1917-07-06

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I see in this morning's Ottawa Journal-Press:

Wild Talk from Lafortune.
Mr. D. A Lafortune, of Montcalm, declared that Canada owed nothing to England, and it was England who must defend the finest colony of the Empire. He added: "Never will we , spend one cent for the Laurier navy before consulting the people."
I declare that I never used that language.
I repeated yesterday what the late Mr. F. D. Monk had declared in this House and outside of it. I repeat, I never used that language, but the very man who used that language was a member of this Government. That is what I said. If the reporter of the Journal-Press is here I suppose he will be gentleman enough to make the correction and to report wihat I said correctly, adding that it was Mr. Monk, the late minister in this very same Cabinet, who used that language, and not the member for Montcalm.



MINERS' STRIKE IN THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Some days ago, when I read to the House certain telegrams from parties in the Yukon the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was good enough to say that he would make inquiries in regard to the matter and give the House the benefit of the information received at a later date. I would like to know if he has the information?


Mr. CROTHERS:: The hen. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson) received, yesterday, a message from the Administrator of the Yukon in these words:-
Am glad advise you that after repeated conferences between the Manager Yukon Gold Company, the striking employees and myself, an adjustment satisfactory both employer and employees has been reached and the men have practically all returned to work. The strikers were the four dollar per day men. They demanded an advance of one dollar but compromised for fifty cents.
Williams.
I forwarded to the Administrator of the Yukon a copy of the telegram which my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) read to the House a few days ago, and asked him to let me have his answer to the allegations contained in that message. I have not yet received any reply from him, but I probably will this afternoon. I am expecting at any moment to get his reply.



SECOND READING.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public ser-

vice ending 31st March, 1918.-Sir Thomas White-read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service.-Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Before taking up the first clause, I would like to have the permission of the committee to refer for a moment to some observations made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), in regard to slowing up on recruiting. My hon. friend, on the 19th June last, in the debate upon this measure, said this:-
The leader of the Government on more than one occasion-take the very day when Mr. Mc-Dougall was present, the leader of the Government asked me again if I could not let up on recruiting


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Is the right hon. gentleman referring to me?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I have not heard one word yet. I would like to hear it.


Robert Laird Borden: I was referring to these observations of my hon. friend on the 19th June, 1917.
Sir Sam Hughes:	The leader of the Government on more than one occasion-taite the very day when Mr. McDougall was present, the leader of the Government asked me again if I could not let up on recruiting ; and, moreover, the right hon. leader of the Government later on pointed out-if he wants the whole story I will he glad to give it-pointed out that there was a tremendous agitation in Toronto over the subject, that he had had various communications from Toronto, that the Finance Minister had told him there was a perfect storm brewing there, and that agitation was due to the fact that men could not be obtained as workers.
Further on, the hon. member for Pictou interposed as follows:
Mr. Macdonald:	Speaking at Lindsay, Ontario, on April 2S, regarding the conditions of which he spoke and the agitation, the hon. gentleman said:
"This unfortunately had an effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that I was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day has been dead in Canada for fighting purposes."
Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the statement made by him in Lindsay is quite correct?
Sir Sam Hughes: I am quite surprised at the hon. gentleman asking any such question. That speech is issued by myself, and I am not in the habit of issuing statements that I do not endorse. I will prove it before I have finished.

I desire to take the strongest possible exception to the statement of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, so far as it referred to me, and to repeat what I said in this House, on the 29th day of January last. I shall quote and I now repeat that portion of my statement then made, which is relevant:
I desire to assure the House and the country that neither to the Ontario Recruiting Committee on the occasion mentioned nor to any other organization or individual on any other occasion, did I ever give any such intimation as that suggested, or anything that could be tortured into such an intimation.
In connection with the whole subject, I think it is desirable to point out that on the 17th of January, 1916, in the debate upon the address, I used this language:
I realize that 500,000 men is a large force for us to undertake in Canada; arid I realize further that the national strength of Canada must be maintained, and that in proceeding with our effort to increase our forces in Canada we must have regard to the necessities of the agricultural and industrial interests of this country. Canada, in all the elements of her national life, must be kept strong, and we shall have regard to those considerations.
The subject was also alluded to during the present session, when on the 1st day of February, 1917, in reply to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I spoke as follows:
The recruiting proceeded with a great deal of vigour and earnestness, and the fact that we succeeded in the first three and a half months of the past year in recruiting a hundred thousand men or more is an indication that the work was carried on with a good deal of vigour and with a great deal of success. The criticism has been made that proper regard to selection was not made. I discussed that question with the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence more than a year ago-I think in the autumn of 1915 for the first time. The course which my colleague took in that regard was that he did not think at that time that any more systematic method was necessary, and he said that it would be possible, through instructions given to his recruiting officers, to prevent unwise selection, selection which might result in the closing up of industries essential for the prosecution of the war, when recruits might have been obtained from other classes whose work and service werV not so essential. I was informed by General Hughes that instructions had been given in various instances to adopt methods which would give some system to that purpose.	[DOT]
Mr. Oliver: About what time was that?
Sir Robert Borden: I think it was in the autumn of 1915 or early in 1916.
Sir Sam Hughes: Early in 1916.
And then, a little later on in the debate, my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence gave some illustrations of cases in which he had acted upon that principle, and he alluded again to his interview with Mr. McDougall, of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.


Samuel Hughes: Not to my interview, but to the right hon. the Prime Minister's interview. I was present.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) was present also. I may say that I have received from Mr. McDougall, without any request on my part, a statement of his recollection of what took place at that interview. It corresponds with my own, and he most emphatically declares that there was not any suggestion on my part at that interview that recruiting should be slowed up, but merely that we should endeavour to prevent unwise selection. That is to say, instead of endeavouring to enlist men who' presumably might be of more service to the country in the occupations in which they were then engaged than if they enlisted for service at the front, the activities of recruiting officers should be directed to those whose services at home were not valuable to the same extent to the country.


Samuel Hughes: Has the Prime Minister the date of Mr. McDougall's interview with him?


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not remember the date. It may be in Mr. Mc-Do-ugaJl's letter. I shall send a copy of it to my hon. friend. It is not necessary that. I should read it now.
Indeed, the course which I was endeavouring to carry out-and I think with the concurrence of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes)-was based on 'precisely the same principle as the Bill which. is now under discussion; that is to say, to endeavour to have each man give to the State the best service of which he was capable; not to send to the front men who were of more iservice to the State in the occupations in which they were engaged, but rather to direct recruiting among those who were not capable of performing service at home of the same value.
I 'should like to say that my attitude with regard to>
recruiting is very well set forth in a letter which I wrote toi Colonel Mulloy of Kingston, who was President of the Eastern Ontario Recruiting Association. I give this letter because I repeated practically the same thing to another delegation on the 10th of May, 1916.
Ottawa, Ont.,
29th September, 1915.
Dear Professor Mulloy,-
I expressed in Toronto my appreciation of those who have given help in recruiting at various meetings throughout the country. For your

personal and confidential information, I may say that the Chief of the General Staff reports that we are hardly able to keep pace with the organization and equipment of recruits now being enlisted in various parts of the country. That, however, is no reason why any effort should be relaxed, and we hope that all efforts hitherto made will be continued, as later on the needs may be greater than the response then forthcoming.
On Saturday, Monday and Tuesday I saw, in all, some twenty thousand men who have enlisted and who are in training for overseas service. Their physique, their spirit and their bearing were all that could be desired. Their training seems also to have proceeded very satisfactorily.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.) K. L. Borden.
*On the 10th of the following May, (this letter was written, in the September preceding) a delegation, I think of the National Service League of Canada, an. organization which had devoted its efforts to assist and promote recruiting, came to see me in Ottawa, and I repeated to them substantially the view which I had expressed in the letter to Colonel Mulloy, .and I have a .statement from one gentleman present at that interview confirming my'reeollec-tion of what took place at that time.
It would not, therefore, be possible that I could have directed my hon. friend in the previous March to slow up recruiting. Doubtless he made the statement in good faith; I am not imputing any blame to him in that respect.
With respect to certain correspondence which has been referred to by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, the letter dated June 9, 1916 and the reply to it were marked confidential. I wrote to my hon. friend saying that I. did not think it .proper to read my letter without reading his reply which was marked confidential; and asking if he would give me permission to read it. He was good enough to say at once that he had not the slightest objection to my reading his letter. The two letters are as follows:
Ottawa, Ont., June 9, 1916.
Confidential.
Dear General Hughes,
The question of raising new regiments was not only discussed in Council hut in the House of Commons and general approval was given to the proposal that as far as possible units already authorized should be completed before authority was given for new regiments. There was special criticism of a policy by which half a dozen regiments are being recruited at the same time in one community.
It is remarkable that General Hodgins did not commnnicate to you the policy which I announced to the Militia Council early in May; and that on the other hand he gave me no intimation whatever that you were authorizing new

regiments from time to time in ignorance of what I had declared.
The situation is so emharassing that I am passing an' Order in Council to-day to remedy it for the future.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd) R. D. Borden.
To which the ex-minister replied on June 27, 1916, as follows:
On C.P.R. train going west, June 27, 1916. Confidential.
Re new Battalions.
Dear Sir Robert,
Yours of June 9th just came before me on my trip west. 1 am very much surprised at the letter and its contents.
I did not know of the discussion in Council or in the House of Commons, but you will permit me to differ entirely from the conclusions arrived at. I know of no one community where half a dozen different regiments are being recruited at the same time, but it appears certain that the gentlemen who have been doing the criticising have no conception of how recruiting should be carried on. It is absolutely necessary, in large centres, that two or three regiments should be going on 'at the same time, each appealing to a different community.
I have been pursuing the policy of recruiting which has been unsurpassed in history, without friction excepting from selfish agitators each looking at his own personal ends, rather than the needs of the Empire.
X do not know what your Order in Council may be like but I certainly think I was entitled to see a copy thereof before it was passed.
This, therefore, accounts for the great falling off in recruiting.
However, I will speak to you about the matter the first time I see you.
Faithfully,
(Sgd) Sam Hughes.
The Order in Council to which allusion is there made has already been laid upon the Table, but it may be desirable that I should read it to the committee. An Older in Council was passed on January 12, 1916, by which the total authorized military forces of Canada were increased to 500,000 men. The Order in Council of June 10, 1916 is as follows:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report by the Prime Minister, dated the 8th January, 1916, with respect to the steps which have been taken under the Order in Council (P.C.	36) approved 12th
January, 1916, copy of which is attached, by which authority was granted for increasing the Canadian Expeditionary Forces to five hundred thousand officers and men, including those raised for garrison and guard duties in Canada.
The Prime Minister observes that it is expedient that the steps taken from time to time to raise the forces authorized by the said Order in Council, should be brought to the attention of the Advisers of Tour Royal Highness in each instance and that this can most conveniently be accomplished by providing that such units as are to be raised in the future must first he authorized by Your Royal Highness in Council.

The Prime Minister therefore recommends that before any further units of the force, or any special units asked for by the war office shall be authorized, or authority given for raising the same, authority shall be obtained from Tour Royal Highness in Council for that purpose.
The Committee concur in the foregoing and submit the same for approval.
In that connection I should mention that during part of April, the whole of May and June and the early part of July, 1916, I was administering the Department of Militia and Defence, under circumstances which are familiar to the Committee. I presided at meetings of the Militia Council during each of those months-on the 19th, 27th and 29th of April; the 8th, 16th and 19th of May, the 2nd of June and the 6th of July. I learned at one of those meetings-I cannot recall which one-that a number of battalions had been authorized by the then Minister of Militia and Defence while I was administering the Department. I am not attributing blame to my hon. friend in that respect;
I have no doubt he may have considered that he was acting within his rights. I merely mention the fact to show what took place and to explain the reason for the passing of this Order in Council. In order that I may make that perfectly plain,
I will quote a criticism made by the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) on May 8, 1916. This criticism was in line with a number of communications which had come to me from different parts of the country complaining that in certain localities altogether too many battalions were being recruited at the same time. The member for Edmonton said:
I know there was recruiting for a regiment to be known as the Bantams of Vancouver, at Edmonton. They may have ceased their operations at Edmonton now. This fact demonstrates that no discrimination whatever is used in the securing of recruits, in the way of having regard to the requirements of civil life; that the department simply goes after recruits whenever and wherever it can get them, without regard to any other circumstance. And more than that, the fact that so many units are being recruited in the same place at the same time tends against the success of the work. There is instituted a spirit of competition between the different officers who are engaged in recruiting that does not tend to success. I admit that probably to have two battalions recruiting at the same time and in the same place may give a healthy measure of competition; but when more than two are recruited it certainly is injurious rather than beneficial.
To which I replied:
My hon. friend no doubt has in mind that these regiments are recruited, I suppose, from a considerable district around Edmonton. I remember one which went through not long
ago whose members had come to a considerable extent from the Peace River country. There has been an endeavour in some cases at. least, to my certain knowledge, to adjust the recruiting to the requirements of local conditions. I cannot recall that any representations ever came to my attention concerning Edmonton, but I do recall other cases; and in those cases an endeavour was made by the department to meet local conditions through the guidance of recruiting officers.
That is the policy to which I have already referred and which has been repeatedly referred to in the House during the last as well as during the present session.
During the period between April 6 and June 6, both inclusive, when I was administering the department, the ex-Minister of Militia authorized eleven new battalions in all. Through some misunderstanding I was not advised of the -fact that these battalions were being authorized, and that explains completely the reason why the Order in Council of June 10 was passed- in order that we might have some check upon the authorization of battalions and in order that too great a number might not be recruited at one time in the same locality. I think that the extent to 'which the raising of battalions in the same locality was authorized is greater than the ex-Minister of Militia himself realized.
I have procured from the AdjutantJGen-eral a statement showing the number of battalions recruiting at any one time in various citiee and towns in different parts of the country. It would appear that for a certain period about sixteen battalions were authorized to recruit in Toronto.


Samuel Hughes: Will the Prime Minister give me the dates ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will send to my hon. friend a copy of the statement which has been handed to me by an officer of the department.


Samuel Hughes: I should have been pleased to have had it in advance, but that does not matter.


Robert Laird Borden: There are
several other illustrations of the same character, where half a dozen battalions or more were being recruited in one locality at the same time. The Order in Council of the 10th June, 1916, was designed merely for the purpose of having fuller consideration given to the number of battalions that should be recruited at one time in one place. I do not think there is anything further that I need to say on the subject at the moment. I will also send to my hon.

friend Mr. MeDougall's letter to "which I 'have already alluded, and with which I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble the House at present.
There is one other matter which I think I ought to communicate to the House, and it might be convenient to do so now.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the Prime Minister kindly explain how he believes that the ex-Minister of Militia could have been acting bona fide in thinking he was within his rights in authorizing the raising of battalions, when the Prime Minister was administering the department?


Robert Laird Borden: I am hardly in a position to toe cross-examined by my hon. friend as to how I form my opinions. I have stated them and they are quite sincere.


William Erskine Knowles: How could they be ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already, in speaking upon this Bill, explained to hon. gentlemen that the number of casualties during the past year has, in my judgment, indicated the imperative necessity of obtaining an adequate supply of reinforcements with the least possible delay. The figures, however, that I have already given to the House do not in one respect set forth the facts as they ought to be understood and realized.


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister is preceding to another matter ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Before the Prime
Minister does so, may I have an opportunity of replying to his statements; the opportunity, may not present itself again.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: I think I can reply offhand to most of the statements that have been made. I will take up first the question of letting up on recruiting. I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister wishes to have it inferred that my statements are not borne out by the facts. I will state the facts. From time to time, we had gentlemen interested in various organizations coming to the department and complaining that our recruiting officers were taking away their employees. On every occasion I explained to them that I had no authority under the law, and that consequently I would not attempt to step over any authority under the law to prevent any man who wished to go to the front from doing so. One case came from a town in the West

where a man engaged in the manufacture of blankets wanted us to let up upon recruiting in that locality. The manufacture of blankets may be very important in time of war, but it struck me that persons capable of running a blanket machine could be picked up at any street corner in a town, and I declined even to suggest to my recruiting officers that- they should let up on recruiting so far as that class of work was concerned. Why should a blanket manufacturer he left at home and the farmer go? That is the position I took then. I distinctly drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that I believed German gold was at the bottom of the agitation to prevent men going. Rumours of that nature were being whispered all around.
I do not know what Mr. McDougall's letter is about, but I will give the facts concerning him. I was called up to the Prime Minister's office, and I met there the Prime Minister with the Minister of Labour and Mr. McDougall. Mr. MeDou-gall told us that we should not recruit in his locality because he wanted the men in the mines or industries-I do not know which.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Coal mines and iron and steel industries.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. McDougall was afraid that if we continued recruiting in * that locality, the mines or industries would have to be shut down. I had been in that locality some years before and had seen many splendid Scotch Canadians working in those industries. I had been there subsequently, and I found many enemy aliens, and at the time I asked the reason why the *splendid Scotch Canadians had -been taken away and these aliens brought in to fill their places. It was long before the war that this occurred. I brought that matter up before the Prime Minister, as he and the Minister of Labour will most likely remember. I asked why these Scotch Canadians had been scattered to the four winds of heaven, and why Mr. McDougall came to me to stop recruiting amongst men who had never before worked in those mines. I declined to interfere and stated that all I could do was to ask my recruiting officers not to concentrate their efforts too much on one locality, the complaint having been that we had been doing that. The request was that our efforts should be equally distributed over the whole district. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour will remember the ground I took, namely, that we had no

authority to interfere with their employees any more than we had authority to interfere with farm hands who' desired to go to the front. All that we agreed to do was not to let the recruiting officers concentrate on any one industry. This agitation continued, and there was a good deal of hysteria throughout the country, but I will pass over the details until the day when the Prime Minister used the expression "let up on recruiting." I have explained to him before and also to the House that I took the ground that the only time not .to stop recruiting but to let up on our activities, would be between the winter and the spring campaigns. I will recall the incident to the memory of the Prime Minister. I asked who was talking this nonsense about recruiting. I knew that around the doors of the factories in Montreal and Toronto there were thousands of men clamouring for work, and I could find no scarcity of men whatever in any part of the country. I also told the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and I also told Council on more than one occasion, that there was no dearth of labour in the community. The Prime Minister, on another day, when he sent for me, the day on which' I quietly ceased any new activity, distinctly told me that there was a tremendous agitation going on in Toronto and in other communities and that the people there were annoyed and feeling was running high that their men were being taken away and were going to the front whereas the enlistment was so slack in Quebec. The Finance Minister also on one occasion asked me if I did not think it proper that we should let up. He thought Canada had done her full share in sending men to help England. I pointed out that we were not helping England, but helping the Empire and the cause of human liberty. This conversation was not conducted in the presence of the Prime Minister, but witnesses can be had in large numbers in the city of Toronto to whom the Finance Minister made the same statement. He thought we had done so much more than was to be expected of us that we should let up. He thought there was going to be a dearth of labour. The cry would be heard in every part of the Dominion that the country would be held up for labour. I felt the whole thing was patched up and paid for by German gold in order to stop recruiting. On the occasion to which I refer, when I was speaking to the Prime Minister about recruiting, I pointed out to him-if my memory serves me correctly, and I think he will admit it
has served me correctly in regard to the steel and other incidents-that we could not exempt the members of labour organizations without exempting farmers, street labourers and every other class of the community. In connection with this agitation a man n'amed Murray-I thought at the time it was Mr. James Murray, but he told me afterwards that he had nothing whatever to do with it, and I subsequently found out that it was another gentleman by the name of Murray who had been active in some work in Toronto-had been making representations that these labour men were absolutely1 necessary to the industries of the country. I will not enter into what I believe, and indeed know, to be the causes of that agitation. When the Prime Minister not in the presence of McDougall asked me, not in an ordering way but in a kindly manner, about, letting up on recruiting, I suggested that the only thing I could do would be to direct that the energies of our recruiting officers should not be centered too much on this particular work, and he said that that would be satisfactory to him. "If it is at all possible," he said-I remember his words distinctly-"I should like you to let up for the time being on recruiting as far as possible." I do not say that there is anything to apologize for particularly in that, because the Prime Minister was not connected with the motive behind the agitation, but I say frankly that this matter of letting up on recruiting was a perfect torment to me every day of my life. I did not stop recruiting, but simply entered into no new activities.


Robert Laird Borden: On what date does my hon. friend understand me to have made that statement?


Samuel Hughes: All the data I have on the subject show it was before I left for England, and I left for England in March. I also heard from another gentleman in Toronto that the Prime Minister told him that if he had his way he would not enlist another man. I spoke to J. M. Godfrey about it. I said, "What's all this talk about the Prime Minister having spoken to you about recruiting?" He said, "That is exactly what occurred," and he mentioned one leading member of the Opposition who is not now in his seat. I have had it from a dozen gentlemen in Toronto that Mr. Godfrey stated positively that the Prime Minister's statement was to the effect that if he had his way he would not recruit another man.

These were the influences that were surrounding the minister. Some of the officers of the department were inspired with the same idea that we had done our full duty. Let me say here that during the time I had the honour to he minister under the voluntary system in Canada we raised in proportion to our population a higher percentage of men of British birth of British descent than the British Government raised under both the voluntary and the compulsory system in Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore hon. gentlemen need not be so anxious to know why recruiting has fallen off. I could give other reasons why recruiting has fallen off, but it does not help the cause at all. Recruiting has been magnificent in Canada in spite of the drawbacks we have had to contend with. I do not know whether the Prime Minister read Mr. McDougall's letter.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not read it to the House. I sent it to my hon. friend -but the leader of the Opposition has it at the present moment.


Samuel Hughes: The leader of the Opposition is welcome to it. The facts are as I have stated. I put it up to Mr. Mc-Dougall in the presence of the Prime Minister that these places had been filled originally by Canadian boys of Highland descent, and subsequently by Germans and Austrians, and I asked him why he -had made the change. He repudiated that he had anything at all to do with the change, and that was absolutely true. He was not the general manager. He is of Highland descent himself, and I am sure he would have been inclined to stick to his Canadian-born boys in preference to bringing in aliens and scattering to the four winds of heaven the lads who had been working in the mines. I may say that previous to this I had seen that McDougall was a likely fellow, that he was a man of courage and knew how to handle men, and I asked him if he would undertake the organization of a field battery in that locality. He said that he could not do it. But to show that my judgment of him was correct, McDougall came to me afterwards and asked me for authorization to raise a battery from these very men in the locality of Sydney.
As to the organization of new battalions and the Order in Council, I have done the House the honour of giving the figures quoted by my hon. friend from Edmonton the other day, and have shown that in the whole six or eight months only a limited
fSir Sam Hughes.]
number of battalions were raised in the Edmonton district, and that district runs from the Pacific to the Arctic ocean, and as far east as Lloydminster, but the battalions were centered in Edmonton because that was the only place where there was convenient housing. The number of battalions raised in that district was far from representing one battalion to every
40,000	population, even if the battalions were all raised at the same- time, but they were not; they were spread over a period of from six to -eight months from the time of authorization, although some were organized within three weeks of the issue of authorization.
-My hon. friend has given me a list from the Adjutant General of the number of battalions authorized in Toronto. I find that in one day, on the 12th of December, 1915, we authorized five battalions, and two had been authorized only a month or so before; that made seven battalions for the city of Toronto and surrounding district authorized in the months of November and December, from a population of upwards of five hundred thousand souls. On the basis of this allotment of one battalion for -about 40,000 population, I should have had twelve battalions going on at the same time in Toronto and its locality. In place of that, I had only five- in one month and two in a previous -month o-r so. So, taking the utmost that had later come from the city of Toronto, I was still five battalions short to put it in the same category as counties su-ch as Peel, Victoria, Durham, Northumberland-all the country district where -we were to raise, and did raise, one battalion -to every 40,000 of the population. Waterloo, our German centre, raised two battalions with a nearly similar population. I d-o not say this to find fault, but to meet the argument which had 'been made before the country that we were raising too many battalions in one centre. That argument is perfect nonsense. After a battalion is- authorized, you must ohoos-e your officers,, arrange for your non-commissioned officers and for their training, and generally complete your organization. This can hardly be done in less than six months. The urban centres, such as Toronto, Edmonton, Hamilton and Montreal, ought to raise more regiments in proportion to their population than the outlying districts, because they are centres to -which men from these districts had to go. For instance, upwards of 600 men from my -own county volunteered in the First Division from Toronto alone. In this way, To-r-

-onto gets credit for results that should Teally -be credited to the area around.
Reference is made to the Bantam battalions being recruited. We did authorize -one Bantam regiment in the West and one in the East, and gave them authority to enlist the undersized men wherever they should find them, for no one community, not even Toronto, nor even the city of Edmonton- where they are all great men-could furnish bantams enough for a battalion.
The whole thing simmers down to bear out the statements which I have (made. The Prime Minister did yield-he knows that he wae agitated over the efforts made by these Organizations and committees to stop recruiting so far as these special men were concerned. That is about the time he commenced to get the National Service idea going. They know that efforts were abroad to bring about a let-up on recruiting. I gave the instance before of my attempt to stop this general recruiting of skilled men. I said to Capt. Rosamond: "Why should you fool away your time as a second lieutenant or lieutenant? You should -be in skilled employment where youwould be worth more to the country." But it had to be left to each man himself, and I could not stop them. I have a letter from Captain Rosamond after the fourth time I [DOT] tried to get him out, dated just two days before he met his death, refusing everytning else and saying that he had decided to stay with the boys. I do not blam-e the Prime Minister -did not blame him at the time. That is, I do blame him for listening to the whispering that went on. These fellows should have been thrown out-they learned to dodge me. He should not have listened to the whisperings of these men; he had my assurance that there was no dearth of men and nothing in this agitation; that thousands and tens of thousands of men were idle and begging for work and fitted for the jobs that these boys were leaving in order to go to the front.


Robert Laird Borden: I really must state in the most specific terms that I did not at any time direct my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) or impress upon him, to slow up on recruiting; nor did I at any time, either in conversation with Mr. Godfrey or with any one else, use such an expression as has been alluded to. I have not the slightest idea that Mr. Godfrey will take the responsibility of saying that I ever said anything of the kind to him. I did not say anything of the kind to him. My hon. friend must be mistaken in saying that he did not engage actively in recruiting after
March, because during the period from April 6 to June 6, when -I was supposed to be administering the department, he authorized no less than eleven new battalions. That does not indicate that he -had ceased his activity.


Samuel Hughes: That is what I say- during the period between winter billetting and spring camp.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says that I made the request in March; but I say that between April 6 and June 6 he authorized-though I was administering the department-no less than eleven new battalions. I point that out as indicating that he could not have ceased his recruiting activity during that period. I do not wish to detain the House further on the point. I lay on the Table a memorandum of the regiments recruited.


Samuel Hughes: 
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Godfrey has personally discussed what took place on that occasion and he gave no such version of our conversation as the hon. gentleman has given-he gave an absolutely different version of it.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad to hear it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am ready to
leave it to Mr. Godfrey's memory, so far as I am concerned.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There is an issue of fact between the Prime Minister and one of his former colleagues:, n.ow no longer in the Government, as to which I will not offer a word, except upon the bearing which it has upon the present measure. This measure is based upon a statement in the .preamble that voluntary recruiting has ceased. Now, whatever may have passed between the Prime Minister, and the former minister at the time referred to, certainly there was some communication, and, in consequence of that the former Minister of Militia let up on recruiting-did not press it. The Prime Minister says that at the time when the Minister of Militia was letting up on his efforts, he authorized |np less than eleven new battalions. But, knowing the energy of the former Minister of Militia, the authorizing of eleven new battalions is not necessarily incompatible with his having relaxed his efforts in recruiting. There was evidently a misunderstanding between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia at that time. The ex-Minister pf Militia states that the Prime Minister told him to let up on recruiting; the Prime Minister retorts that he did nothing of the kind, but that what he did was with a view to preventing overlapping in the formation of regiments.
It will be found to be beyond doubt that in consequence of the conversation which took place between him and the Prime Minister he let up in his efforts and did not pursue, with the same energy as he had done before, his policy of recruiting. We are told that this Bill is founded upon the fact that recruiting has practically ceased. If there has been such a misunderstanding as that between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia, it is no wonder that there should be some relaxation in recruiting. If there had been the same efforts as there were before perhaps we would not have had this Bill to-day. But it seems beyond dispute that this legislation, which is regrettable at the present time from many points of view, is partly brought about by the misunderstanding which took place in the ranks of the Government themselves. There was no unanimity, no unity of action. This is the reproach which we have made from this side of the House against hon. gentlemen opposite and at last there is confirmation of the information which we have received in that respect.


Robert Laird Borden: I began a moment ago to give the House certain information as to the enlistment of infantry, and as to casualties, during certain periods which, are important in dealing with this *measure. I shall read from a statement which has been prepared in the Department of Militia and Defence and I shall give It to the House upon the authority of the officers of. that department. It is this:
Statistics Relating to the Infantry of the C. E. F.
1	(h). Infantry enlisted during- twelve
months ending May 31st, 1917 :	42,523
(b)	. Infantry enlisted between 1st January,
1917, and 31st May, 1917:	13,353.
(c)	. Infantry enlisted during April and
May, 1917:	April, 1,794 ; May, 1,208.-3,002.
2	(a). Infantry casualties during twelve months ending 31st May, 1917:
Killed in action	 12,171
Died of wounds	 3,872
Died of sickness	 421
Prisoners of war	 1,115
Presumed dead	 1,524
Missing	 1,937
21,040
Wounded	 45,996
Total casualties		67,036
(b). Infantry casualties between 1st January, 1917, and 31st May, 1917 :
Killed in action	  5,894
Died of wounds	 1,705
Died of sickness	 281
Prisoners of war	 135
Presumed dead	 881
Missing	 1,143
10,039
Wounded	 17,187
Total casualties	 27,226
Thus it will be seen that during the twelVe -months ending 31st May, 1017, the infantry enlistments were 42,523 and the infantry casualties 67,036. During the five months beginning 1st January, 1917, and ending 31st May, 1917, the infantry enlistments were 13,353 and infantry casualties 27,226.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Could the Prime Minister say what proportion of those wounded or slightly wounded would go back to the trenches?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not that information at the moment but my hon. friend will understand that it could only be given in an approximate way. It varies in different engagements. During the taking of Vimy Ridge the proportion of slightly wounded was larger than usual.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there not an approximate rate?


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I could not give that to my right hon. friend. I will make inquiry, but it would have to be a very rough approximation because it varies a great deal according to the icircum-tances of different actions.
(c). Infantry casualties during April and
May, 1917:
Killed in action	 4,572
Died of wounds	 1,386
Died of sickness	  137
Prisoners of war	 55
Presumed dead	 603
Missing	 750
7,503
Wounded	 13,861
Total casualties	 21,364
The total casualties in the entire force during the same period amounted to about 24,000 but in the infantry alone they were 21,364, while the infantry enlisted during that time numbered not more than 3,002. The casualties exceeded the enlistment of infantry during that period by more than 18,000. The number of killed in action, prisoners of war and missing was a good deal more than double the actual number of men enlisted in the infantry during that period.	.
That hon. gentlemen may appreciate still more the condition with which we are confronted in the endeavour to maintain the Canadian Expeditionary Force at full strength, I remind them that I made my announcement on 18th May last that the policy of the 'Government would include compulsory service. It might be instructive that the hon. gentlemen should realize what our casualties have been while the subject has been under consideration during the intervening period. During those seven weeks the infantry casualties have been as follows:
(d)	Infantry casualties between 18th May, 1917, and 4th July, 1917 :
Killed in action	1,240
Died of wounds	 420
Died of sickness	 76
Prisoners of war	 64
Presumed dead	 [DOT]-
Missing	 369
2,169
Wounded	4,529
Total casualties	6,698


Wilfrid Laurier: May I suggest that while the figures give a great deal of detail they do not afford complete information. The object of my right hon. friend in contrasting the figures of enlistment with the casualties is to show that voluntary
enlistment cannot keep up with the casualties. It will be necessary to give us some information as to how many of these casualties are of such a character that they are not permanent casualties, but of such nature that the men have been able to return to the front. We are aware that, fortunately, a good many of those wounded are not so seriously wounded that they cannot return to the front. A good many have received scratches only, and are able to take their places in the ranks again within a few days.
I wish my right hon. friend would give us information as to the proportion of permanent disabilities, so that we may estimate how many we have still in the ranks upon whose services we oan count.
, Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I have already said that I shall endeavour to get that information, but I believe it can only be given in a very approximate way. I saw about
10,000	of these men at Hastings just before I left England. They were being trained and hardened. Men with mere scratches do not go to hospital. There are many who (have been wounded, sometimes pretty severely, and who have returned to the front three, four or five times.


Samuel Hughes: The percentage of those wounded who return to the front within a period of four or five months is about sixty-five. At first we returned only a small number, but we kept increasing it by the convalescent system until there are now sixty-five per cent who return within a very limited period.


Wilfrid Laurier: There must be some general ratio on which we could base our calculations.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall endeavour to get that information. But I should again like to emphasize the point that for April and May the total casualties were 21,364 in the infantry as against 3,002 men enlisted, and that those who were killed, died of wounds, are presumed dead, or are missing, numbered not less than 7,504, or two and one-half times the number of enlistments.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Would the Prime Minister state whether the 100,000 men to be conscripted will be used as reinforcements or for the formation of new divisions?


Robert Laird Borden: The object is to keep the Canadian army corps at the front up to strength.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That would be how many divisions? There are at present four, and a fifth is in course of formation.


Robert Laird Borden: The infantry of the fifth division will have to be used for reinforcements.


Frank Oliver: The information that the Prime Minister has given is very much to the point, hut I would respectfully suggest that it would 'be of interest and might be of advantage if a similarly definite statement were made to cover all enlistments and all branches of the service. I notice that a general statement is made that we have recruited something over 400,000 men. At the same time we find that we have sent overseas something less than 240,000 men, and it is said that we have less than 20,000 men in Canada. That is to say, we have actually something like 350,000 or 360,000 men, while we claim to have recruited over
400,000	men. This is a matter of record and could easily ibe settled. I suggest that the minister, at a later date, bring down such figures covering the whole of our enlistments and military establishment as will give a clear idea of what men were enlisted and what men we have actually on service, and where they are serving.


Robert Laird Borden: As to those matters, the Minister of Militia will give information.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: A question has been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and also by other hon. gentlemen, as to the discrepancy between the number of enlistments in Canada and the number of men who have gone overseas and the number of men who are still in Canada. There is a discrepancy. Up to the 31st of May, 1917, 64,552 of these
men can be accounted for, which would leave 10,910 with respect to whom an investigation is being made. I am now quoting from a memorandum as to the 31st of May. I cannot get it to a later date owing to the difficulty of getting such figures compiled. In the first place, there are 5,345 who enlisted, but who were not likely to bcome efficient and who consequently were discharged. Those men were discharged under the King's regulations and orders, paragraph 322, after they had been in the service for three months. They were discharged for various reasons; some men are not fit to become soldiers owing to mental and other reasons. Up to that date some 33,887 men, after they had enlisted, were found to be medically unfit. They developed defects and diseases in active training; they could not stand the strain of active training.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Did these men pass the medical examination?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes. They were rejected for defects and diseases which developed in active training, which could not be detected by the medical authorities.


Mr. NESBITT:: How long were they retained, on an average, before they were discharged?


Albert Edward Kemp: Under the regulation to which I refer, in all probability they would be in the service about three months, perhaps more. The period would vary. Perhaps it would be more convienient if I read this table, so that it may appear in Hansard:



CLASSIFIED TABLE OF DISCHARGES IN THE C.E.F. FROM THE COMMENCEMENT

[Stage Direction]
.	MAY 31st, 1917.
											
*So	1	T}H	o	Q	Q	Q	Q	a	a	a	a	a	aa	S	S	S	a	a	s	g	s	s5,314	Not likely to become efficient	5	4	32,899	Medically unfit	94	297	45	64	15	108	109	14	214	2812,856	Absentees struck off	16	99	12	8	16	3	14	8	491,977	Under age	28	8	5	18	26	1,248	By purchase	2,358	Misconduct, Undesirable, etc	5	2	2	908	To accept Commission	2	2	1,077	Special cases	29	9	i560	Deaths	2	1	6	3	1,028	Miscellaneous	19	4	10	1,106	Not classified	1,715	Irregularly attested	6	i	2	i63,046	Total	116	484	79	85	42	153	182	43	229	93
Total.
5,345
33,887
13,081
2,086
1,248
2,371
1,127
1,085
1,106
1,725
64,552
[Stage Direction]
There are some absentees who are not on the records, and for whom we cannot account. For 13,081 absentees, however-in other words, deserters-there are records.
With regard to the 1,248 who were discharged by purchase, in the early stages of the war a man could, under some old regulation, purchase his discharge for $15. Later that amount was raised to $50 so that after enlisting and becoming an expense to the country a man could not secure his discharge by the payment of a merely nominal sum.
The 2,371 men who were undesirable included men discharged for misconduct.
I have not the details as to the 1,127 who were let out because of special requests of one kind or another. I suppose, however, that these special requests would be largely granted upon compassionate grounds.
It is difficult to know just why the men who come under the head of miscellaneous and not classified-the figures are 1,085 and 1,106-cannot be accounted for. It will be noted that the attestation papers of 1,725 were irregular, and for this reason that number of men were let out. The total shrinkage and wastage in Canada, therefore, of men who were reported as having enlisted amounts, according to these figures, to 64,552.
The figures of enlistment which are recorded and to which publicity is given come first from the commanding officers of the different battalions, who make returns to the Adjutant-General. Figures based upon these returns are then made public. There are 10,910 men for whom it is difficult to account. The officers of the department have investigated this very carefully; they have given a good deal of attention to the matter of finding an explanation for this disparity. They account for it roughly by the fact that some men have been counted twice; that some men have enlisted in more than one unit-have joined one unit and left it to join another-
Samuel Hughes: In order to get to the front.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, or for some other reason. Others have been transferred to other units. Considering the large number of enlistments .since the war began, the number of those who cannot be accounted for is really very small indeed. As time goes on these figures are becoming more definite and more reliable. Difficulties of this sort will in time be overcome.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it open to a soldier
to join a unit and, of his own motion,
without the consent of his commanding officer, leave that unit and join another?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, of course it is not. But .some of them do it; in fact, men leave the Royal Navy, I am sorry to say, and enlist in the Canadian army units on the Atlantic seaboard. That is, of course, contrary to the rules and regulations, but it is difficult to overcome.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: In the early part ,of the war-even yet, for that matter-upon a unit leaving Canada men have been so anxious to get to the front that they have deserted, assumed new names and joined some other unit that wae going to the front. Hundreds of them have done that.


John Gillanders Turriff: The minister said that
about 1,700 men had not been properly attested. Was that the fault of the men themselves, or of the officers of the department?


Albert Edward Kemp: The officers of the department do not attest the men; they aTe attested all over the country, in the villages, towns or cities where recruits are sought. In the filling out of such a complicated document, there are bound to be irregularities. The number of the irregularities, however, is very small compared with the total enlisment.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is the fact that the
attestation paper has not been properly filled out sufficient ground for a man's discharge?


Albert Edward Kemp: Sometimes, in
addition to being irregular, the attestation papers were not sworn before a man competent to administer oaths. If men who were sworn irregularly claimed their discharge on that account, it could be granted to them. In that case they would not be soldiers; they would be in the same position as if they had not enlisted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do I understand that
64,000	and 10,000-I give the rough figures- indicate the difference between the men you can account for overseas and the total enlistment?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes. The total is 75,462, including 10,910 for whom it is difficult to account.
The following is a statement of enlistment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force up to May 31, 1917, together with the figures as to the number of men overseas, the number of men in (Canada or about to embark, and discharges:

Canadian Expeditionary Force. Reported enlistments to 31st
May, 1917	 418,102
Gone Overseas to same date 319,828 of whom 136,400 in France; 127,543 in England and elsewhere;
31,010 killed, died, missing, and prisoners ; and about 20,000 discharged
oc returned for discharge.	s
In Canada, or about to embark	 22,812
Discharges, etc., in Qan-ada.-Reported	dischar- [DOT]
ges as shewn on detailed statement attached.	. .	64,552
Discharges not yet reported through Districts, or for whom Documents are not yet available for classification, about	 10,910
.	418,102	418,102
(Sd.) C. S. Maclnnes,
Colonel,
D. A. G. Orgn.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Has the minister anything to show how many of the 127,000 men in England are infantry?


Albert Edward Kemp: The figures were
laid on the table of the House in a veTy elaborate -statement that w-ais prepared -and printed. The statements that are furnished to the department come out here every two or three weeks. One has -come out since May 14, 1917, but as the statement dated May 14 is the one which is -printed for the use of the Hou-se, we had better use it for the discussion of the Bill, because there are very few changes in the latest -statement. T-hi-s table shows 126,241 tro-op-s in England on the 14th May, 1917. The number of infantry in England at that time w-as 67,387, composed of category " A '' (1) 6,499 men; category " A " (2) 15,073; category " A " (3) 3,941 men. The -men- in category " A " (1) -are the men who are ready, technically and scientifically trained, to go at once into the trenches. Category " A " (2) and (3) comprise men who are not quite fit. In category " A " (4) there were under eighteen, 284 -men, and over eighteen, 1,549. The balance of the total number of inf-antry is in three classes under category " B " in three classes under category " -C " in categories " D " and " E " unclassified, and in hospitals where there -are 14,219. T-h-e details o-f the categories were put on Hansard by the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill, so that I need not take up the time of the House in explaining -about them. In addition to the infantry to- which I have referred, there -are in the Fifth division, in

reserve, 8,221 men in -category " A " (1) who are re-ady for the trenches.
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	I understood
from my hon. friend that the number of unfits, that is of men who, having been enlisted and passed -as -medically fit, had been subsequently rejected, totalled 33,000. A:m I .right in that? Were these -men rejected in Canada?


Albert Edward Kemp: Those unfit to
whom I referred in the first part of my -address were men who joined the forces in Canada -and who, after they had been subjected to training and the severe tests required in connection with training, were found, for one reason, or -another, medically unfit. O-ut of the total -enlistments of 418102 there were so-m-ething like 33,000 who were found to- be -men who had to be let out because of being m-edioally unfit.


Wilfrid Laurier: From statements made in the press and elsewhere an impression has been raised that a good many men who had crossed over to England had also been found to be unfit and were therefore rejected. The other day the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) said that 12,000 men of the troops now in England ought to be sent back at once.


An hon. MEMBER:: 12,900?


Wilfrid Laurier: 12,000 is the figure which impressed itself on my memory. Are these men also unfit and likely to be sent back because of unfitness?


Robert Laird Borden: In reply to a communication on this subject, I have the following information from Sir George Perley:
With reference to categories B and C, last fall there were considerable numbers of these men here without very much to do, but we have been gradually absorbing them in useful work. All B men are fit for forestry, railway or labour Battalions and are being used for that purpose as fast as available. Many G men also fit for same work and C three men are being used under Medical Service, also Records Office and for working around camp, etc. Any surplus C three men not required here are being sent to Canada as fast as possible. Nineteen hundred have already gone and another nineteen hundred now selected for return as soon as ships available. We quite realize desirability returning to Canada for farming or industrial work all men who cannot be usefully employed here.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no statement as to the reasons why those men cannot be usefully employed in England. I should imagine every available man can be usefully employed in forestry work, or in railway construction or in other ways.


Robert Laird Borden: Sir George
Perley says that the greater number of them can be so employed, but a certain number are not fit for any of those occupations, or, if they are fit .for some particular service, there are enough men already at work in that'service, .such as working around camps, in the Records office or in the medical *service. All who cannot 'be employed in those services and who are not fit for active work of some kind are being returned to Canada as fast as possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: Can the minister explain the very high percentage of men who, after having been passed by the medical examiners in Canada, have been rejected in Canada, and also the high percentage of men who, after passing a special examination before going overseas, have, after their arrival in England, been found to be medically unfit, after they have been in the service for from one to two years and have caused a heavy expenditure to the country? There must be some terrible laxity or lack of professional knowledge on the part-of the medical examiners. There must be something seriously wrong somewhere when such a large percentage of men who have undergone a special inspection before sailing for England are rejected as medically unfit when they get over on the other side.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am afraid it will have to be largely attributed to the frailty and complicated machinery of the human frame. Recruits undergo a rigid examination. Undoubtedly mistakes have been made, but this same difficulty exists in the British army and all other armies. The soldiers of a citizen army who have not been accustomed to athletic exercise but have been doing sedentry work all their lives, when put under canvas and subjected to severe exercises are apt to develop weaknesses which otherwise would not show themselves. One of the diseases which has developed to a greater extent than we expected is tuberculosis, although the men had been examined by the most skilled physicians in this country and declared physically fit. The percentage of wastage from this cause is very high indeed. As the hon. member for Assiniboia says, the men are also subjected to different climatic conditions in England. As the Prime Minister pointed out when reading the despatch to the House, men who are not fit for the trenches nevertheless perform very important work in connection with the war. The sheet which has been distributed amongst hon. members gives a list of the different branches of the service in which men who
cannot stand active service can be utilized on work which is almost as useful as the service performed by the fighting men at the front. A man has to be bodily perfect and an athlete in every sense of the word to stand the tremendous strain of trench warfare.
Sir SAM HUGHES; There is a good deal in what the hon. . member for Assiniboia says in regard to the unevenness oh the medical examinations. I will cite only one case. Colonel Ashton, who is now Brigadier General Ashton, determined that in one battalion there would not be a single man rejected as medically unfit. These were all hand-picked men, but when they were sent over from England to France half of them were returned as medically unfit. Some doctors have a faculty for finding little pinpricks in men, and rejecting them. One of the chief causes of rejection is flat feet, of which there are three degrees. A man with flat feet in the third degree is not fit for marching at all. Many of the men with the second degree walked hundreds of miles to Edmonton from the Peace River district carrying their packs all the way, yet they were rejected when they crossed the water although they could out-march any doctor in England. They had the second degree of fiat feet, and under the regulations, which are very strict, they could not go to the front. The first degree is also objectionable from the medical standpoint, but it largely rests with the doctor making the examination.


Robert Laird Borden: During my
visit to England I made inquiries as to the numerous rejections for flat feet. The strictness of the practice dates back, I believe, to some incident in the career of the British army when men were unahle-to march as far as they should have done in a great emergency. A great many men who were rejected for flat feet in England worked in our lumber woods and used moccasins during part of the year. I told the military officers with whom I discussed this matter that I was confident these men were perfectly fit and would have an equal capacity *for marching with any man that could be turned out against them, hut the British authorities adhere to the rule very strictly. I do not know whether I made any impression on them, but I did my best to convince them that men who had been used to working in the lumber woods would be (perfectly fit ifor work in the trenches. They thought, on the other hand, that as these [DOT]men had been accustomed to wearing moccasins during part of the year they would



give out when iput to marching in heavy-soled boots on hard roads.


John Gillanders Turriff: I appreciate what has
been said in regard tp flat feet, but it seems to me that this is another case of War Office red tape. They should not be allowed to reject hundreds of our volunteers who have been passed as medically fit, and who can probably put march any other class of men. As the ex-minister has pointed out, many of these lumber jacks have walked hundreds of miles into Edmonton from the Peace River country and from the back settlements pf Ontario to Toronto or some other centre, covering 30 or 40 miles a day. These men should be allowed to go to the front instead of being put in forestry or construc-tipn battalions, because they are as good men as Canada produces, whether their feet are up to the military standard or not.


Robert Laird Borden: I might point out that such men if they are not allowed to go to the front, are emplpyed at work of the highest importance, such as that performed by the railway construction and forestry battalions.


Albert Edward Kemp: There has been a great deal of discussion about flat feet since the war began. There is no doubt that some men who are rejected for flat feet are otherwise just as fit as any soldier who goes to the front. Most of these rejectipns are in the case of men who have been used to working in the lumber woods and wearing moccasins or shpe packs, and walking on a soft surface. The moccasin, of course, has no arch to sustain the centre of the foot. If these men were allowed tjo wear moccasins at the front there would be very little difficulty, but I am informed that when they are put in heavy soled boots and marched on a hard road they frequently have to fall out, though in every pther respect perfectly fit. I am quite satisfied it is not a <question of red tape on the part of the British War Office. It is more a question of, a foot that can stand marching pn the hard roads of France and Belgium in a heavy soled boot.


Mr. MURPHY:: I understood the inquiry of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to refer to rejections generally. The Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) gave, according to my judgment and in the light of information submitted to a committee of which I happened to be a member, almost the correct answer, but not quite. He said that a large number of rejections were due to the frailty of the human frame.

If he had said they were due to the frailty of human nature, his answer would have been absolutely correct.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is a very frail thing.


Charles Murphy: As displayed by the medical examiners appointed by the Government, a very frail thing.


Samuel Hughes: Nearly all Liberals.


Charles Murphy: The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) was not present at the meetings of the Committee to which I have referred. My hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) was chairman of that committee, and I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the industry, aptitude and thoroughness which he brought to bear upon its work. A great deal of very frank evidence on the subject of these rejections was submitted. Beyond doubt, the fault lay, in the first instance, for a considerable time, in the lack of proper medical examination. My recollection of the evidence is that the period at which that stopped and the method was improved, is thoroughly well defined; and I believe that if the minister would confer with the Chairman of the Committee he would get some information which would be informative and useful to this committee in considering the Bill. It would make discussion of some points unnecessary. And not only that, but it would be reassuring as showing that an improvement has been made.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: According to what my hon. friend Mr. Murphy says the difficulty would be more in laxity of acceptances than in sincerity of rejections.


Charles Murphy: Yes, the Minister of
Militia went on, in explanation, to say that these men when subjected to physical training developed defects that could not have been detected. But no amount of physical training could develop, , for instance, a glass eye.


Samuel Hughes: Many went to the front who had one glass eye, and one of these men, to my knowledge, won the Distinguished Service Order. I was instrumental in getting one of these men to the front myself. I never could see any reason why a man with one glass eye should not go to the front, if he would assume responsibility and, in the case of the loss of that eye, would claim only for the loss of one eye and not for the loss of two. These men make good soldiers. Of the men of the First Division, who at St. Julien, won eternal renown and brought glory to Canada^

there were fully twenty-five per cent who would have, been rejected had .they been subjected to the technical examination carried on at the present time.


Wilfrid Laurier: The proportion of those accepted and afterwards rejected as medically unfit seems very high, but we have nothing before us to show that it is higher than in the case of other armies- and in every army there must be a certain proportion of this class; what that proportion is, I do not know. There is something peculiar in the statement made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) to which I call attention. I refer to page 2769 of Hansard. The hon. gentleman said:
There are in England about 12,900 men who should be returned to Canada Personally I do not believe that any man should be kept in England who is unfit to fight in France, or about to become unfit.
The necessary inference there is that these men are all unfit for active service. But I suppose that they are employed, as the Prime Minister has stated, in duties that are fit for them, and in that case I do not see why they should not remain where they are. But I gather from the statement I have just read that they are not fit for anything, and that that is the reason they should be returned to Canada. The hon. gentleman goes on:
Every man in Class B noty in England should be returned to Canada in order to provide the necessary labour required on our farms and in our factories.
I think that there is something in this that should be further explained. If a man is to be returned to work on the farm, or in the factory, in Canada, he must be physically fit. But, in that case, why should he be returned? Is it because it would have been preferable in the interest of the country that these men should never have been enlisted?


Mr. ARTHURS:: I had reference to men who were then attached to different reserve units in England. When I was there I believed, as I believe now, that there was an excess of these men there, and that all were not usefully employed. They were unfit for service in France, according to the classification adopted by the authorities in England. The contention I made was that, if these men were not to be employed usefully in England they should not be left around the camps in England, but should be returned to be engaged in useful work in Canada. There are about 900, I think, according to the list furnished by the Minister of Militia, who are listed for re-
197}
turn to Canada. These men are not necessarily medically unfit. Nor is their acceptance anything against the examination in Canada. In many cases they are men over age, who, on enlisting, perhaps gave their age at much less than it really was. But the winter conditions in England tell very rapidly on old men from this country. They develop rheumatism and other ailments which caused them to be classified as unfit for active service. These are the men to whom I . referred.


Robert Laird Borden: I would point out to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the statement made by Sir George Perley is not inconsistent with that made by the hon. member for Parry Sound. I would remind him that Category " B " includes those fit for service in France, but not fit for general service, that is, not fit for service in the trenches at the front. Class I includes those who may give service in garrison or provisional units. Class II includes those who are fit for service in labour and construction units, or for other outdoor employment. Class III includes those who are suitable for sedentary work only. Category " C " includes those who are fit for service in the United Kingdom only. Class I takes in those who are fit for service in garrison or provisional units. Class II includes those1 who are fit for service in labour and construction units, or for other outdoor employment. Class III includes those who are fit for sedentary work only.
Sir George Perley, replying to my inquiry based on the statement of the hon. member for Parry Sound, says:-
' Last fall there were considerable numbers of these men here without very much to do, but have been gradually absorbing them in useful work. All B men fit for forestry, railway or labour battalions and are being used for that purpose as fast as available. Many C men also fit for the same work and C III men are being used on the medical service, also Records Office and for working around camp, etc.
There is a great deal of work around the training camps in England, and these men are used for that service, not for service at the front. Then the message continues:-
Any surplus C three men not required here are being sent to Canada, as fast as possible; nineteen hundred have already gone and another 1900 now selected for return as soon as ships available. We quite realize desirability returning to Canada for farming or industrial work all men who cannot he usefully employed here.


James Arthurs: I .might state that I
inadvertently used schedule B for schedule C. The figures I gave were for schedule C.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A go.od many young
men coming home wounded say that they could and .properly should be used around camps and hospitals in place of men *who are sent over there and who occupy those positions. It is stated by the Prime Minister that a good many men of class C are used for that purpose.


Albert Edward Kemp: In England ?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In England. A good
many young men who are convalescent, or practically cured, believe that the men who have been used there ought to be sent back and that these convalescents should be employed in that service. That statement has a great deal of sympathy amongst the people of the country. Whether it is true or not I am not saying, but I have heard what the Prime Minister has stated as to how many of these .men are employed in that sort of service. I am telling the minister that these young men, who have been over there, who have done their part at the front and have been wounded, should have these positions kept open for them if they want them.
Sir EDWARD KEMiP:	They do obtain
these positions. It is the intention and policy to employ men in different categories and occupations whenever they are suitable. Wounded men who are convalescents often can do a certain amount of work and there is no question but that the authorities on the other side are employing this class of men around hospitals. In Canada the soldiers who keep discipline in the military hospitals are all returned men. There is a unit known as the Military Hospitals Commission Command.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not mean in Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: As far as Canada is conoerned, when these men approach a state of convalescence and are fit for disciplinary duty we employ them in connection with hospitals and' work of that sort. But we are going to do more than that. There are a large number of these men who are approaching a state of convalescence, who are very nearly well, who are now in the pay of the country but who have not received their discharge and may not receive it until the end of the war. Some of them may entirely recover and be fit for further military service. We are going to make use of these men in Canada because they are in the pay of the country and give them some occupation. We believe
/Mr. Arthurs.]
that they will recover even more rapidly if they have some occupation. We propose to put them in some of the camps in this country in order that they may carry on instruction in different directions. No better instructors could be got than those who have been at the front. They will be in much healthier surroundings in these camps than they would if they remained in the cities. That is the policy I mean to pursue in regard to returned soldiers. This can be done without incurring extra expense because they are in the pay of the country at any rate until they are discharged


John Howard Sinclair: There was another statement made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) that I would like to get some explanation about. He appeared to have found a regiment over there that was largely composed of officers and that had very few private soldiers. If that is so, it is an extraordinary state of affairs. This is the statement made by the hon. member:
There is in England one reserve battalion composed entirely of French Canadians. I was in close touch with them for a week or two when I was in England, and I know that the battalion is largely composed of officers and N.C.O's., and there are very few privates in the battalions.
I understand that a full staff of officers in a battalion is 32 approximately.
Sir EDWARD KEMP. Thirty-one.


John Howard Sinclair: The larger number 'of the members of this battalion are officers and N.C.O/s drawing, I presume, the pay of officers and N.C.O.'s. It is an extraordinary state of affairs if such is the case and I would like to know if there is any mistake about that statement and, if it is true, if this regiment of officers is still maintained in England. If it is true that there should be about 32 and that instead there is the largest part of a thousand, it is a matter that ought to be dealt with by the minister.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
James Arthurs: The remark I made in connection with the 69th reserve battalion represents the facts just as I have stated them. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is. under a misapprehension as to the conditions. It is quite true that an ordinary battalion is composed of 1,000 men but these reserve battalions may have a greater or less number of men according .to the circumstances. A reserve battalion is for the purpose of absorbing other reinforcements or units and it takes in the officers of the units which have been absorbed. There may very often be as many as a hundred officers or even more than a hundred officers in a reserve battalion until they have been sent to France or absorbed in some other way. The same applies to non-commissioned officers. Some battalions, on arrival in England, were broken up by order of the authorities and the non-commissioned officers immediately reverted to the ranks. That is not done in all cases. In the case which I mentioned the non-commissioned officers had not so reverted. They had not received any ordinary private for some time and the result was exactly as I have stated, that of the total number on the roll the greater number were officers and non-commissioned officers. There was a decided lack of privates in this battalion at that time. It was no reflection on the Government or military authorities that this should occur .beclause conditions are such that sometimes a reserve battalion may absorb within a week or two, three or four other battalions and it takes over the officers of these battalions that it has absorbed.


John Howard Sinclair: How many men did compose this reserve battalion?


James Arthurs: I was not in command of the battalion and I cannot tell the exact number.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that this case of the 69th Battalion is not an exceptional one?


James Arthurs: The point I made was that there was a lack of men going forward for the reserve battalions belonging to Quebec. These battalions in the reserves
are set aside for certain sections. The-foutth reserve battalion serves western Ontario outside of Toronto; the third reserve battalion supplies reinforcements for those battalions which are from the city itself. In the same way the 69th reserve was presumably for the purpose of reinforcing the 22nd at the front. My point was that it had lots of officers and non-commissioned officers to go forward but no piivates. This was exceptional. As a rule there are close to 2,000 men in each battalion, and in the vast majority of cases they are privates.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend isaid
there was no reflection on anybody in connection with having a regiment with hundreds of officers and non-commissioned officers and practically no men. It seems to me that there is a great reflection on somebody when that state of affairs can possibly exist. The Government knew that men were wanted to fill up battalions. Why did they, just for the sake of patronage, appoint dozens and scores of officers more than they could possibly use and send them across to the front? The statement made by the minister to-day shows that there were 9,000 extra officers in Great Britain. Could the minister give the number of officers serving with the forces in France and Belgium, somewhere about 136,000 all told, and in Great Britain, about 127,000 men?


Albert Edward Kemp: Reference has been made to surplus officers in Great Britain and we have been asked why we appointed more officers than were necessary. That question has been threshed out in the House. There are 31 officers to a battalion of about 1,000 men. The policy adopted in Canada at the beginning of the war was to recruit by battalions. I do not believe that any other system would have produced as good results under the voluntary system. If we had placed a non-commissioned officer at each station and had him recruit batches of 200 or 250 men to be sent across the seas, we would not have attained anything like the same results. The system pursued under the battalion method was to select a man prominent in a locality and entrust to him the raising of a battalion. He selected as his officers to assist him in the raising of that battalion, other men of prominence, and the young men who were asked to enlist knew the officers of the battalion and consequently were more willing to join it. When our troops went to France, it was found that the casualties among the rank and file were greater in proportion than among the officers, and

consequently in due course we had a surplus of officers in Great Britain, and to some extent a surplus in Canada, because it backed up, so to speak. If a battalion went overseas under strength, say with 600 men, it would have with it only a number of officers proportionate to the number of the rank and file. I shall endeavour to find for my hon. friend the information about the number of officers in England and France respectively.


Mr. ROSS:: Is not the surplus of officers in Britain caused to some extent by battalions being sent over under strength with full complement of officers? We speak about the scarcity of recruits and the necessity of conscription, and that may exist, but is it not a fact that in the pay and record office in London there are 2,700 clerks? Are these women or soldiers, and if soldiers what kind of soldiers? Would it not be possible to comb that office out and send a battalion and a half or so over to France to do some fighting if they are soldiers? There are 2,700 people in that office to pay 270,000 men. That seems preposterous. On that calculation one man is looking after the pay and records of 100 soldiers. According to the evidence given before the Returned Soldiers Committee, in the Separation and Assigned Pay branch in Can-anda there are 638 clerks looking after 192,000 accounts. That is bad enough, but if the whole service in England is overburdened and encumbered with unnecessary assistants to the same extent as the pay and records office, surely some of these men could be used in France.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend
seems to be under the impression that when half a battalion or part of battalion went overseas, the full complement of officers went with them. I thought I had made myself quite clear on that point. The rule has been very rigidly adhered to, and the consequence has been a great deal of disappointment on the part of officers who did their best to work their battalions up to full strength and who were told that they could not all go over. Sometimes in a half battalion there would be four, five or six officers in excess of the proper proportion. The rule has been that only a number of officers proportionate to the number of men comprising the rank and file may go over with the troops.


James Hamilton Ross: Since when?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know how far back the rule extends; it covers a contSir Edward Kemp.]
siderable period; I have no doubt. Up to a certain date the battalions went over at full strength, but since I became minister, some battalions, owing to circumstances generally understood, have gone over at less than full strength. In those cases the number of officers has been reduced so as to make it proportionate with the number of men making up the rank and file. It has been a difficult matter to handle; sometimes strong representations are made, but it is left to the commanding officers to select the officers whom he wishes to take.


John Howard Sinclair: I have gathered from
reading the accounts of the casualties that there were more casualties among officers than among men; that, speaking proportionately, more lieutenants than privates have been killed or wounded. If that is true, how does the minister account for the large accumulation of officers on the other side?


Albert Edward Kemp: I thought I had explained that point clearly. There are 31 officers in a battalion. There has been an accumulation of officers in England, ap-* parently because of the fact the casualties have been proportionately heavier amongst the rank and file than amongst the officers. Otherwise, that accumulation of officers would not have occurred. There ie, I suppose, another reason: the policy adopted in the British and Canadian armies is to grant commissions on the field to competent men, Many a splendid fellow goes out from Canada who has not seen service in the trenches. It is a question whether it is advisable to put such a man over the head of a sergeant, for instance, or other non-commissioned officer, who has been in France for a year or two and has done splendid service.


Samuel Hughes: The non-commissioned officers are brought back for training.


Albert Edward Kemp: Certainly. To some extent-not altogether-that may account for the condition referred to.
The member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) refers to the large number of persons who are employed in the pay and records office in England and in the assigned pay and separation allowance branch here. But the hon. gentleman must remember that it is not fair to compare the number of employees in the pay and records office in England with the number of employees in the assigned pay and separation allowance branch here. We have
,TULY 6, 1917
the records branch in Ottawa, which is separate from the assigned pay and separation allowance branch. We have about 600 clerks in the records office-many of them work nights as well as during the day-and 600 or 700 in the other offices.


James Hamilton Ross: Twice too many in both.


Albert Edward Kemp: I often hear assertions of that kind from my hon. friends opposite. I wish that these hon. gentlemen would take time to inform themselves by going round and seeing what is being done in these offices. If they did they would not come to iany such conclusions as that which my hon. friend has apparently reached. There is a staff of faithful, honest workers in the department at Ottawa. At the heads of these staffs are competent, conscientious men. When I discuss with them matters connected with their different branches, I find that they are anxious to serve the public to the best of their ability. Many of these men were in the department before the war broke out and had to take charge of much wider work in the different branches. They have performed land are performing a splendid service. I do not believe that there is a surplus of employees; I do not think the member for West Middlesex is justified in saying that there is, nor do I think that he can produce evidence to prove his assertion. I should be glad to produce evidence that he is mistaken in that regard. There is a tremendous amount of work in looking after the details connected with the 400,000 men, sending out thousands of cheques every month, adjusting the accounts, and so on. Our men are scattered all over this continent; they are in England and in France. They move around from place to place, their addresses change. Unfortunately, some of them are killed; others are wounded. When the men are wounded they are transferred to a hospital in France. From there they may he transferred to a hospital in Ehgland, and they may be further transferred to Canada. All these movements involve a certain amount of w(ork in the records office. Then, the families of some of these men have gone to England, and have forgotten to give their addresses. This sort of thing involves attention to a tremendous amount of detail. I am informed that the employees in the offices in England are mostly female employees; any men who are employed are unfit for other kinds of military service. According to this sheet to which reference has been made, there are 42 male employees in the Canadian Records
Office. It is probable that more males are employed in the records office than that, but they are attached to other units in the service. I assure my hon. friend that no able-bodied men would be employed to do clerical work-unless his services were indispensable-if he was fit for more important military duties.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not want to criticise the minister unduly; I know that his duties are very onerous and that the times are trying. But I am informed by officers returned from England that the condition of the Pay and Records Office there is an open scandal; that the employees are so numerous that they are simply falling over each other. I would be much obliged if the minister would furnish me with information as to the number of persons employed in the Pay and Records Office, their sex, and how many officers of the militia are employed, if any, who have seen active service. I should be glad if he would give me the general details in regard to the matter. If my criticism is unjust, I shall be only too glad to retract it.


Robert Laird Borden: We will endeavour to get the information for my hon. friend. But I really think that hon. gentlemen should take care to be well informed before they cast aspersions upon men who are just as upright and have just as good a status in the community in which they have hitherto lived as any hon. gentleman in this committee. I did not see the Pay and Record Office this year. I know that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries visited the office and he told me that his visit indicated to him that the work was being carried on in a most satisfactory and systematic manner, and he was very much impressed with it. That was the impression I derived when I visited the Pay and Records Office in 1915. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House has much conception of the quantity of work that is done there. How many thousand inquiries does my hon. friend imagine are made in that office every day in the year about the men, 300,000 or thereabouts, who are in the United Kingdom or in France? The complications which call for these inquiries are very considerable. Reference has been made to the hospitals. Wounded men are very often moved horn one hospital to another, and the clerks in the Pay and Records office have to keep an exact account of when a man leaves a hospital and where he goes to, They have to keep an account of transfers from one battalion to another, from

one service to another. There are thousands of details.


Samuel Hughes: The estates of the dead.


James Hamilton Ross: That ie a separate department.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: Probate.


Robert Laird Borden: The next of kin of some pooir man who has been killed may live in Switzerland, or Norway, or Russia, oir Italy, or somewhere else. The officer has to make arrangements with the Governments "of those countries for all the formalities in connection with the administration, so that the Government of Canada can get a good discharge. In just that one respect alone that has been brought to. my attention by the hon. member of Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), the work is enormous, and the legal complexities that this officer has to deal with are by no means inconsiderable. This gentleman was a lawyer who. had gone overseas in the Expeditionary Force, and he had eventually been transferred to these duties, because they were important, and he was very well qualified to fulfil them. I must confess I should gravely doubt whether there is any room for the criticism which my hon. friend has put forward, but we will make some inquiries. It is most undesirable, I am sure my hon. friend will agree, that men who have been taken from the best communities in this .country, men having as good a status and as good .a reputation as any man in this House, should be subjected to undeserved aspersions, and I am not disposed to accept them unless some better evidence is brought to my attention. Colonel Ross is a man at the head of his profession.


James Hamilton Ross: That is a good name.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a good
name, and it deserves better treatment from my hon. friend from West Middlesex than to have aspersions cast upon it witih-

out sufficient evidence. Colonel Ross, so far as my information goes, is a man of the highest character. He is the best man that the then Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) could find for the very important duties which are entrusted to him. He has gone over to England, and so far as I could observe, he has discharged those duties with the utmost fidelity, ability and energy. I hope my hon. friend will not take for granted all those rumours, some of which have come to my attention through the press. It is the easiest thing in the world to exaggerate rumours, and, of course, they acquire a considerable importance when they are quoted by a member of the House. I have no information that would lead me to suppose that they are correct.


Samuel Hughes: I admit frankly that in 1915 the Pay and Records Office was all upside down. I then appointed a very prominent auditor who put things in proper shape. I later on appointed Colonel Ross to go over and take charge. Later on the Auditor General went over, expecting to find something wrong, but he reported that things were, to his surprise, in ship-shape order. The reason for the trouble to which my hon. friend refers is this. There is more or less truth about the mistakes being made because many of the clerks are soldiers who, after having served at the front and having been wounded, have returned, to England and are employed in the Pay and Record Office to take the place of men who have become convalescent and fit for service again, and have gone to the front. These lads require two or three weeks training in order to learn the business. That is the condition that I found last year was the chief cause of the trouble, namely, these men making mistakes before they understood the routine of the work.


James Hamilton Ross: I would not want the Prime Minister to think I was endeavouring to cast any aspersion on any persons, nor that 1 would make the statement that I have made on information I have personally. I must candidly say, however, that I have heard statements to the effect that I have described, made, not once nor twice, but many times, by officers of high standing in the 'Canadian Expeditionary Force of just as good character and just as reliable as even the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I hope the statements are not true. If the matter is looked into, and if the Prime Minister will kindly furnish me the information for which I have asked with regard to the encumbering of that branch

with an excessive number of employees, I would like to have it.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend does not impute any dishonesty on the part of the employees?


James Hamilton Ross: Not at all, but statements have been made to the effect that the department is over-manned.


Frank Oliver: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the information which I have here bearing on the subject that was under discussion a few minutes ago in regard to the number of unfit men in England and how they got there. Dr. Bruce's report, which has been laid upon the Table and which is a public document, begins with this statement:
Many hundreds of soldiers obviously unfit for service overseas have been sent from Canada to England.
The report of Dr. Jones, who was in charge of the medical service, and on the discharge of whose duties Dr. Bruce reported, says:
There is no question of doubt that a large number of men have been sent over from Canada who must have been medically unfit when they were enlisted. This has resulted in an unnecessary burden being thrown on the medical and other services in England that deal with the weeding out of these men and their disposal.
The report of the BaJbtie Commission which investigated Dr. Bruce's report deals with the same subject also in its first paragraph.
The Board is agreed that large numbers of soldiers have come, and continue to come, from Canada who are unfit for service at the front.
Dr. Bruce's report is dated September 20, 1916; Surgeon-General Jones' report, September 28, 1916, and the Babtie report December 22, 1916. So the different authorities are absolutely agreed upon the existence of the condition, and they all agree that it is very far-reaching. I have ,an opinion here which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House as to how far-reaching this condition is. It alleges that:
The number of soldiers arriving in England from Canada physically unfit for service at the front is steadily growing.


Albert Edward Kemp: What report is that?


Frank Oliver: This is not a report. It is information that I have at hand and is dated October 27, 1916. It goes on:
In the case of twelve battalions recently arrived the number has reached the serious proportion of over 16 per cent. The medical
examination of these men has shown that the great majority of them have for a long time been suffering from obvious physical disabilities and should never have been enlisted. These unfits by reason of their disabilities form an undue proportion of the patients in hospitals in England, and are thus placing a heavy strain on the medical service. They present a very serious question from the pensions point of view owing to the very great difficulty of establishing the facts as to whether the disabilities were the result of, or aggravated by military service. These men who are not suitable for active military service are nevertheless capable of productive work in Canada, and practically all of them were taken from productive work in Canada and enlisted in military service for which they are useless at enormous expense to the Government, so that not only has the value of their labour been lost to the country, but they have been a heavy charge during their period of service without giving any return.
The Babtie report not only agrees with the Bruce and the Jones reports as to the conditions existing, but gives the reasons why those conditions exist, and this is a mattpr which I think should be placed before the House and the country.
The Board is satisfied that there have been large numbers of men passed who ought not to have been passed by the medical officers, but it was, perhaps inevitable under the circumstances of raising the Canadian Expeditionary Force that examinations could not be conducted with all the care necessary. This it believes to have been due partly to inexperience on the part of examining medical officers, partly to hurry, partly to carelessness, and lastly, in some instances, to -the opinion of the examining medical officer being overridden or ignored by ' commanding officers. These defects in recruiting continue to exist, despite medical examinations by recruiting medical officers, by battalion medical officers on joining units, and before sailing for the United Kingdom.
To show the extent to which this improper passing of the medically unfit has taken place, I will cite an instance or two from the Bruce report, which I think the House will find somewhat startling. Dr. Bruce gives a number of pages of unfits where the cases are described by name, regimental number, and place of enlistment. The first one I will cite is:
No. 602397, Pte. W. J. Clements of the 34th Battalion, age SO years, 79 years when enlisted at Guelph, March 19, 1915. Disability, advanced hardening of the arteries, examined by Major Ratz, Guelph.
The other case is:
Pte. R. Mick No. 297454, enlisted with 224th Battalion March 17, 1916, at Pembroke, Ont. He is 16 years of age, weighs 80 pounds only, undeveloped and weak muscles in the right hip and thigh. He was passed by a doctor at Pembroke and was again examined and passed by a military medical officer at Quebec. On both occasions he says he was stripped and passed as medically fit. He left Canada three

weeks after enlistment and has been in a hospital in England most of the time since arriving, suffering from his legs.
I again draw attention to the Babtie report, which says:
The ineffiicent character of the medical examination in some instances is clue to the opinion of the examining medical officer being overridden or ignored by commanding officers.
I think the evidence there is absolute that the commanding officer was exercising his authority not as a military man but as a man having political pull. We have in that fact a very great part of the reason why recruiting conditions in Canada are as they are. Certainly we have the evidence of the Babtie Commission that that is one large part of the reason why we are carrying on the military strength in England to-day thousands, if not tens of thousands, of men who are absolutely unfit for military service.


Samuel Hughes: The 224th Battalion which my hon. friend mentioned is commanded, I believe, by one of the best Grits in the Dominion.


Frank Oliver: It makes no difference who commands it. The point is what he did.


Mr. HANNA:: How would he get his political pull if he was a Grit?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that.


Samuel Hughes: I think his name is Alec McDougall.


Frank Oliver: It makes no difference what his name is. In that particular case it might have been because the medical officer got his appointment by political pull, and was incompetent, pr as the Babtie report says, "in a hurry or careless."


Samuel Hughes: It might also be that he was one of the 80 per cent of Grit doctors appointed.


Frank Oliver: It makes no; difference
whether they were Grit doctors or Grit colonels. This Government is responsible, and the Minister of Militia is directly responsible, for the conduct of our military forces. That is the condition that exists and that has existed, and the Government and the Minister of Militia are responsible for it. And out of that condition grows- as it of necessity must grow-the dissatisfaction with the management of our military affairs, which, again, results in the depression of military enthusiasm that we find throughout the country at the present time.


Samuel Hughes: That was my work last year in England-to get this medical business on as satisfactory a basis as I could.


Frank Oliver: I am not finding fault with the former minister's efforts to make things right. I say that study of the Bruce report shows that Dr. Bruce was most energetic, and, so far as a dayman can judge from reading it, most efficient. What may have been the family troubles in the Government I am hot prepared to say, but, apparently. Dr. Bruce's report was not allowed to come into effect. He was investigated, and the result of that investigation was the Babtie report, and Dr. Bruce is not in the service of the Dominion of Canada to-day.


Mr. BLAIN:: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) is well acquainted with conditions in the Edmonton district. Does he know of cases of this political influence of which he speaks in that district?


Frank Oliver: I am not here to answer questions about the conditions in Edmonton.


Richard Blain: But the hon. gentleman is making a charge that it was because of political influence that a large number of men got past the local medical officers. So,
I ask if he knows anything about political pull having been used in his own district concerning which he is well informed. My information is that the' medical officers generally did not belong to the political party of the Government, but rather to the other party.


Frank Oliver: I am not discussing matters in Edmonton. I brought up two instances, one in Guelph and the other in Pembroke. It was not necessary to refer to Edmonton;
I think that perhaps the same conditions did not exist there. But, looking over the Bruce report I found such scandalous cases as those to which I have referred. I am not discussing the locality, but the fact as reported. I am not giving my opinion to the House, I am giving the statements made in the report ,of the Babtie Commission, which shows that certain conditions existed partly because of the inefficiency of the medical men, or, possibly, because of the decisions ,of the medical	men,	being .overridden by the
commanding officers. I say this is a condition for which the military administration of the Dominion must accept full responsibility. I bring it to the attention of the Minister of Militia on this occasion, and

I hope we shall hear further from him with regard to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before the committee rises, I have a suggestion to make. This Bill has been under discussion for two weeks. To-day's sitting has been quite argumentative, and yesterday's was exhausting.
I understand that a great number of members are out of town. It seems to me therefore ,that we might well postpone further consideration of this Bill until Monday morning and, for the balance of the week, take up other business. I think that, on the whole, our progress will :be just as great. And possibly the Prime Minister might consider the suggestion pf an adjournment now.


Samuel Hughes: Along similar lines,
I was going to take the liberty of suggesting that members who have suggestions to make for changes in the Bill might make them in writing to the Minister pf Militia, or to the Minister of Justice for their consideration, and so avoid taking up more time than is necessary with discussion in this committee. My object is to get on with the Bill with the least possible delay. Let us get through the Bill as soon as we can. If my suggestion were adopted, progress would be made with the Bill even though the consideration pf it in this committee were not proceeded with until Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: Has my right
hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) opposite anything to suggest?


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope that
the Prime Minister will be content tp have the House adjourn now.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite prepared to go on this evening, and so far as I am concerned. I should be glad to do so. At the same time, I do not wish to insist upon my own view. To-day we have not touched any of the clauses of the Bill, the time having been occupied with general discussion-and I suppose that general discussion is necessary, though much of what has gone on this afternoon has not been relevant to the Bill. I am prepared to adjourn now. I should like to go on tomorrow, and especially to get through with clauses of the Bill that are not controversial. There must be some of a formal character which might be passed, and thus some progress would made. If we come to clauses which are controversial or as to which information is desired, they can be allowed to stand for the time being.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There will be just a general consideration of the Bill to-morrow, I suppose?


Robert Laird Borden: I should prefer that those clauses that are not controversial should be passed, I should like to make some progress with the Bill which has been before the House every day for two weeks. With that understanding, I am willing that the House should adjourn.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
Saturday, July 7, 1917.