, hindering, or impeding the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption under this Act or the evidence available in support thereof.
If anybody advises a young man: Do not go before the tribunal to claim your exemption, he is liable to imprisonment.


Arthur Meighen: No. This assumes the claim is made.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. (Reading):
To abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunal claims for exemption under this Act.
That refers to a man who advises anybody not to submit to the proper tribunals.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The right hon. gentleman should read the definition of the offence in its entirety. It is the purpose for which that is done that makes 9 p.m. the act an offence. There is no offence in a man advising anybody not to go before a tribunal. To make it an offence, there must be evidence in the manner of doing it that the advice is given for the purpose of opposing or defying the Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who will go and advise somebody not to claim exemption, and who will follow that advice if it is given by some one? Suppose anybody says to a young man: Do not claim exemption. If he does not, what will be the objection? The young man will remain a soldier. Is there any offence in that?


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend might see that advice of this character is given to the young men: You are entitled to exemption; you are not entitled to exemption; those of you who are clearly entitled to exemption must not make your claim before the tribunals because, if you do so, you will recognize the Act, and it is the intention not to recognize the Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the man does not claim exemption he is a soldier. If he claims exemption and does not get it, he is a soldier.


Robert Laird Borden: The man who advises is liable in any case.


Wilfrid Laurier: If such a thing is an offence, I wonder who will commit it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do the words "in the administration of this Act" qualify the word "embarrass", or the next sentence?


Arthur Meighen: It qualifies the word "embarrass."


Edmond Proulx: Should a minimum term of imprisonment be fixed in this case? It seems to be a large power to put into the hands of a magistrate to permit him to impose a sentence of one year, perhaps on' insufficient evidence?


Arthur Meighen: I think in this case a minimum will have to be fixed. We must make it very clear that any attempt to flout or to defy the law of the land in this particular, which has to do with protecting the existence of the State, will be met with a sufficient, and indeed with a very substantial punishment, and there is no hope upon conviction of any escape.


George Perry Graham: I come back to what the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)

asks. Men of journalistic occupation have had experience with the so-called censorship, and some very foolish letters have been written to publishers; in fact, at one time some of the letters practically admonished the newspapers that they must not criticise the Government, lest their doing so might interfere with certain work which ordinary men did not think had anything to do with the matter at all. If the same rule were to be applied and the same judgment exercised here, then a public speaker would be subject, under this Act, to a penalty if he criticised the Minister of Justice, for example, in this way. Under this Act, the Minister of Justice can, under certain circumstances, appoint by wire a member of a certain tribunal. Suppose, on the recommendation of some person, the Minister of Justice recommended for that position a man not fully competent. If the same wisdom is to be used in the interpretation of this Act as has been used in some of the censorship letters, then a criticism of the Minister of Justice for making that appointment would be embarrassing him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Criticism never embarrasses me.


George Perry Graham: But the minister's Government is here passing a law to make it a crime to criticise him.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


George Perry Graham: If, in administering this Act, the same judgment is used that has been used during the past few months in regard to the censorship, then the Act would make it a crime to criticise the Minister of Justice for making, for the carrying out of this Act, an appointment which was an improper appointment. Perhaps legally I am wrong, but to the layman this statute on the face of it seems to be going very far afield in order to make an offence out of criticism which is perfectly legitimate, and which a public man must make, if he is to perform his duty.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman forgets that the purpose is of the essence of the offence. The purpose must be to impede the operation of this Act.


George Perry Graham: It does not say so in connection with this.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, all that applies. I have never heard of any censorship of criticism of public men.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Le -Canada, of -Montreal, which criticised the appointment of a cer-
tain military official in that city, was notified, if my information is correct, that if it did not cease its attacks it would immediately be suppressed.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member had better check his information up.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the hon. member deny that to be a fact?


Arthur Meighen: I have not -heard of it at all, and I think I should have if it had been a fact.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the hon. member does not deny it. r


Arthur Meighen: No. I do not know anything about it. I think I should -have heard of it if it_were correct.


George Perry Graham: I do not need to have my information checked, because I know whereof T speak, and I say now that if the same wisdom, or lack of wisdom, were displayed in the enforcement of this Act as was displayed in the correspondence with some newspaper men in regard to the censorship, then a man who criticised such appointments as I have indicated would be guilty of an offence under this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not entirely a stranger to the drafting of this section.


Wilfrid Laurier: Better not
boast of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no apologies to make. I have given it -some thought, and I think it would be absolutely impossible for it to cover criticism of what the minister did. It says:-
Any person who by means of any writing or oral communication flr by any public speech or utterance advises, urges or advocates that the men or any of the men mentioned or intended to be described or included in any of the classes hereinbefore mentioned shall contravene, disobey or refuse, neglect or fail to comply with all or any of the requirements imposed upon them by this Act or by regulations made thereunder or who wilfully resists, obstructs, hinders or impedes or attempts wilfully to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede, or persuades, induces or influences, or attempts to persuade, induce or influence any person or any body or class of persons to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede the due execution of this Act in any respect according to its true intent and purpose or for the purpose of obstructing, hindering or impeding the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption under this Act or the evidence available in support thereof or in any manner whatsoever-
-tries to induce people to embarrass the Government or the minister in the admin-

istration of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be guilty of an offence.


George Perry Graham: My hon. Mend in reading the clause introduced the word " induce " on 'has account.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All that is governed by the word " induces " in the earlier part of the clause. The whole paragraph,
-or for the purpose of obstructing, hindering or impeding the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption under this Act or the evidence available in support thereof or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government-
[DOT]-is governed by the phrase " persuades, induces ox influences, or attempts to persuade, induce ox influence any person or anybody ox class of persons to resist." We have tried to make it perfectly clear that the people who ATe wanted to he got at by this section are those who, I think everybody will agree, should be visited with condign punishment. This section is not aimed at, and does not strike at, the man liable to conscription, but it does strike at those who axe standing behind with no obligations of their own and with their skins perfectly safe, they may imagine. We have had a good deal of pronouncement, not only of desire but of full intention to make this an unworkable Act. This section is framed to strike at those who try to induce other people to hinder, and at those who do hinder the operation of this Act after iit has been duly enacted and come into force. To my mind that is an exceedingly grave offence; and, to suggest, because we are trying to .prevent that exceedingly grave offence-and wording the section so as to make it perfectly clear, in my humble judgment, whom it is intended to hit at-that we 'axe trying to legislate to prevent criticism of this Government seems to me to be going a little beyond the limit at all events of fair criticism of this section. I would have thought that there would have been unanimity in this House that any man or class of men who after this becomes the law of the land seek to hinder its being carried out ought to be punished. The purpose of this section is to reach that class of men, and only that class of men.


George Perry Graham: I, of course, disclaim
any desire to protect any man who is trying tp obstruct the carrying out of this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No other man will be
hit under this section.


George Perry Graham: The minister said in his concluding remarks that the section applies to the man who induces another person to do something to embarrass the minister, and applies also to the man who was so induced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not the man who " embarrasses."


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will
read Hansard to-morrow he will see that he said the section covered not only the man who induces, but also the man who d.oes something to embarrass the minister in the carrying out of this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said the man who
hinders not embarrasses.


George Perry Graham: Embarrasses is coupled
with the other. This criticism is not unfair, and it is just as well that we have had this little discussion put on Hansard so that we may know what the intent of the section is. To those who are engaged in newspaper work the following section is even more applicable than the one we are now quoting, and it is very necessary in the public interest that the law be made so clear that no person can take advantage of the Act to suppress what is legitimate criticism in the public interest. No Government, or minister, or tribunal, is infallible, and unless it is made clear that the Act is not to place them above criticism by the pTess or by the speaker on the platform or in discussion, the Government, with all its goodness, and the tribunals might go astray. I have never taken the [DOT] ground in the newspapers that the bench itself was above criticism. In some cases it can be legitimately and reasonably criticised. But I want the minister to make it absolutely clear that this clause does not restrict legitimate criticism and that such criticism will not be looked upon as an offence even if it embarrasses the Government or the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know if there are words .that could make it any more clear I would be glad to make it clears'-, if 't were possible. It does not hit at criticism, legitimate or illegitimate, as long as it is kept to criticism. It is the hindering or impeding or wilful attempt to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede; or to persuade, induce, or influence other people; or to embarrass t,he Government or the minister in the carrying out of their operations. Perhaps it was not proper for me to say I thought the criticism unfair, but it is a great surprise to me, because the thought

never entered my mind that' this section affected criticism in any way. Certainly there was no intent to affect criticism in any shape. I have read it again, and I cannot see how anybody could bring " criticism " within the four corners of this section.


Frank Oliver: There is an advantage in connection with this section, which we have not had in connection with any of the rest
of	the Act.	When	we	discussed	any	other section of	the	Act	thatwe	did not	consider	applicable	to
conditions in this country, we were told it was the Act in England, or some place else. Now we are dealing with a section for the origination of which I believe my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) claim to divide the credit between them. That being the case, and seeing that in no country in the world up to the present time has there been drastic enactments of this kind,-I am sure if there had been >
it would have been referred to before now-I am in agreement with my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), that it is entirely proper that when this Parliament is passing an Act it should take all reasonable and necessary means to secure, not only the enforcement of the Act, but a proper respect for the Act in its enforcement. So far as this provision goes, if in the wisdom of the Government it is considered necessary to make such drastic provision as this, then I have nothing to say; but I think the Government takes upon itself a grave responsibility to say that in this supposedly free country, and at this date in the history of the world, it is necessary to impose a limitation upon the right of free discussion such as we are told there is no precedent for in any other legislation my hon. friends have made themselves acquainted with. While we have a duty to perform in the passing of suitable legislation, and in regard to the enforcement of that legislation, we also have a duty to perform in maintaining the right of free discussion in this country, and it is to be regretted that the experience we have had in dealing with the censorship which has been imposed has been along lines which certainly give reason for alarm to any person who values the right of free discussion or the common liberty of the subject, when it is proposed to put an enactment in these terms on the statute book.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice insists that the words "or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government
	/
or th$ minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder," do not apply to criticism of the Government or of the minister in the enforcing of the Act. Our experience with the censorship would certainly compel us to believe that criticism of the minister or the Government in regard to the administration of the Act would be interpreted as an embarrassment of the Government and the minister, and would render the individual liable to the penalties provided in this section. I am one of the old-fashioned people who believe in the right of free speech, who believe in the liberty of the subject, who believe that there cannot be good administration and good legislation without fair and reasonable criticism; and I say the attempt to impose such a provision as this on the country under the excuse of the existence of war conditions is a deliberate attempt to use those war conditions as a means of depriving the people of Canada of a very considerable share of that liberty for which their fathers fought, and for which our sons are fighting to-day.


Charles Avila Wilson: I would suggest that the word "wilfully" be inserted, making the paragraph read: "any person who wilfully by means of," etc. Supposing a lawyer were called upon for his opinion as to whether a man should report under the law and he advised that according to his reading of the law it was not necessary for this man to report, what would be the position? I think everybody would be protected if the word "wilfully" were added to the paragraph. I would also strike out the words which refer to a minimum penalty. It seems to me if they remain the result will be to defeat the purpose of the Act, because there may be cases where the contravention would be very trivial. It might be simply a remark, en passant, "I don't think you are bound-to report considering the conditions you are under." The judge will be in the presence of some very trivial offence, for which a most severe penalty is inflicted, and he may force his conscience, and say: "I will render a verdict of 'not guilty'." I am prepared to admit it is a grave offence, but we have a great number of offences provided for under the criminal laws in this country where the maximum penalty is fourteen years and there is no minimum- it is left entirely to the discretion of the judge. I would leave the question of a minimum penalty to the judge in this case. If there is a minimum penalty provided it may place the judge in a very awkward

position, and I endorse what my hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) and my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) have said in this connection. I have seen cases of offences against the Post Office Act, for instance, where judges were very much embarrassed. The minimum penalty fixed was three yeaTS, but the judge and especially the juries-as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice well knows-would find the accused " not guilty," because the minimum penalty was too severe. If the Government has any confidence in the judges who will administer this law they Should be given a discretionary power to decide whether the penalty will be one hour imprisonment, or five years. I feel it my duty to tell the House, after an experience of twenty-two years before the criminal courts, that there are some offences against an Act which would be amply punished by one hour's imprisonment. I address my remarks particularly to the hon. Minister of Justice, and I know that from his fifteen years' experience on the Bench he would have done away with those minimum penalties if he bad had the power.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing here with a criminal offence, and, of course, for any criminal offence there n ust be criminal intent. If is not a mere accidental interpretation of words that would render a man liable to conviction. I do not think there is any serious ground for apprehension that anybody will suffer undue consequence because of the omission of the word my hon. friend refers to.
As to the question of minimum penalty, laws are for prevention as well as for punishment, and I think that the nature of the offence that is contemplated here is *such that it is highly important to have the law produce in the fullest degree its preventive effect. For that purpose and in that view, it is well that it should be made perfectly clear to anybody who may be tempted to offend in this direction from the time that this law comes into force, that there will be grave consequences attached to his action. I can conceive of no circumstances under which one year's imprisonment would be too severe a penalty upon a man deservedly convicted of this offence. The class of men who will commit this offence will be a Class of men deserving, in my judgment, of condign punishment. If there should be exceptional cases such as have been referred to, the court would have the privilege of suspending sentence, and there is always the opportunity of exercising executive clemency, so that there will be a remedy for the exceptional cases referred to by the hon. gentleman; and I do not think that to prevent such possible exceptional cases the country should be deprived of the protection resulting from the general knowledge that those who seek, Without exposing themselves, to incite other people to unlawful resistance to the execution of this law, will, on conviction, suffer at least imprisonment for one year.


Charles Avila Wilson: If a judge, after
hearing a case, is embarrassed by finding the punishment too severe and reports to the executive, the Minister of Justice cannot advise the judge to impose a penalty of three months; he will have to tell the magistrate to let the law follow its course. As to suspending sentence, I have grave doubt as to the right of judges to suspend sentences, and this action on their part is often severely, and I think properly, criticised. As to executive clemency, the Department of Justice have simply the printed factums and depositions before them, and have not the same opportunity of judging the evidence as the magistrate who observes the witnesses in the box and can so determine whether they are entitled to credit. This offence would be a most grave, a most heinous one, according to circumstances; tout it -may be trivial too. Then why not leave it to the magistrate who has the discretion to raise it from one year to five, to exercise discretion in imposing a sentence from nothing up to five years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
apprehends danger from oases where the magistrate will be of the opinion that this is too severe a sentence. In such a case the executive would be advised by the magistrate of his views, and it would be quite different from a case in which the executive would toe called upon to overrule the decision of the judge. I find it difficult to conceive of cases where a conviction would properly be made for this offence where a' year's imprisonment would be too severe punishment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to emphasize
what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I am a free British subject, and if there is one th'ng which I admire in British institutions, it is the freedom of the press and the freedom oE speech. I understand that my hon. friend assumes a share of responsibility for the drafting of this legislation.

I am surprised that he should claim the paternity of, and responsibility for framing, such drastic legislation. It is admitted that there is no parallel in Great Britain, or the United States, or even in Germany, for such a law. In none of these countries was similar legislation ever framed to give effect to a law passed by Parliament. Many of us have travelled in Great Britain, and if there is anything which struck me, as a Canadian of French blood, whenever I visited England, it was the great freedom of speech which existed in that country. The first time I went to London I was told by my friends not to fail to go to Hyde Park on Sunday morning, after service, and listen to the various speeches which were delivered there by agitators, socialists, parsons and political speakers, each of them claiming his right, as a free British subject, to criticise, as severely as possible, any legislation which to him appeared obsolete or drastic, and I am yet to be told that the British Government has ever taken any action against the speakers who, from time immemorial, condemned the Government at Hyde Park.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In war time?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I will give a case in point. England is at war, and this evening's papers to-day will show my hon. friend that thousands of people are blaming the Government for not using reprisals against the air raids on London. This is embarrassing the Government, although we have the declaration of several of the ministers of the Crown that it is against the grain for Britishers to make reprisals of the German kind. I desire to give a case in point. I was speaking of the freedom any man has in England to combat legislation which has been enacted.


Arthur Meighen: To resist the operation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and I will give my hon. friend a case in point at once. I was in England in 1906, and one of the largest meetings I ever witnessed was one held at the base of Nelson's monument in London. It was after the Balfour Government had passed the Education Act, and that Act was resisted by the various dissentients in England, and by the various sects, and I remember hearing a speech by the Rev. Dr. Clifford, asking the people to resist, by passive resistance the operation of that legislation. So much was that the case, that a few months afterwards, when Mr. Asquith came into office the legislation was repealed. I will

give another instance to the Minister of [DOT] Justice. An Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1914, the year of the war, and what happened? Sir Edward Carson went to Ulster. Did he flput the law? Did he put the law in defiance? Why he addressed the people of Ulster and preached resistance, and, to-day, that rebel is one of the ministers of the Crown. He used freedom of speech. He over-reached it, in my judgment, and in the judgment also of the Minister of Justice, and yet, to-day, in Great Britain, the man wh.o preached treason and rebellion in Ulster against an Act of His Majesty is the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Minister of Justice claims parentage for the very many amendments to this measure; I offer him my sincere compliments on those amendments, and I wish him success.
Mr. DO'HERTY:	The hon. gentleman
condemns the action of Sir Edward Carson, and then condemns me for framing legislation to prevent like action in this country. I ask how he connects the two things. The statement he has just made demonstrates that there ought to be a law in Canada to prevent people doing that kind of thing-taking his description of what Sir Edward Carson did. We have more respect in this country for law than the hon. gentleman represents that Sir Edward - Carson had. I am not proposing to be led into a discussion about matters with regard to which my opinions are absolutely well known, but if the hon. gentleman wanted to select an instance to justify legislation of this kind, he has given us instances, as he has described them, of open, flagrant, flouting of the law going uncontrolled. If his description be correct, all I can say is that there was a lack of firmness on the part of those charged with the enforcement of the law. I certainly will not sympathize-and I am quite satisfied that the House does not sympathize -with the advocacy of the doctrine that if we go throughout this wide world and find a place where anybody flouted laws and threatened resistance, such action should be held up to us for our admiration, and as an example for us to follow. I do not think the Ihon. gentleman has been very happy in the selection of the instance which he has cited.


George Perry Graham: And this is the 12th
July.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. I do not think
he could have combined either time, place, circumstance or illustration to be more unhappy in the combination. The hon. gen-
\

tleman talks about this awful unprecedented law. I wonder if the hon. gentleman ever read sections 69, 70, 81 or 82, and a number of other similar sections of the Criminal Code, dealing with this grave and [DOT]serious offence of inciting (people to a violation of the law.


Frank Oliver: The parent is not going
back on his baby.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not quite see the
application of the remark of the hon. gentleman, and I cannot make the connection.


Frank Oliver: Everybody else can.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the hon. gentleman talks about an unprecedented law, it is only another instance of the reckless expressions some persons indulge in. The Solicitor General said that in the Conscription Act of the United States there was not a provision like this, nor was there in the Conscription Act of England. Unprecedented law! I am satisfied that in the two countries which I have mentioned, they thought they had provisions to .meet the conditions of their particular law -and I am not absolutely certain that we have not such provisions here as well.


Frank Oliver: The provisions under which Sir Edward Carson preached rebellion in Ulster and was within the law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I api not going to follow that further. The hon. gentleman wants to get himself in the same unfortunate combination of circumstances as that in which the member for Rouville landed himself. T hope that there will be room for both of them in the same uncomfortable quarters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It looks as if the hon. gentleman was garrisoned by Ulster.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is another illustration of some of the conceptions of which the member for Rouville is capable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not send me to jail for that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman is contemplating committing this offence, I can assure him that the jail will be there for him. I did not know that he contemplated committing it. I shall be sorry if he does, for, of course, there will be no respecting of persons.


George Perry Graham: Will that be embarrassing the minister?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That will be embarrassing the member for Rouville.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And all the Irishmen who are "agin the Government" will be embarrassed, too.
Mr. DOHERTY': Another hon. gentleman undertakes to tell me that all Irishmen in Canada are going to violate the law. No man who does not violate the law will be in the slightest degree embarrassed-and my people are as law-abiding as any section of the people in this country. I am not afraid for them, if the member of Rouville is afraid for himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend well understands the meaning of my remark; I am speaking of those who are "agin the Government."


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one of those cheap jokes that are thrown at my people -the cheap jokgs of ignorant people who do not understand my people. My people will know how and when the proper time comes to resent insult. Now, let us come back to this unprecedented law. I was asking the member for Rouville, who is a distinguished lawyer, if he had ever read sections 69, 70, 81, 82, 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code; and if so, whether he had any appreciation of how gravely the general law of the country looks upon incitement to violation of law. It looks upon it so gravely that under section 69 a man who incites violation of the law by the committing of murder is liable to be hanged.


Frank Oliver: We do not want to know anything about the man who incites a breach of the law. We want to know about the 'man who in any manner whatsoever embarrasses the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not covered by this section.


Frank Oliver: Then why is the provision here?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let hon. gentlemen read the section; they understand the English language.


Frank Oliver: Yes, we understand the English language.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This section does not make it an offence for a man to embarrass the Government.


Frank Oliver: Then will the minister
take the words out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: But it makes it an offence for any man to induce people to embarrass the Government in the administration of



this Act; in other words, to impede the operation of the law. [DOT]


Frank Oliver: And the result is that the man who criticises the minister or the Government does embarrass him and is subject to penalty under this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the hon. gentleman's view; that the man who criticises the Government is guilty under this Act. I had thought that the man who criticised the Government was in the exercise of his liberty, which this Act in no way embarrasses. This section lends itself so absolutely to no criticism that in order to make an argument, hon. gentlemen have to say that the section is something which it is not, and hence we have condemnation of laws which do things that this law does not pretend to do. I do not want to use too strong an expression; I shall simply say that no lawyer with any respect for his opinion would contend that this law pretends to say what hon. gentlemen have suggested. I am satisfied that any layman who will sit down and read it, not seeking to find what is not in it, would never dream of its talking about criticism of the minister or of the Government. It talks in very clear language of a variety of ways of hindering and impeding the operation of this Act and of a variety of ways of striving to induce people to hinder and impede and embarrass the operation of this Act. That is all it talks about.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is the meaning of the word " influences " in this section? Let me put a concrete case. Some member of this House, in rendering an account to hi3 electors of the position that he has taken may feel disposed to give his reasons for having criticised the compulsory service Bill and may be very strong in his denunciation of that Bill. Some persons in the audience may afterwards take exception to the way that he has spoken, saying that what he said had influenced a number of people to oppose the law. Thereupon they lay a complaint before two judges, who, for argument's sake, may be two tailors. Tailors are very respectable men, but they may not be learned in the law. These two tailors take up the word " influences " and they say: Yes, that member of Parliament certainly has influenced the electors, and, therefore, is guilty under this section of the law. I would like a pronouncement on thus subject. The Minister of Justice may be a little bit fatigued; perhaps the Solicitor General will answer.


Arthur Meighen: Where do tailors come in in the matter of trying summary convictions?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They might be justices of the peace.


Arthur Meighen: Then there is an appeal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is not answering.my question, I am putting a concrete case and I would like the Solicitor General to give me his opinion. It is a case that might readily arise. If a member of the House, having criticised the Government for bringing in this Conscription Bill, were charged before justices of the peace or your local tribunal, call it what you will, with having influenced his electors to resist conscription, would he, under such circumstances, be found guilty, or what latitude would be shown?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Clearly, he would be
tried for what he said, not for what he did or for what misinterpretations the electors may have put upon what he said. If he said something in itself influencing them to resist the law, he will be guilty. But the member of Parliament in question would not be guilty if he criticised this law, saying that he was opposed .to it, and contended that it should not have been passed.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And gave his reasons.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And gave his reasons
for being opposed to the law. So long as the member invites nobody to resist it; so long as nothing is Intended to influence any one to resist the law, the fact that a man goes away from the meeting and proceeds to resist the law would not, I am sure, result in the conviction of the member by any court of average intelligence, upon the ground not of what he said or did, but of the mental operations of some of the people who heard him. I think we can trust the courts to interpret the case in that way.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Following that up, we shall see that the next day the city papers, if the case occurs in a city, report what that man has said, and misreport his words. The minister will agree with me that that is very often done. Would the newspaper be considered to be guilty of a crime as having influenced people through the publication of a misreported speech?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the newspaper mis-reports the speech, that is to say, if it does not reproduce what was said, then that newspaper will have to take the responsibility for what it sends out to the public,

if it sends out matter of a nature to influence men to resist the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is the newspapers we shall have to get after.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The newspapers will not have any greater liberty to seek to inspire resistance .to this law than the individual who does not own a newspaper will have.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Of course, I may be pressing these details, but this is the first time, in my existence at least, that in this country I have been up against any, law which would tend to limit the right of speech or the liberty of the press. It would be well for the minister to go just as far as he possibly can in giving detailed cases of what latitude will be allowed to men to speak-for instance, members of Parliament or political candidates to their electors, or any citizens, and how far newspapers may go. Because, while I may have implicit confidence in tribunals, I have not always the greatest confidence in the World in Justices of the Peace, although they may be well meaning.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend will see that there is an almost infinite vafiety of ways iri which this section might be contravened, and that it would be absolutely impossible, and more than that a highly unprofitable task, to attempt to enumerate them here this evening.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister has certainly put the case in a nutshell. There is an absolutely infinite variety of instances in which the terms of this section might be contravened, and the citizen left liable to serious punishment. We do not object to reasonable legislation to secure the enforcement of and respect for any law, but we do object to the use of indefinite and comprehensive terms by the use of which innocent parties are made subject to severe penalties. That is the meaning that I am compelled to take out of the reading of this section. The minister has seen fit to read it in his own way. The way that I read it is this:
Any person who, by means of any written or oral communication or by any public speech or utterance, or in any manner whatsoever, takes such action as will embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member
leaves out all that intervenes, the section reads in that way, but if he puts in all that intervenes, it reads as in the section.
212i


Frank Oliver: I have some reasonable understanding of the English language. I am an average man with an average knowledge of English, and the law should be so framed that an average man can read it understandingly. I understand it as I have read it to the House, and I have every reason to believe that that is the understanding ninety-nine men out of a hundred would have in reading it. If the minister does not mean that, he should not say that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He does not.


Frank Oliver: Then he should not put in words that may reasonably be read with that meaning.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What the hon. member has left out is merely cumulative of his meaning.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. I have read the section as I interpret it, as I believe it is intended to be interpreted, and as I believe, of intent, it is to be interpreted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that, the hon. member is entirely mistaken.


Frank Oliver: Not ten minutes ago, I heard the minister announce to the House that this was to be used as a threat. Its importance was in its preventive capability as much as in its punitive capability. Then, the minister surely must have used a form of words covering the possibility of severe punishment, or	there would be no
threat in it. When the power is placed in the hands of any authority, the tendency is to use, or even to misuse that power, and the more extensive the power, the greater the liability to misuse it. I am going to contend that such a law intended to terrorize the public from the
10 p.m. use of free speech and from the employment of just criticism of matters of administration in which the people are concerned is not a law that tends to the well-being of the country. On July 4, 1917, Lord Northcliffe, speaking to the National Press Club at Washington on the subject of censorship said:
The danger of a censorship is that it may be used to exalt incompetence to impair efficiency by hiding mismanagement, to weaken resolution by exaggerated optimism. The dangers of misuse of the power of censorship are well known to those who know what we suffered from the hiding of the truth about the war for the first two years.
That is merely in regard to the censorship of the press, but this is a section involving the censorship of the people, the censorship of the right of free speech. I will not delay the House; I have placed

my opinions before it as clearly and as definitely as I am able to do, and I will only take the liberty of reading from the Orange Sentinel of the 12th of July-
' An hon. MEMBER: Glorious day.


Frank Oliver: -just exactly what appears to my mind to be the import of this particular enactment. The Sentinel says:
The glorious revolution of 1688 put an end In Great Britain and throughout the British Empire to the doctrine that Kings rule by Divine Right.
Now all we have to do is to change the word "Kings" to "Governments," and we are not to forget that we have to-day a Government that is putting into force a Conscription Act upon a disfranchised people. The Sentinel goes on to say:
The Kaiser, posing as the annointed of Almighty God, is sending his people to the slaughter by the hundred thousand. He claims it to be his Divine right to do so. He denies to his people any real share in the government of the country, in the declaration of war, and in the continuance of the struggle. He is an autocrat after the pattern of James II. That monarch claimed the right by Divine appointment to suspend the laws of the country. He aimed not only to suspend the civil laws but the religious laws.
Further on, this article says:
When William and Mary took the crown from Parliament, they acknowledged the supremacy of the people, and thus founded the first great democratic state among the modern nations. Upon the foundation laid by William of Orange rests the present superstructure of the British Empire.
And the Government of to-day, ruling by Divine right, undertakes to deprive Canada of the right of free speech which was guaranteed to it by the revolution which placed William of Orange otn the Throne.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Justice was reading the law to me a moment ago. He quoted from the Criminal Code, about the offence of sedition, I suppose; I need not be reminded of the existence of sedition, because I know that it exists. Can the minister find in the Criminal Code any section that will prevent an accused from invoking the writ of habeas * corpus which is suspended by this legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are many laws which provide for the suspension of habeas corpus. The one that comes to my mind at the moment is one the paternity for which belongs, I think, to -my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who has such an antipathy to governments that govern by Divine right. I do not know whether gov-

ernments that govern by diabolical right are more to his taste or not.


Frank Oliver: By democratic right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the suspension of the habeas corpus writ is concerned, the Immigration Act of this country suspends interference with the operations of the inquiry boards, and so forth, by means of any process issuing out of any court.


Frank Oliver: That is not applicable to citizens of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that the principle varies so much.


Frank Oliver: I think it varies a great deal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In this particular instance I think the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) does not quite grasp what is meant by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. There is nothing in this Act that suspends the writ of habeas corpus in a general way. But we had, perhaps, better discuss this matter on the other subsection, as it is entirely separate and distinct from the question we are now' discussing.


Frank Oliver: Will the minister not agree to the suggestion that this clause be revised so as to actually convey, even to such a mind as mine, the intent the minister declares it to convey?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I speak with all respect, but I do not know any words in the English language that will make it clearer; it must be my limitation, of course, but I must avow my limitation. If the hon. gentleman sees in these words power to punish people for criticising the Government, then I do not know any words in the English or any other language that I could possibly use that would not convey to the hon. gentleman the meaning that people are to be imprisoned for criticising the Government. I do not know how I could alter it. I have left all that kind of thing entirely out. What more can I do? In all frankness, if the hon. gentleman will tell me what words I could use that would not convey the meaning to him that I make it an offence to criticise the Government, and that will convey the meaning that I want to convey as clearly and emphatically as I can, that those will be punished who encourage people to impede or hinder the operations of this law or to induce pr persuade people to embarrass the Government or the minister in its operation-if there is any other form that I can use that will convince the hon.

gentleman that I am not making a law to punish criticism of the Government, I will be glad to consider it. I have tried not to say that, and I have not said it, but still the hon. gentleman reads that into the section and says, " Now, won't you reconsider the section and read that out of it?"


Frank Oliver: As the minister has appealed to me I think the situation would 'be relieved if he were to strike out the words " in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder."


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman
will read the section I think he will see that it is not made an offence to embarrass the Government or the Minister of Justice in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder; that is not what is made the offence. The verb " embarrass " is in the infinitive mood; it is "to embarrass," which necessarily means that it follows on something else. What is made the offence is this: the offence is the inducing or influencing people to do all these things that follow. After making it an offence to impede or hinder, and so on, the section goes on:
-or persuades, induces or influences, or attempts to persuade, induce or influence any person or any body or class of persons.
to do a number of things, the last of those things being " to embarrass the Government." The offence is the persuading or inducing or influencing or attempting to persuade, induce or influence any person to do any of these things, or the persuading or endeavouring to get people to embarrass the Government.


Charles Avila Wilson: Why not leave it
to-the general law? Section 69 of the Criminal Code, to which the minister referred, should cover this.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The sections to which
I referred have to do with a number of different kinds of offences. The analogy is this. These sections .make it an offence to incite people to commit that particular kind of crime. Here we have made a new law; we are imposing new obligations, and [DOT]we are putting into this Act a provision in substance that inciting any one to a violation of this Act shall be an offence. The Criminal Code says it shall be an offence to bill a man or to incite somebody else to kill a mian. We say: Certain things must be done under this Act, and it shall be an offence for anybody to incite anybody else to contravention of this Act. That is following out what is almost the general rule. It is perhaps open to the argument that possibly we might find general provisions which would meet the case. But is it not fair to the public, if it is true, to put them on their guard in this Act, that interference with the Act is an offence? I do not pretend to carry the whole Criminal Code in my mind, but I am strongly of the opinion there is a general provision with regard to obstructing the operation of law, and if there is no special provision, then at common law it would be an offence. But we want to provide appropriate penalties for the incitement to violation of this law or the obstruction of its operation, and we do think-notwithstanding what the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said about this being a threat-it is important that we should have the full preventive effect that may result from calling the attention of those who may be tempted to offend in that manner to the fact that it is an offence carrying serious punishment. In the second place, I think there is in this an element of fairness to those who may be tempted to offend in this regard. Any one who reads the newspapers is quite aware that there are persons who have been boasting of their intention to hinder the operation of this law, and asserting how easy it will be for them to make it entirely inoperative. I do not wish to refer to previous debates in this House, but I think one could make citations from some speeches in which we were told how absolutely inoperative this law was going to be, and what an arsenal of weapons was in the hands of people to prevent this law from becoming effective.. I think people should have their attention called to the gravity of such statements, and perhaps it is only fair to bring it home to them now, that when they start doing it they are committing a grave offence, and will be liable to grave punishment.
v Mr. OLIVER: If I followed the argument of my hon. friend, this section applies to the man who incites, but does not apply to the man who personally embarrasses the Government or the minister. Is that the understanding?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the particular matter of embarrassing the Government or the Administration in carrying out the law, so far as "embarrassment" is concerned, it has a different meaning from "hinder" or "impede." Embarrassment of the Government is not in itself made a specific

offence. What is made an offence is for people to embarrass the Government in the operation of this law. The provision is not intended to deal with people coming under the direct operation of this law and who disobey it. They are dealt with under other sections of the Act. The people we are trying to reach here are those who set to work to hinder or impede the application of this law by their own actions or conduct, and those who seek to persuade others to hinder or to impede the application of the law. With regard to the offence of seeking to persuade, we have included those who seek to persuade others to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act, though we have not taken the act of embarrassing the Government or the minister as constituting an offence in itself. What is sought to be reached, and what I think this House would agree with me ought to be reached, is a class of people who either because they do not come under the Act or because they have not the courage to take any risks themselves, want to stand behind, and through newspapers or by speeches or by any other method, try to rouse up other people-perhaps unthinking people who do not quite understand- and get them into a frame of mind where they will proceed to try to hamper and embarrass the administration of this Act. 1 should think everybody ought to be agreed that this class of persons should foe punished. I can understand there may be a large measure of sympathy with those who are subject to the application of the principal provisions of the Act, and who may be tempted not to submit willingly to its operation, but I cannot understand extending sympathy to or seeking to shield the man who, not coming under the Act himself and therefore taking no risks, seeks to lead other people into committing either a direct violation of the Act or to hinder or impede the operation of the Act or to embarrass the Government in trying to carry it out. A man of that class should have no sympathy from any one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite understand that any man who incites others to resist the law or to disobey the law comes under the provisions of the Criminal Code, and I have no sympathy with such a man. But does not my hon. friend see that this clause deals with a political measure? Conscription is a political measure, passed by a moribund Parliament. By the very nature of things it will be the issue before the

people of Canada at the next election. I say to my hon. friend, in all sincerity, that by enacting this drastic condition he is simply sowing the seed for informers in this country. What will happen? Say a meeting is held in nay hon. friend's constituency in Montreal. His political opponent, surrounded by sympathizers and political speakers, will criticise the Government or will criticise my hon. friend, not only for having enacted this measure when Parliament was functus officio, but for all the shortcomings and failings of the Govefnment during the last six years. There will be informers -at that meeting, and these informers will report the castigations inflicted on my hon. friend or on the Government by the speakers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not an offence to
castigate me. In any event, I may say they do not do it in my constituency.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These informers will
report the castigations, and an information will be laid. My hon. friend knows the political gaime will be played in his electoral division.


An hon. MEMBER:: By you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The animus is tnere.
An information will be laid against the speaker, and he will appear before the court. He may be found guilty according to the evidence brought by the informers. So far so good. The judgment or verdict of the court is there, he is sentenced. It is a political question arising out of a political meeting between political opponents, and yet the man whose words have been -misconstrued and distorted will not have the privilege of invoking the Habeas Corpus Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. There is nothing in this Act to deprive a man of a writ of habeas corpus. This would not be a proceeding before a tribunal, and therefore would not be affected by the section under consideration. Such a man would be brought before the ordinary civil courts and he would have all the rights and privileges enjoyed by any other person who is brought before the courts of the country for any offence. What is sought by this subsection is to avoid having the operation of the tribunals interfered with and retarded by having the tribunals brought before the judges of the courts on injunction, certiorari, mandamus or some other proceeding. I read in the paper the other day the speech of a lawyer, whom I respect

both as a lawyer and a gentleman, who said that this Act would never operate because they would take all cases to the civil courts and keep them there until the war was over. My friend's friend who is coming down to castigate me can castigate to his heart's content, and when he has done castigating, if I have anything to say about it, it will not be in the way of prosecuting him; I will take care of my defence in that matter. But if anybody wishes to prosecute him for that castigation he will take him before the ordinary courts and nothing in this Act will affect any remedy, right or recourse that he will have under the general law ot the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: He may be taken before the courts, but he will not have the remedies of the law, he will not .have the writ of habeas corpus or the injunction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But the case put by the hon. member for Rouville is not one that would ever come before any of the tribunals. It is not provided that a man who is prosecuted for violating the Act will be prosecuted anywhere except before the ordinary courts, and there he will have all the usual remedies. The only thing that the tribunals provided for under this Act can deal with or decide is the question whether or not a man shall be granted a certificate of exemption from military service; and it is intended that that shall be decided by these tribunals provided for in this Act without interference from any other court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So that the offence under subsection 2 is of a different nature from that under subsection 3?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no question of offence in subsection 3.


Robert Laird Borden: Subsection 3 has nothing to do with offences.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards subsection 2, we have all the remedies that the law provides.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It creates an offence for which a man is liable to be indicted or convicted on summary proceedings.


Wilfrid Laurier: In other words, if anybody is indicted under the general law, lie has all the remedies of the law; but if anybody is prosecuted under this Act, he is deprived of all the remedies of the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: How can it be
otherwise?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection 2 creates a certain offence and says it is punishable on indictment, that is before the ordinary criminal court.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand all that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection 3 provides:
No proceeding authorized or pending before any of the tribunals provided for by this Act and no decision of any such tribunal shall by means of injunction, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus or other process whether of the like kind or otherwise issuing out of any court be enjoined, restrained, stayed, removed or subjected to review or consideration upon any ground whether arising out of alleged absence of jurisdiction in the tribunal, nullity, defect or irregularity of the proceedings or any other cause whatsoever nor shall any such proceeding or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered collaterally in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal.
Now, the general court before, which a man is indicted is not the tribunal provided by this Act, it is a tribunal existing irrespective of this Act, and will exist after this Act has ceased to have any effect. The tribunals provided for by this Act are the local tribunal, the appeal tribunal and the Central Appeal Judge. Proceedings before those three tribunals under this Act cannot be removed into any other court by any process whatever, to be reconsidered there. That is the entire effect of this.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that. If I impede the Government, and
. embarrass them in every possible way, I am not liable to indictment, under section 2.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is liable.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I say to Mr. Wilson, "Now you embarrass the Government,'' and if he is foolish enough to follow my example, I become liable to prosecution, but if I do the act myself, I am not liable. I may be liable otherwise, but not under this section. The man who induces the other to act is liable, but the man who takes the action is not liable. Then section 3 deals with another class of offence altogether. We pass to the prosecution of the offences which are created by this Act. The young man who goes before the first tribunal, and appeals, and so on, is dealt with by those tribunals, and is deprived of all the remedies of the law. That is what the section means. Why should this man be deprived of all the remedies provided by the law? Why should he not be accorded the privileges of British subjects, when all

these provisions are framed for the protection of the freedom and liberty of the subject?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not a question of offences under this section at all. It is a question of a decision as to whether a man should have a certificate, or whether he should be refused a certificate, and these tribunals will be established for the purpose of determining that question. It is intended that they should have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with it, and, for the purpose of protecting that exclusive jurisdiction for the determination of that question, interference by other courts is prohibited, and the reason of the enumeration of the different processes by which other courts might interfere in cases in which they are entitled to interfere is simply so that we might make it quite clear that, by no means whatever is any other court to interfere. The effect of this provision is simply to establish that the jurisdiction for the determination of these oases shall belong exclusively to this court.	>


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what I complain of.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that is what is complained of, that would not apply to the case the hon. gentleman refers to. The matter to be determined requires to be promptly determined, and we cannot wait till the war is over for a decision. The questions, in their nature, are, in the great bulk of cases at all events, questions proper to be determined by a jury, in any ordinary court. More than that, we have -taken care to submit the decisions of -all of these tribunals to the judges of the ordinary civil courts of the country, in the way specified in this Act, so that we extend to the individual the protection, not only of the judge of first instance, but of a judge of the Supreme Court, to see that this is done rightly. Having given him all of tliese protections, all that is sought to be done by this provision is to prevent his seeking to have an appeal to other courts, to get them to determine a matter over which to-day they have absolutely no jurisdiction, and, unless this Act gave it to them, could have no jurisdiction. But abuses of the processes of the law happen repeatedly, and if this section be not enacted people, under pretext of lack of jurisdiction, or unconstitutionality, or -anything whatsoever, no matter how unfounded may seek -to go to some other court or courts, not because they have a right to, but by misrepresenting the situation, and 
once they get launched before those other courts you would have these interminable appeals.
We have -sought to make provisions to enable these -tribunals, in a proper way, to carry out this section practically, effectively and within a reasonable time, and to throw round them the protection of the judiciary of this country in this way; and having done that, we say now we shall make it absolutely impossible for anybody acting in bad faith to seek to remove this -question from the tribunals appointed to deal with it, and by means of processes of different kinds, to spin out the litigation in regard to it until the war is over. That is what we have to guard against, and this is not at all unusual. Wherever, with regard to a. particular question, exclusive jurisdiction is given to a particular court, that ends the remedy in any other court.


Charles Avila Wilson: I may question the jurisdiction of the court itself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not under this Act.


Charles Avila Wilson: Supposing John Jones
walked into court, ascended the bench and said, " I am the judge to decide on military law," no lawyer appearing before John Jones would have the right to question his jurisdiction, and ask him under what authority he is acting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I never made such a
statement, because the law says that a proceeding before a tribunal under this Act shall not be interfered with. The hon. gentleman says that if John Jones went into court and took a seat on the bench and said " I am the tribunal to administer this law " he could not be interfered with. I may tell the hon. member that you could at once obtain your writ of certiorari, or your mandamus, injunction or habeas corpus, or you could take quo warranto proceedings, or any other action you liked against him, in a case such as you suggest. Before you can apply this section, you require to have a proceeding before -the tribunal provided by this Act, and it does pot say that you may proceed before anybody who -may say " I am the tribunal to try this matter."


Charles Avila Wilson: I am putting the case in an exaggerated manner, to make my meaning plainer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: When they reach it, in the ordinary course of the business of the court.


Wilfrid Laurier: When the application is reached, it can be thrown out if it is frivolous. But my bon. friend here seeks to deprive the British subjects of remedies which have always been sacred to them. Legislation prohibiting the exercise of rights and prerogatives is always looked upon with extreme disfavour.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The provisions of
subsections 2 and 5 of this section aTe extreme and unusual, interfering with the right of free speech and of free discussion in the press. These proposed provisions, therefore, are worthy of the closest attention of the committee. The Minister of Justice has indicated the class of people whom he desires to reach through subsection 2. I submit that the cases to which he refers are sufficiently provided for by the first subsection. My hon. friend goes far beyond hiis stated purpo.se when he makes it an offence for a .person to do anything which will induce any one to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act. He says that this section is to come into force when the Act
receives the assent of His Excellency and before the Military Service Bill goes into operation. It is constituting an offence that nobody ever heard of to go- before a justice of the peace and say that during the course of .a political discussion some one used words which were calculated to induce some one else to do something that would embarrass the Government in carrying out the terms of an Act which was not in existence. If you have a court which is willing to receive information of that kind, what matter of proof would be submitted to it in order to get a conviction? My hon. friend is going too far when he leaves it to a gentleman not learned in the law who may happen to be a justice of the peace to say whether a man who criticised the Government, as be had a perfect right to do, during the course of a political discussion which he had a perfect right to engage in, was embarrassing the Government in the operation of an ,Aet that was not in existence. If the justice of the peace was a keen supporter of my hon. friend-and some of these justices of the peace are-you can fancy what sort of evidence he would require in order to satisfy him that the Government was being embarrassed. I think that we ought to have a definition of what the word "embarrass" means. What does my hon. friend mean by embarrassing the Government?' The word is capable of definition; the phraseology should not be left in such general form, to be interpreted at will by ' any justice of the peace in the country. The right to criticise this Government is a right that should be preserved if the democracy which is at stake in this war is to be upheld in Canada. My hon. friend is going too far if he seeks to take away the right of legitimate criticism of those who are entrusted with the conduct of public affairs in this country. My hon. friend will say: You can appeal from the decision of the justice of the peace in this regard. But consider the humiliation of a perfectly honest man who, with no desire to do anything improper, is convicted by a justice of the peace under this provision. That man has certain views which he has a right to express, either in writing or verbally, to those who are willing to attend to him. First, then, there should be a definition of the word "embarrass;" secondly, the right of legitimate and honest criticism on the part of the free citizens of this country should be preserved.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I am not mistaken, the word "embarrass" as applied to opera-

tions of that kind has an understood meaning and has been dealt with by the courts. I rather thought this evening that some hon. gentlemen thought that the minister's being embarrassed meant that I might feel embarrassed-that, perhaps, I might blush. I do not attach that meaning to the word. Embarrassing the Government or the minister in the administration or operation of this Act is the equivalent of creating difficulties or of placing difficulties in the way of putting the Act into operation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the right of reasonable criticism?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and I threshed that out quite fully; perhaps the hon. gentleman was not here. I need not go over that ground again.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why is that put in? I do not think I have made myself clear to the minister. I appealed to my h.on. friend to do this. He is giving jurisdiction to a tribunal which is not learned in the law. He is asking it to interpret language which is specially technical. In that, he is asking it to find, as a matter of fact, that somebody had said something which in effect was intended to induce somebody else to embarrass the Government in regard to the operation of an Act which had not been declared to be in force.
I am dealing with the period that exists between the coming into force of this section after His Excellency sanctions the Act, and the time when the Military Service Act is declared to be in force. Too much power, is put into the hands of a justice of the peace if you enable him, at the instance of any informer, to ruin the good name of any man so that he would have to go to a higher court to get rid of the stigma attached to his name. Why should not the minister preserve the reasonable right of criticism to a decent citizen of the country who does not pretend to take the position of that class of men which the minister says is the class he intends to go after?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to reservation of the reasonable right of criticism, I should be glad to reserve it if I saw in the section anything that attacked it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a neiw law
and an extraordinary law. If the minister would agree to insert a provision that no proceedings should be taken under this Act except with the consent of himself or his department, that would relieve the minds of the people very materially.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should be very glad to give thought to that. At first glance, it seems as though there might -be no objection to it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Trivial actions might be brought.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should be glad to do anything to disabuse people's minds of the idea that this has in contemplation the prevention of criticism of the actions of the Government. As regards
11 p.m. what the hon. member for Pic-toru (Mr. Macdonald) said about this being in force before the Act itself came into force, I quite realize that the embarrassing operation cannot begin to- operate until the Act is in force. But, on the other hand, if the people are going to utilize the period before the Act is proclaimed to get all their plans made and to circulate their instructions-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You reach them by the first part of the section. Why put in this verbiage?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the hon.
anember's objection. What he is anxions about is the provision with regard to inducing the people to do 'anything to embarrass the Government in the operation of the Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the interim, before the Act comes into force.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After this Act has come upon the statute-book of the country-although it has not come into force-and the people know that it is liable to be put into force by proclamation at any time, if they are left free during that period of time, if it should be of any notable length, to make their arrangements openly and publicly and to counsel each other as to what action to take to thwart this Act or to embarrass its administration when it does come into force, it might be very little use for us to put the Act into force at all. To me, it is a contemptible tibiVig for people to be making such arrangements in advance.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister reaches all that class of people by the ample provision he has in the first part of the section. The rest is superfluous.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I understand the hon. 'member's 'Criticism is that we make it an offence for people to embarrass the Government? I am convinced that the section would convey a fairly clear idea that I think any average judge would understand.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not judge-justice of the peace.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, justice of the
peace. Whatever class would be empowered to try cases under this section would be quite able to grasp the meaning of the section. I do not see quite the same difficulty about the word "embarrass," but I have no objection to give that thought, and to see if I can find some word that will be less embarrassing to hon. members and on which we can all agree.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope the Minister of Justice will accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and that it will be made clear that citizens of this country will not be deprived of their Tight of criticising even this Act or any other piece of legislation of this Government. According to subsection 6:
This section shall come into force on. the day of the sanction of this Act.
The Prime Minister, when he appealed to my right hon. leader to form a coalition Government, stated that this law would be passed and then an appeal to the country would follow. In addition to that the Prime Minister, when introducing this Bill, said that he was considering the advisability of submitting this law to the people of Canada before enforcing it. Further than that, the constitution of this country prescribed that there shall be an election in a few months. Evidently the issue at this election will be this very law of conscription. It was, I believe, in the mind of the Prime Minister when he made his offer to the leader of the Opposition to appeal to the country for the purpose of submitting this law. If the issue is conscription, is it fair to put into force subsection 6, and thus make it an offence for any one to criticise this measure? I am sure the Government, in appealing to the country on this issue, does not intend to prevent the opponents of the Bill from presenting their case to their electors. When the Conscription Bill was introduced in the British House of Commons, somebody stated that to apply the Bill to Ireland would be a national crime and a folly. I believe myself that imposing conscription on Canada is a folly and a crime, and I intend to say so to my eleo-tors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then you will go to jail.


Ernest Lapointe: Will that be embarrassing the Government in contravention of the provisions of this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will not embarrass me.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand my
hon. friend to say that it will not be considered as coming under the provisions of this section.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: I confess I do
not see how it can be considered, as coming under the provisions of this section. The hon. member can see the distinction between criticism of the law and either himself hindering its operation or administration and advising the people to hinder its operation or administration. The two things are, to my mind, perfectly distinct.


Ernest Lapointe: Supposing any hon. gentleman opposite comes to the Minister of Justice and asks him not to prosecute any of his electors who might be refusing to answer the call of his class

suppose the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) who stated to his electors in the County of Dorchester a few months ago that they would not be conscripted-went to the minister and tried to prevent him from prosecuting those who come under these provisions, would he be considered under these provisions to be hindering the operation of the Act or embarrassing the minister?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, most certainly not, because it would not hinder or embarrass me in the slightest degree. But my hon. friend had better ask that question of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) because unless I accept his suggestion the prosecuting will not rest with me. The hon. member himself could go out and lay an information, and the Minister of Justice would not be able to be embarrassed with regard to it.


Frank Oliver: Is it the understanding of the law that it will be no part of the responsibility of the Minister of Justice or of the Government to prosecute the man who does not answer the call of his class?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was dealing, and I understood the hon. gentleman to be dealing, with the question of the punishment of people who seek to hinder the execution of this law. I pointed out that it would not be necessary for the Minister of Justice to intervene in order that there should be a prosecution unless I accepted the suggestion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton. If I did not do so, I could not intervene to prevent the supposed constituents of the Minister of Inland Revenue from being pros-

eeuted if anybody wanted to prosecute him. I cannot see how from what I have said the inference has been drawn that I would not be interested in seeing the law enforced. I have already pointed out that I would be neither hindered nor embarrassed if the Minister of Inland Revenue should call upon me under those circumstances. In the first place I do not think he would ask me to refrain from action in any circumstances where it was my duty to act, but if I did accept the hypothesis of my hon. friend, I do not think it would make any difference to my action in the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The provisions of clause 2 are not aimed at persons who use thoughtless words. They are not aimed at all at ,criticism. It is one thing to criticise those responsible for the enactment of a law; it is another thing to incite people to refuse to obey that law after it has properly passed.
The two things are absolutely distinct and apart. This clause does not touch the first case at all; it is designed most distinctly to touch the second. But even so, it is not designed to prosecute every person who may utter some thoughtless word. It is designed to prevent a serious attempt to reduce this law to a mere nullity; that is its purpose, and that purpose, I think, ought to commend itself to the judgment of every member in this House and every man in the country, because when the people fail in their respect for a law which has been properly passed a condition will have been reached which will not augur well for the future of the country.
The suggestion of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton is quite in line with the purpose for which this section has been proposed. If he will be good enough to let the Bill pass, with the understanding that we will take his suggestion into consideration,
I shall be obliged, and if it is desired to revert to the matter again in case we should not accept his suggestion we shall be very glad to do so.
Subsection 2 carried on division.
On subsection 3 of proposed new section 16:
No proceeding authorized or pending before any of the tribunals provided for by this Act and no decision of any such tribunal shall by means of injunction, prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus or other process whether of the like kind or otherwise issuing out of any court be enjoined, restrained, stayed, removed or subjected to review or consideration upon any ground whether arising

out of alleged absence of jurisdiction in the tribunal, nullity, defect or irregularity of the proceedings or any other cause whatsoever nor shall any such proceeding or decision be questioned, reviewed or reconsidered collaterally in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal.


Robert Laird Borden: This clause has been fully explained by the Minister of Justice. As he has pointed out, it is not designed to deal with cases of prosecution for offences. It is merely designed, like a great many similar enactments, to prevent interference on technical grounds with the operations of the tribunals. Innumerable	sections of	this	kind	are tobe found in legislation in this country ;	they are to	be	found	in	the
Canada Temperance Act, in the enactments of provincial legislatures with regard to liquor, in the Immigration Act, and in many other Acts which one could enumerate if it were necessary. The object is a very clear one. The enforcement of laws of this character is very often confided to persons who are not thoroughly versed in the law, and are therefore liable to make mistakes of which advantage might be taken by application to a higher court. It is the purpose of these enactments that technical objections of that character shall not be available to those who seek to defeat the law; that is clarly the purpose of section 3, as it has been drafted and as it is now proposed


Wilfrid Laurier: The object is well known. There are, however, precedents of this character, and they should not be considered as precedents. I think it is very dangerous legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest that this clause is in the wrong place. The connection is bad, and it is very apt to be misleading. If this clause were at the end of clause 5 there would not be so much danger of misunderstanding.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is quite right. If he will let the Bill pass as it is, we will endeavour to put the clause in its proper place. It really ought to be in a section by itself.
Subsection 3 carried on division.
On subsection 4 of proposed new section 16:
Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to mitigate or affect the punishment provided by any other Act or law lor the offence of assisting the enemy; nor shall anything in this Act, be held to limit or affect the powers of the Governor in Council under the War Measures Act, 1914.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are matters dealt with in this Act-for instance, the matters we were speaking of a moment ago-that might be considered, according to the circumstances, as amounting to giving assistance to the enemy. There might be such hindrance of the operation of this Act as might be assisting the enemy. It is not intended by reason of the provisions here made to prevent the application of existing laws in regard to assistance of the enemy. We do not want to reduce the responsibility of any man for actions that may possibly be covered by this section, if the conditions and circumstances make them such as to amount to assisting the enemy; we do not want to withdraw such a man from the operation of the general laws upon that subject.
I am not prepared to point out particular cases where it does, but I think it is so highly probable that you might find cases of actually assisting the enemy which might come under the letter of this provision, that it is wise to make it clear that it is not intended by enacting this provision with regard to the operation of this Act to mitigate the law wherever it may be applicable with regard to assistance to the enemy.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there anything in this law so far which may be of any assistance to the enemy?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This law is intended to hinder and impede the enemy. A man might carry on his operations for the purpose of hindering this law, and might so conduct himself for that purpose as to assist the enemy in effect and bring himself within other provisions dealing directly with assisting the enemy.


Robert Laird Borden: For which a more serious punishment is provided.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who will have the say as to whether the other prosecution will be instituted or not? Is it the local tribunal that will decide the point?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course if it belonged to the Minister of Justice to order prosecutions under this Act, it would be for him to determine upon the facts of a case whether it constitutes a violation of some other law with regard to assisting the enemy for which the punishment may be heavier than this, and whether he should proceed under that other law, or whether the case merely came under this law. If it
is open to any one to lay an information without authorization from the Minister of Justice, it will be for the person laying the information to make up his mind what he wants to charge the party accused with. If he thinks he has a charge against him under this Act, he will proceed under this Act. If he thinks he has a charge involving more severe punishment under another law, he will proceed under another law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the local tribunal have the decision of the point of law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Nobody will be tried before the local tribunals for an offence. Persons charged with those offences will be brought before the criminal courts. The local tribunal has power to decide only one question, and that is, is a particular man entitled to an exemption certificate.
Subsection 4 agreed to.
On subsection 5 of proposed new section 16:
(5) Any person who prints or publishes or causes to be printed or published in any book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication whatsoever any editorial, article, letter, correspondence or other matter intended or having effect to advocate, advise, persuade, instigate or influence the public or any person, body or class of persons to resist, obstruct, hinder or impede the due execution of this Act or compliance therewith in any respect or particular according to its true intent, meaning and purpose or for the purpose of impeding or defeating the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunals claims for exemption or the evidence available in support thereof or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act or the regulations thereunder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than five years; and whether the printer or publisher of any such book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication shall have been first convicted or not the same shall be summarily suppressed and shall remain suppressed for the duration of the present war; and moreover the further publication of any book, newspaper, periodical, tract, pamphlet, circular or printed publication whatsoever in any issue of which any such editorial, article, letter, correspondence or other matter shall have been published is prohibited and the same shall be summarily suppressed and remain suppressed for the duration of the present war.


George Perry Graham: What does that mean?
What effect does it have on the prosecution of the case? It says whether the man responsible for the printing or publishing of the article be convicted or not the newspaper will toe suppressed. Does that involve the suppression of the newspaper even if the man were acquitted?
. 3344


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as the offence constituted here is concerned, it is precisely the same as the offence dealt with in subsection 2, except that this deals with the printing and publishing of it. If the party were acquitted, he might be acquitted because he was not the man who published it. Still, the publication is there to speak for itself, and if on its face it comes under this seotjon, then that publication, ought to be suppressed. Perhaps it was not the fault of the owner, and perhaps he is not responsible for what happened, but you must have the power of suppression even though you may not be able to find out who is the person responsible for the publication. The man who did it may not be convicted and punished, but the publication tending to hinder the operation of the Act is there-it is a substantial thing-it is not a question to go to the law courts about. We may not be able to find the man who published it, and the publisher of a particular paper may be able upon his prosecution to establish that the article slipped in unawares, but we do not want it to remain in circulation simply because it is not possible to convict somebody of having produced it. I think in. the majority of cases, where it was called for, there would be no difficulty in convicting the publisher; still the two things are provided for-the possible conviction of the publisher and the suppression of the paper, and it is pointed out that it is not essential for the one to be done that the other should be successful.


George Perry Graham: I can see that clearly; but suppose this were the case: that the proprietor who may be his own editor goes away temporarily and in good faith installs somebody else as editor in his absence. It very often occurs that the temporary man may publish something diametrically opposed to the policy of th8 paper and to the wishes of the proprietor. Does not the hon. minister think it a hardship that the owner, who is entirely innocent, and who has been taken advantage of, is to be robbed of his property by this Act. His paper is suppressed until the end of the war.


Robert Laird Borden: What my hon. friend means is that under the provisions of this section the suppression would be obligatory; that we would be obliged to suppress it, because we use the wsrd "shall?"


George Perry Graham: It looks like that to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is some force in that. We might substitute the word " may."


Frank Oliver: An editor accused of being responsible for the publication of matter which is an infringement of this section has an opportunity on his teial of giving evidence in his own behalf and of being represented by counsel. Should not the proprietors of a newspaper have a similar right to be heard before their paper is suppressed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section merely
makes provision that suppression may follow. It would be necessary to make provision by regulation for the steps which would lead to suppression. The power of suppression under the censorship regulations for the publication of seditious matter is exercised on the responsibility of the Government through the Department of the Secretary of State. It is a power that can only be exercised effectively by somebody acting in an executive capacity. If you have to go to the courts, the publication continues in the meantime and may render nugatory the purpose of the suppression.


Frank Oliver: Surely the men who have their money invested in a newspaper enterprise ought to have the right in the protection of their interests and property of having the question whether the article is an infraction of the Jaw tried out in exactly the same way as the accused man would be tried. That would seem to be elementary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would, of course, be highly desirable to have the matter tried out before any suppression was made, but I do not see how that could be done effectively. Suppression is a power that is only effective if it is susceptible of prompt exercise. It would expose people to serious damage in their property if that power were unwisely exercised, but I do not see how it could be effectively exercised by the ordinary process of law. It goes without saying that the power of suppression would not be exercised by any minister without very grave consideration or on any but the clearest justification.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who will have power to suppress a paper pending trial?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The particular minister will have to be designated by regulation. In a general way the censorship is in the Department of State.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is that not against the
principles of British justice that no man shall be declared guilty until he is found

guilty? You suppress the paper although the court has not declared whether there is anything in it which calls for suppression.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If that be the case, and the court is not supposed to determine whether the newspapers should be suppressed or not, how can a judge be supposed to condemn the man who printed the article?


Robert Laird Borden: Those are two distinct things. The prosecution is one thing and the suppression of a newspaper.
either altogether or during the war, is another thing. In the course of this war, we have to deal with all the publications, for example, that come into the country. A number have been prevented from coming in because they were distinctly seditious. I think, in one case, a newspaper published in this country was suppressed for a certain length of time. These are not matters which could very well be delermined by the adjudication of a court. Any government that is conscious of its responsibility will exercise such powers most sparingly. I may take the committee into my confidence to the extent of saying that many communications have been sent to the Government from different parts of the country with regard to newspapers which, perhaps, were publishing matter of a detrimental character, but we have always felt, when such matters were brought to our attention, that it was only in a rather extreme case that the Government should exercise such extreme powers, and it is with a strong sense of responsibility that this Government, or any government, would take into consideration any such question.


Charles Avila Wilson: The .proposition to
suppress the paper first and try the editor afterwards reminds one of the policy adopted by Cardinal Richelieu, where the man was executed first and tried afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: We were obliged to deal in that way with a number of seditious publications that were coming into this country. There was no other way of dealing with them.


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister has suggested that the word " may " be used instead of the word " shall "-"This publication so found guilty shall be suppressed to the end of the war." I am not speaking from the standpoint of sympathy for the man responsible for the publication, but I may say that in every locality a weekly paper particularly is an institution. In punishing the guilty, you may be robbing a locality of an institution, which would mean a great deprivation to the people of that locality. Woulditnotbe wise foT the Government to take, by this Bill, powers of discretion to say whether the paper shall be suppressed till after the war, or for a period? For this reason: there might be some man who would take that paper who would perhaps assist very much in the prosecution of the war by his articles, and if the paper were suppressed, it could not be conducted at all thereafter. I make this suggestion

because if you rob some of the localities of their weekly paper, you might almost as well take their prayer books from them. I know the objection which might be made would be that the paper might be transferred to some person else, but really remain the property of the same individual. But if a bona fide sale were made, and the paper were conducted properly under the new management, it would save the locality from being deprived of what is an institution in a great many sections and a great benefit to the people.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be suspended for a period not exceeding the duration of the war.	.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: As a mere layman, who has listened to lawyers for four hours, I will make a suggestion before this section is adopted. Most of us will be called upon to try and explain the meaning of the clauses to people who are not perhaps as familiar with these matters as we in this House are. Would it not be possible to paragraph these sections in such a way that the meaning would be a little bit clearer? For instance, that subsection 5, which we have been dealing with, and make it read something like this:
5. Any person who prints or publishes or causes to be printed or published in any book, newspaper, etc.,
(a)	or influence the public or any person, body or class of persons to resist, etc.,
(b)	or for the purpose of impeding or defeating the operation or administration of this Act to abstain from submitting for decision of the proper tribunal claims for exemption of the evidence available, etc.,
(c)	or in any manner whatsoever to embarrass the Government or the minister in the administration of this Act, etc.
If they were placed in that form, we should be able to see them, one after the other, and we poor laymen, who have not had the benefit of a legal education, might be able to explain it to our friends so that it would be understood.


Frank Oliver: I hope the hon. gentleman will be more successful than I was in getting the minister to break the section up into paragraphs. I tried to get it divided into sentences.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will make an effort to get back to our A. B. C.'s, and perhaps we will reach the comprehension of everybody.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the question of the proprietor of a newspaper and the newspaper itself, we have always had the

understanding that the manager or the proprietor, when accused, would be brought up for trial, and would be tried on the merits of the question as to the offence committed through the publication of the article. Am I to understand, however, the Prime Minister has said that the trial of the man is only a question of establishing his identity or responsibility, but the question as to the nature of the article is a matter entirely for the Government through its censorship? If so, it is an arbitrary authority to be exercised by the Government; it is not to be a matter for the consideration of the court which tries the owner or manager of the paper.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend must ibe referring to something that was said by the Minister of Justice; I do not remember touching upon the part of the question that he first mentioned. I pointed out that in these cases of censorship in respect of something that is regarded as detrimental to the public interest, the executive must exercise a certain responsibility, and that that responsibility, by reason of its character, must be, and had been up to the present time, exercised sparingly. The Government has possessed full powers to deal with this subject, and the cognate subject defined in this section will be approached in the same spirit and with' the same sense oi responsibility, looking to its being sparingly exercised and only in absolutely plain cases.


Frank Oliver: I understand, then, that the Government takes upon itself the responsibility of deciding as to the criminality of any published article?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And that the court is only for the purpose of establishing the responsibility of the individual?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I was speaking with reference to the suppression of the newspaper. When you come to the,prosecution against the individual, then you come to the court and the whole matter is fully opened.


Frank Oliver: When a person is prosecuted because of an article published in a newspaper it is the character of that article, not himself personally, that is in question, and upon the character of that article he suffers the punishment provided in this section. What I was urging upon the Minister of Justice was that the suppression of a

newspaper, which 'is a very serious matter, indeed, should in the same way be made the subject of consideration by the court; that newspapers should not 'be suppressed unless an independent court had decided that the article published was in contravention of the terms of this section of the Act. I was claiming the same consideration for the property rights centred in the newspaper as is conceded to the individual in his personal rights-the right of trial and of evidence as to the facts. I see no reason why that cannot be done; I see every reason why it should be done.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not think that it is practicable. In the cases to which I have referred it would hardly have been practicable for the Government to go to the courts for the purpose of obtaining a determination respecting the publications coming into the country from abroad or with regard to the newspaper which was suppressed tfor a certain time. The Government has never acted, nor would it propose to act, unless the case was so manifestly plain and beyond question that there could be ho doubt about it.


Frank Oliver: The case of papers coming into the country is not at all on all fours with the case to which I am referring.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that it really is; I will tell my hon. friend why. In the case where a newspaper coming into this country in the ordinary course under postal convention is virtually suppressed by being refused admission, a question as to the action taken arises with the proprietors of the newspaper; sometimes it is made the subject of diplomatic inquiry. :So that the same question does arise, although the persons who publish the newspaper do not happen to be citizens of this country.


Frank Oliver: That is what strikes me as constituting a great difference between the two cases. In the one case, we may do as we please, or as our neighbours will allow us; in the other, we are dealing with our own citizens and with investments of property very much out of proportion to the property affected by the suppression of the circulation of a paper coming into this country. The citizens of our country who have property rights in a newspaper are entitled to the benefit of every law that exists for the protection ' of their property; they are entitled to different consideration from that accorded to the citizens of any other country whose news papers may achieve some small circulation 213
here. I will mention another point of difference between this Act and the censorship or the stoppage of papers coming into this country from a foreign country. The censorship as it stands to-day is a censorship on account of treason or the giving of information of military value to the enemy. This is censorship directed against criticism of a government policy and administration-a different matter altogether. A discussion of the Government's policy and administration is essentially the right and business of every public newspaper in the country and the assumption of authority of the Government absolutely to destroy a newspaper without let or hindrance, without trial or consideration of any kind, is a very serious matter. I submit that that authority should not be assumed in the terms that the Prime Minister has laid down. Under the conditions which I have tri d to sketch, the right of the citizen in his property should he protected by proceedings before the courts.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that if a paper transgresses it shall be summarily suppressed and shall remain suppressed for the duration of the war. As that is provided by Act of Parliament, I suppose that if a paper so suppressed should endaavour to make amends, apologize profusely and promise never to repeat the offence, that paper could only be reinstated by Act of Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On the suggestion of the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) it was agreed that for the word " shall " we should substitute the word " may," to provide for possible limited duration of suspension.


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister intimated that the term might be for a period not exceeding the duration of the war.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The application of the censorship in the past has, I am sorry to say, not been such as to inspire confidence in the good judgment or in the fair dealing of the Government in the administration of that censorship. We have the very startling instance of the suppression of a newspaper published at Sault Ste. Marie. I am' not aware of the grounds upon which that paper was suppressed. We are, however, aware that every week day since the war began there has been published in the city of Montreal a paper that, to my mind, has carried treasonable utterances in a large



majority of its issues, and it has not been touched hy the censor.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Why?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say why. I am only stating the fact, and the fact, according to my judgment, is such as to render the newspaper proprietors of this country very much alarmed at an enactment, proposed as this is, by which a paper, for criticism of the administration of this Government in regard to a matter which is of most intimate interest to the people of this country, is to be liable to arbitrary suppression. I am under the impression that no such law exists in any other country. In no other country are the newspapers placed under such conditions as to carrying on their business. That being the case, perhaps the Government has not yet considered the actual circumstances in regard to the newspaper business, the enormous amount of money invested in newspapers, the responsibilities that have to be carried by those who are concerned in their conduct and in connection with those investments, and-I am sorry to have to say it-the grave possibility of the power vested in tne Government by this section being used otherwise than on principles of absolute fair play and justice. The Government should systematically, for its own credit and for the cred:t of the country, absolutely avoid placing itself in a position where it could be accused of unfairness in the enforcement of this law. I am not objecting to the principle already stated, that when a law is passed it must be enforced and should be respected; but as to the provisions in regard to newspapers, I am compelled to think the Government has not had sufficient information as to the circumstances or conditions or it surely would not have framed this section in this form.


Mr. MORPHY:: Will the hon. gentleman kindly name the naper to which he refers, which ha?, pr'or to this date, been publishing seditious articles in the city of Montreal?


Frank Oliver: The paper that is publishing articles that I consider have a very strong seditious tendency is Le Devoir.
Mr. MORPiHY: A French paper?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the paper that was largely responsible for the return of the present Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: When the hon. gentleman says that does he refer to articles published prior to 1911 or since?


Frank Oliver: Prior to 1911.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: He is complaining of the seditious character of articles written since 1911?


Frank Oliver: The articles written since 1911 have, in large measure been, in my humble judgment, of a seditious character. Some hon. gentlemen asked why the discrimination between the paper published at Sault Ste. Marie and the paper published at Montreal. I want to be understood that I did not say that the failure to suppress the papeT in Montreal [DOT] was be-12 m. cause it had been largely instrumental in returning the present Government to power. I wish to draw attention to this far-reaching provision of this section, iby which not only is the paper that publishes an objectionable article suppressed, but another paper that copies that article is, if I understand the section correctly, automatically suppressed. Pei'haps those who drafted the section hardly realized how far-reaching that provision was. In the preparation of a newspaper, while the pen, now largely displaced by the typewriter, occupies a very important place, we will admit that the scissors are also used.


George Perry Graham: In Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: In using the exchanges for the purpose of providing matter for a paper, it is not the responsible editor who makes the selections, it is usually some subordinate member of the staff who does so, and I think it would be a most terrible thing that a paper should be absolutely suppressed because, through inadvertence, an objectionable article had appeared in its columns. Perhaps my hon. friend did not appreciate the technical points in that connection, or he surely would have thrown some saving provision around that penalty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the last observation is met by the substitution of the word " may " for the word " shall." The paper does not become absolutely suppressed, and I think circumstances such as the hon. gentleman mentions would have great weight in determining whether the paper that republishes should be suppressed or not. On the other hand, I think the hon. gentleman will admit that if would be a very foolish position to take to say: Well, the paper that contains the original article we will suppress, but all the other papers in the

country can print that article and keep it in circulation, and they will go on with impunity. I quite understand that the case the hon. gentleman suggests would not be a case for the exercise of the power, and his objection was very well taken so long as the imperative " shall " remained in the section, but the use of the word " may " would appeal to the judgment of anybody charged with the exercise of this power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank Oliver: To the hon. members who are so anxious to have this section carried,
I say that this is the severest infraction of the rights of the people of Canada that has taken place since this Dominion wafj formed, and I do not think a few minutes are wasted in just going into the details of it.' A little while ago, the Prime Minister, if I understood him correctly, said that there was an absolute distinction between the offence of inciting opposition to the law and criticism of the law. There is a difference between the two things at the two extremes, but there is no sharp dividing line of difference between the two. No man can say definitely just where fair criticism ends and obstruction or interference, or incitement to interference begins.
If I say that the administration and legislation of this Government in a certain particular is wrong, I am thereby inciting people against that administration or legislation. I cannot criticise adversely the administration or legislation of the Government without in some degree inciting people to opposition to that administration or legislation ; and so I take the ground that when the Government introduces legislation worded in the general and comprehensive terms of these two sections, it is an attack upon free speech and upon the right and duty of public criticism of the public affairs of this country.


Robert Laird Borden: There is some force in what my hon. friend says as to the two things shading into each other. The same observation is perfectly true as to the shading between what might legitimately be regirded as sedition and what might legitimately be regarded as the expression of a strong opinion not amounting to sedition. All that is perfectly true, but I do not see that it makes the provisions of the section unwise. We must deal with these things, and we simply have to exercise our best judgment as to whether a particular article is seditious or whether it is
something that is just a little short of being seditious.


George Perry Graham: I hope the committee will not be too weary, but my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and myself are speaking for a very large and influential class of people in the community. What would the Government do in this case? Suppose a member of this House made a speech in this Chamber that would come under this Act if it appeared in a newspaper as an editorial. Would the newspaper be liable under this Act if it reproduced that speech?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a matter of discretion.


Frank Oliver: I just wish to say a last word. From what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have just said, I can come to no other, conclusion than that from the passage of this Act forward the press of this country lies under threat from this Government, and to that extent is prevented from the exercise of the right and duty of legitimate criticism of the acts and administration of the Government.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I should like to make one suggestion to the committee. Why not leave the question of press censorship, in so far as it is affected by this Bill in the hands of a judge of the Supreme Court. Extensive powers have been given to a judge of the Supreme Court by this Act. We come to one clause where there is absolutely no appeal of any kind, where there is not even a trial, and where the Government is taking upon itself to suppress a newspaper upon the judgment of one of its ministers. Now, there is a great difference, in my mind, between censorship after this law comes into force, and censorship as it has existed in the past. In the past censorship has been directed against sedition, against divulging secrets concerning the army, and so forth, but under these provisions it will be directed against 'any article which may-embarrass the Government in connection with the operation of this Act. That means that the Government is the interested party, the accuser, and also the judge. It certainly is against all principles of British justice to have the same man the accuser, the interested party, and the judge. I know that a lot of confidence is being placed under this Act in the judges of the Supreme Court. I believe the Government believe they will be absolutely fair

in the application of this Act. I feel sure that in the other clauses the Government have introduced all the safeguards they possibly could, and in this particular instance they are taking upon themselves a certain amount of authority that I am convinced at this time they will administer to the 'best of their knowledge and ability. But they are leaving people under the impression- this has been commonly stated in the few hours since these clauses have been printed -that they are taking this means of suppressing the Opposition press in the event of an election. I do not say that for a moment; I do not believe the Government would use the law for that purpose; but if they can remove that suspicion by placing the administration of this censorship in the hands of a judge of the Supreme Court, or some impartial body, why not do so, and avoid being at one and the same time accuser, judge and jury?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend has put it in quite the right light in one respect. He speaks of the Government being the accuser. It is really the state, the Government acting for the time being as its instrument, asserting the rights of the state against organized disobedience to the state's law; that is the position, nothing more and nothing less. Further than that, under the censorship which has had to be carried on not only in this country, but in Great Britain during the last three years Or thereabouts, powers quite as extensive as these have been capable of exercise, and, as I have said 'before, they have been very sparingly used-used almost altogether by suggestion to the press, by communication, and not by infliction of punishment whether in the way of suppression, prosecution, or otherwise. So I think there need be no serious apprehension about this. My hon. friend, however, has made a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. It is an invidious position for a Government to be in; I entirely agree with that. So far as the Government are concerned, we have left these matters altogether to the officers appointed, and have only interfered when the officers came to us for direction or with a recommendation. It has been left absolutely to the officers appointed, and so far as I know, and as I fully believe, they are animated by a desire to exercise their powers fairly and with perfect impartiality. The Government naturally would be sparing in the use of its powers in this connection, because whenever they are exercised those responsible are always open to un-[llr, Boivin.]
founded imputations and insinuations. My hon. friend says it might be proper that matters of this kind should be left to a judge of the Supreme Court. That is a suggestion which strikes me rather favourably at the moment, and I am prepared to consider it. If my hon. friend would be good enough to let the clause pass, I will undertake to return to it for the purpose of making the necessary amendment, or if we should not see fit to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend, we will return to it for any purpose that may be desired.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In case a paper is liable to be suppressed for treasonable editorials, would the editor be remonstrated with first? Would he be called before a judge of the Supreme Court, or before the board of censors, to explain or to amend, or would he simply be- summarily suppressed?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that will have to depend on the circumstances of the case. There may be some oases of so glaring a character 'that they would be beyond remonstrance, there might be other cases in which remonstration would be proper and desirable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose a paper is circulated publishing treasonable matter, would the editor be liable undeT subsection 2?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would not come
under the present subsection. He would come under the first part of subsection 5. Subsection 2 deals with verbal utterances, and 5 deals with printed or published utterances and adds the power of suppression in the case of printing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the law reach only the editor, or does it reach the proprietor and those who finance the paper-the backers of the paper?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it does not go beyond those who have to do with the publication of the paper; those who are responsible for or take part in the publication of the treasonable matter. I do not think, for instance, the boy who tied up the newspaper bundles, or the .man who packed them for the purpose of sending them away, would be reached by this section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend ha6 sufficient experience in journalism to know that very often the editor is only the instrument of other parties who finance the publication. Are those who are behind

the publication not as responsible as the editor himself?


Robert Laird Borden: It would depend,
I suppose, on how they financed it. If they were really the proprietors and financed it in that way, they might be liable. If they were persons who financed the paper by lending money, they would not be liable because they lave really nothing to do with tlic direction of the paper.
Subsection agreed to on division.
On subsection 6 of proposed new section 16:
6. This section shall come into force on the day of the sanction of this Act.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the meaning of the word "sanction" there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act is sanctioned when the Crown gives assent to it, that is to say the day the Act is finally passed.


John Howard Sinclair: Then, it is intended that the provisions of the section will be enforced between the time the Act is passed and the time it is proclaimed by the Government?


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand
it merely means that after the Act has received the assent of the Governor General it shall not be competent to any person to urge disobedience of it. Its operation has not begun, so far as the calling out of men under it; it has not been proclaimed. But in the meantime it shall be unlawful for any person to urge disobedience of it.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it will be difficult to get a judge to convict a man for impeding the administration of an Act which is not being administered, and which has not yet come into force. This Act may be passed to-morrow, and it may be law as far as the assent of both Houses and the Governor General goes. Then it may not come into force by proclamation until the end of the year, or it may never come into force. Can we ask a judge to impose a penalty on a person for impeding the administration of an Act which is not in force and which may never come into force? You cannot stop a horse until you have started him. '


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite clear no one can impede an operation which operation is not going on, but people may advise and urge and arrange in advance to impede it when it comes into force. Under this section, we can reach them.


Frank Oliver: I may inform my hon. friend the judge is only necessary to deal
with the individual. The Government can enforce the gag on the newspapers without any help from the judge.
Subsection agreed to on division.


Arthur Meighen: I expect the rearrangement of the clauses of the amendement moved as section 16 will make it clear that paragraph 6 applies only to paragraphs 2 and 5. It has not any application to the other paragraphs of the section. The second paragraph of section 17 must be retained. It may be made a separate section, as suggested by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).
There still remains section 3, which was left last night. That is the section which divides the men into classes. There were many who urged that it would be unfair to call class 1 ahead of classes 2 and 3, some urging that all three should be called together, and others urging that class 2 should precede class 1. Various reasons were given on both proposals. I stated that, while I felt it would be exceedingly inconvenient to call all three together and would result perhaps in impediments being thrown in the way of the operation of the Act, I would reserve the clause and consult with the other members of the Government. I desire now to recommend to the House that the three classes be united. At the same time, I wish to make it clear that we hope to get over the inconvenience that would result by calling them all together by such divisions in the regulations as may enable us to take care of them at times sufficiently separated to prevent congestion, and to ensure that all three will be treated absolutely alike in so far as priority of selection goes. It has been the intention to comb those first three classes at least, and more if required. That being the case I wish to move that clause 1 shall read as follows:
Those who have attained the age of twenty years and were born not earlier than the year 1883 and are unmarried or are widowers who have no child.
Then classes two and three would be struck out. There is no reason why classes one, two and three should be united that does not apply just as well to classes four, five and six. I therefore beg to move that class four be known as class two, and that its description read as follows:
Those who have attained the age of twenty years and were born not earlier than the year 1883 and are married or are widowers who have a child or children.
Classes five and six would then be struck out and the classes that are now classes seven, eight, nine and ten would be

changed to read classes three, four, five and six.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I would suggest that the last word in section three be changed from "youngest" to "oldest." The class ranges from twenty to thirty-four, and if they are not called out for another year the thirty-four year old man will certainly not be improved by waiting, while those who are of the age of twenty will be a year better at age twenty-one than they are at twenty.


Arthur Meighen: The intention, in fact the most absolute statement, is that no matter how they are called out there will be no priority as between those calls in the ages twenty to thirty-four. The arrangements for the trial of applications for exemptions will proceed in such a way that, all will be taken care of as nearly together as possible, so as not to congest the tribunals. Priority of obligation is abolished.


George Taylor: Is subsection 3 to be amended?


Arthur Meighen: No, it does not require to be amended.


George Taylor: So long as the word "youngest" remains-


Arthur Meighen: That is only the matter of the order of reporting, so long as you group the three, or are certain that all three are to be called, that priority is abolished.


George Taylor: That is not the way the section reads. It says the order in which they are described in this (Section shall' be the order in which they are called out on active service.


Arthur Meighen: Galled out is the proclamation, and we will say that the new Mass one is called out. A division is made in order to avoid congestion, and it is said that the first Mass will report on such a day and the second class on such another day and the third Mass on such another day. All of these must report. In so far as the applications for exemptions are concerned, we might have the tribunals sit on the last class first, but so far as this section goes, it is simply reporting to the military officers.


George Taylor: 1 think there is more in it, than that. If you enlisted 100,000, under this the oldest man would be left off. I think it should be the youngest man.


Arthur Meighen: No, that would he a
matter for determination under the military rules that now exist. Any one can now be released. They could release the

oldest or the youngest, or one-half at the top and one-half at the bottom, if there were too many.


George Taylor: Why not amend section 3?


Arthur Meighen: It would not affect that question; that is simply a question of the order of reporting.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may not be here tomorrow. When the Prime Minister considers the section concerning the clergy, will he include the students in divinity and theoloey as they were considered in Washington when they passed a similar Bill? The term " Mergy " is a wide term and it might be well to mention students in divinity and theology.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall take
that into consideration.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Friday.
Friday, July 13, 1917.