1917-08-24

A FIXED PRICE FOR WHEAT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: A statement has appeared in the press that Canadian wheat, which was formerly subject to a maximum price after the 1st of August, and also subject to prohibition of export to the United States, has now been made subject to a fixed price of $2.40 up to the end of August. There is a difference between a maximum price and a fixed price,, and I should like to know at what point this occurs and, generally speaking, the policy of the Government in the matter. The handling of the crop of the Northwest is a very important matter. The Government has seen fit, for what I suppose to be good and sufficient reasons, to assume ai-measure of control, in fact full control, over the handling of that crop. I wish to say that it is not at all satisfactory to have notice that a certain position-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Frank Oliver: -prevails and to-morrow that a different position prevails.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is rather exceeding his rights. He cannot in putting a question proceed to call in question the action of the Government.


Frank Oliver: I did not wish to call in question the action of the Government.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The object in view has been from the first, and will continue to be, as large a measure of co-operation as possible between Canada and the United States with reference to such matters. It was expected that before the first of August, powers would have been obtained from Congress by the authorities at Washington, enabling them to deal with the' question, but the legislation was delayed. Therefore the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada in order to regulate matters for the time being and until co-operation could effectively take place between the authorities on both sides, fixed a maximum price on an ascending market, the object of which was, while getting a good price for the Canadian farmer, to prevent an undue inflation of price during the interim, which would have had the effect of advancing prices on a merely speculative basis and driving up the advancing price of wheat the price of flour and consequently


Frank Oliver: In the same connection
I notice that the Winnipeg price of No. 1 Northern wheat on August 23 is $2.40; and the price of No. 2 Northern $2.38. I notice that on the same date the price of No. 1 in Minneapolis is $2.50 to $2.60; of No. 2 Northern, $2.45 to $2.50; that in Duluth on the same date the price of No. 1 is $2.50 and of No. 2 Northern $2.45. I understood the minister to say some time ago that there was a fixed maximum price in the United States.


George Green Foster: No, there has never been a fixed maximum in the United States.


Frank Oliver: I understood him to say that the price in Minneapolis was lower than the price in Winnipeg at a certain date.


George Green Foster: At that particular date, yes.


Frank Oliver: Are the figures I have
quoted to-day correct?


George Green Foster: The figures are as they are given in the newspapers, and I imagine they are correct. But the whole point seems to be that the variation in price between times-a sort of no man's land, as it might be called-is considerable. Sometimes the United States price is lower and sometimes it is higher than at Winnipeg. On the whole, there has been a very heavy drop in the price in the United States, gradually bringing it down to what it is supposed the price will approximate when the final fixing takes place, and from day to day there are variations for various reasons. I want my hon. friend to understand that the fixation of the prices has made a certainty to the Canadian producer that he would not otherwise have, and it has been, I believe, very beneficial to him. If my hon. friend will read a late editorial in the Grain Growers' Guide, I think he will see what the opinion of people directly interested in the matter is, concerning the operation, as it has proceeded since the 1st of August. My hon. friend says that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. There may be dissatisfaction.


Frank Oliver: I did not say so.


George Green Foster: There is some dissatisfaction among some, but as a general rule, so far as my information goes,- and I think it is pretty well founded- there is very great satisfaction with the course the Grain Board has taken.


Frank Oliver: I ask the minister to have his department compile a statement of the amount that has been lost to the Canadian producer by the prohibition of the export of wheat, since it was made on the 27th of July.


George Green Foster: I do not know that11 would be able to compile shell a statement, but if I were able to, and were able to place on the other side a statement of what has been gained by the fixation of

that price, I think my hon. friend would find that the balance would be very much against his present contention.



EMBARGO ON EXPORT OF SULPRUR FROM UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:,
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I observe in the press that there is an embargo on sulphur being exported from the United States, which means, according to a letter which I received this morning, the closing of several Canadian pulp mills. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce taking any steps with the Washington authorities to prevent .such a thing happening?


George Green Foster: There is an embargo placed by the United States against the export of sulphur from United States territory. The supply in the southern states, particularly Louisiana, is restricted. It is needed for the operations of the United States. Not very much is being imported from other countries at the present time, under present transport conditions. Therefore, sulphur has been placed under embargo, but, although placed under embargo, and although none can be exported except by license, the United States authorities are open to consider representations as to our necessities, which representations are being carefully and thoroughly made.



CORRECTION OF NEWSPAPER REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY HON. MR. MEIGHEN. ;
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: Certain
press reports of my remarks yesterday attribute to me the statement that the city of Montreal was against conscription. I need scarcely say to the House that I made no such statement. What I said is correctly reported in Hansard at page 5132. I need not quote it. The same report said that I favoured confiscation. It is superfluous for me to deny that.



THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill 127, the Military Voters' Bill, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Doherty-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Mr. DOHERTY:: When the committee rose last evening we had gone over everything included in the Bill with the exception of Form B. As it is proposed to submit
an amendment to section 3 of the Bill, that will necessitate an amendment to Form B to correspond with the change.
On form C-Certificate of vote of a civilian:


Mr. MURPHY:: What is that intended to
cover?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision that if a scrutineer, or other officer connected with the election, should happen to be a civilian, that he is entitled to vote under this Act the same as a soldier, as his duties place him among soldiers, and in that event the fact that he has so voted is being certified to by the officer taking the vote, and this form will appear upon the envelope.


Charles Murphy: What cases of that kind might arise?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Either of the parties might appoint a civilian as scrutineer, or deputy scrutineer. That man, by reason of his functions, would not be at home to vote, and it was thought fair to extend; to him, as well as to any civilian performing duties under this Act, the privilege of voting as though they were soldiers, because that would be the only opportunity he would have to vote.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Why limit the scrutineers? Should you not put in brackets "or the deputy scrutineer or returning officer?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman
will look at the form, he will see in parenthesis the words "or as the case may be."


William Pugsley: That is intended to embrace any others?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Pugsley: That is broad enough to cover it.
Form C agreed to.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Are certificates of discharge granted by commanding officers, and is a record of them kept at Ottawa?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not familiar with the details, but I am under the impression that a commanding officer may grant a discharge under certain circumstances. I think, however, that his action has to be approved by higher authorities. A soldier having occasion to obtain a certificate of honourable discharge for the purposes of this Act would be able to procure it from the department here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are certificates of discharge granted to men. who were attested but who subsequently could not pass the medical examination?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are cases where men who passed the examination afterwards broke down as a result of the strain, or for other reasons, and were discharged on medical grounds. A man does not become a soldier, however, until he has passed his first medical examination.


Mr. CAR YELL:: I know a good many
men who offered to enlist but who were turned down for one reason or another. I understand that such men are furnished with badges showing that they have attempted to enlist but have been rejected for some reason. I was wondering whether that class of men would come under the head of "discharged soldier." Personally I would think not.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I would think not.


Mr. CARVELL:: They would be ordinary civilians and would exercise the franchise according to the general law.


Robert Laird Borden: That is my understanding.
On section 2-Definitions:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move:
That section 2 be amended by prefixing to its clauses respectively the letters (a), (b) and (c).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
I move:
That paragraph (a) of section 2 be amended by striking out the words "for containing ballots" in the second line and substituting therefor the words "made of durable material with one lock and key and a slit or narrow opening in the top and so constructed that ballot papers enclosed in envelopes may be introduced therein but cannot be withdrawn therefrom without unlocking it.
In the proposed amendment we describe the receptacle to be used in precisely the words of section 122 of the Dominions Elections Act, which is a description of the ballot box to be used in the elections in Canada. The only difference, if it be a difference, is that we specify that "ballot box" may include a bag or other receptacle.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In section 11 there is a provision to the effect that the key of this box or bag remains with the general returning officer either in Paris or in London.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The receptacle is locked so that the presiding officer who has it cannot open it during all the time that it 
is in his possession, unless he mutilates it. It may take a slightly larger aperture to put in a ballot that is in an envelope with a certificate on the back of it, but in every other respect this provision conforms absolutely to the requirements of the Dominion Elections Act.


William Pugsley: I congratulate the minister upon the sense of reason and justice that has come to him in making the change in this section at the request of members on this side. The same applies to other necessary amendments which have been made to other sections of the Bill.


Charles Murphy: Is the amendment providing for some other form of receptacle than the box ordinarily used in Canada based merely on apprehension that the ordinary ballot box would not be suitable, or is it founded on some experience that it is not suitable?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our information is that in the elections that were taken a bag was found more convenient. The member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) pointed out that tin boxes would be more difficult of transportation. Even in this country there is no provision that the receptacle shall be a tin box.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Wooden boxes are largely used in the Maritime Provinces.


Charles Murphy: Were the ballot boxes *sent over to England when the ballots were forwarded in the spring of 1915?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My impression is that
they were not. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in this country the ballot boxes are not furnished by the Dominion Government; they are gathered in the different localities as is found convenient. I think they are usually got from the municipalities.


Frank Oliver: Is there any provision
for a penalty for the supplying of a bag not of durable material?


Robert Laird Borden: No more than
there is with regard to ballot boxes in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision
with regard to that.


Frank Oliver: As a great deal depends upon the character of the receptacle, some person should be held responsible for the receptacle being according to the terms of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has the supplying of these things, and we put upon him the obligation to supply them of the character prescribed. We do not provide for the imposition of a penalty upon all our officers for not doing all that the law prescribes.


Frank Oliver: I beg the minister's pardon. I did not know that provision was contained in the Bill. I am aware that, under ordinary circumstances, 'ballot boxes are made wherever they are required. I did not know whether or not bags might be supplied in the same way, and in that case my suggestion would be quite in order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They go from the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the presiding officer, and from' the presiding officer to the deputy presiding officers.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I said that we would
amend the clause so as to include in the term "military elector" persons ordinarily resident in Canada who are on active service in any of the British forces or in any of the forces of our Allies. It will probably be very difficult for us to get at them, but it is thought quite proper that they should be given the right to vote, so that if they find themselves in conditions in which they may exercise it they will have that right. In the first place, there is a little amendment to meet what was pointed out by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. L. A. Lapointe). I beg to move:
That paragraph (c) of section 2 be amended by inserting at the end of the fifth line thereof the words "and placed on."
That is to meet the suggestion that everybody called out under the Military Service Act might have a vote although he never became a soldier. He could not have a vote as a soldier unless he was placed on active service.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the terms of the Military Service Act, the moment the proclamation is made, the men are called out, but if a man were not actually placed upon the list, he would not be a military voter.


Charles Murphy: The term "military elector" includes a minor or an Indian. Does the word "Indian" mean a native of India?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We do not so understand it. In this country the word "Indian" has a perfectly accepted and known meaning. We do not mean an Indian in the sense of a native of India; we mean an Indian as we know him in this country and as we have him amongst our troops.


Charles Murphy: A Canadian Indian. I have some doubt as to the interpretation and application of that word "Indian." Suppose a Hindu, who was a British subject and who may have been living in British Columbia, applied for a vote and claimed the right to vote under that definition, would he be allowed to vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there is any reason to doubt that, even if we did not have the word "Indian" in the Bill, the Hindu, a British subject and a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, would have a vote. We put that word in only to settle a doubt. Personally, I believe, if we struck that word out, an Indian in our forces would have the right to vote. I always so understood the old Act although we did not mention it. In some quarters, there seems to have been a doubt, because in our Dominion Elections Act we exclude Indians.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg further to amend paragraph (c) by adding at the end thereof the following words:
And every person, male or female, being a British subject ordinarily resident in Canada, whether or not a minor or an Indian, is on active service in Europe in any other of the forces or services, military or naval, of His Majesty or of his Allies.
This will cover our man in the British forces, any French reservist, for instance, who was a British subject and went to serve in the French forces, any person ordinarily resident in Canada who is serving in any of the Allied forces.


Frank Oliver: Is there a provision for the imposition of a penalty upon a member of the Allied forces, tout not a resident of Canada, who offered his vote under pretence of being entitled to it under this provision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no special provision for such an act upon his part. I think the general .provisions of the Dominion Elections Act about impersonation and so forth would apply. We are making this a part of the Dominion Elections Act, and this operation differs from the general operation in so far as is provided here. We would not be able to enforce such penalties because we have not jurisdiction to convict men of offences committed outside of Canada; but to the extent that our jurisdiction goes, the provisions under Part 3 of the Act with regard to offences would

no doubt apply to the like offences committed under this Act.


Frank Oliver: Is it a fact that there is neither let nor hindrance to the possibility of such an occurrence as I have suggested? That is hardly, T should think, the intent of this measure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is required that a man should make oath to the facts that entitle him to vote, and, of course, if he makes false oath, the man undoubtedly has committed perjury. But what is inevitable and what we cannot prevent is the fact that our criminal laws do not run in France nor in England, so that we have, with regard to those oaths, to rely upon the moral sense of the voter and upon the precaution of the officer taking the vote to see, as far as possible, that he is not being deceived.


Frank Oliver: The officer taking the vote could not by any possibility be held responsible for the acceptance of the oath of a man who was not entitled to make that oath. While it is true that we have no means of protecting ourselves by proceedings under the Criminal Code, I respectfully suggest that we should not leave ourselves entirely unprotected in such a case, and unless already provided for, I would suggest that provision be made that on proof of any such vote having been given, it can be counted out. We surely should not leave ourselves open to the possibility of a number of votes being illegally cast without our being able to protect ourselves against the result.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On a scrutiny of votes, the vote of a non-elector under this part would be struck out, just as would the vote of a non-elector under any other part. We do not need any special provision about a scrutiny of votes. If there be a scrutiny, and it is ascertained that a vote has been illegally cast, it could be thrown out under proper proceedings.


Frank Oliver: Under some other provision of this Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the provisions
of the Controverted Elections Act, I think. Upon a contestation of an election, if the ground of contestation was that the candidate had been returned because of a large number of votes by people who were disqualified, the vote of a person disqualified under this Act would be treated in precisely the same manner as the vote of any other disqualified person. At the moment I am not prepared to define exactly what the procedure is, but whatever it may be, 
there will be the same protection with regard to this disqualification as with regard to any other.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Pugsley: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland, that section 2 be amended by striking out the words " whether or not " immediately before the words " ordinarily resident " in line 22 of page 1. This brings up the question which was discussed a day or two ago, whether or not a man should be allowed to vote who has not been a resident of Canada. I think myself that the mere fact that a resident of the United States or the West Indies or India, China or Japan who happens to be a British citizen enlists in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, should not give him the right to vote at any election for a member of this Par liament. Such a man joins the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the purpose of fighting for the Empire. He may never have been in Canada at all. He may know nothing whatever of the political questions which are dividing the Canadian people. He would not expect the right-and I do not think it is desirable to give him the right-to take part in the civil affairs of this country. Upon what theory shall he be permitted to say who shall govern this country, not merely during the war, but for the next five years? I cannot for the life of me see any reason why the right of franchise should not be limited to those who are ordinarily residents of Canada. I entertain that view very strongly. I think no reason can be urged for keeping these words in the section, which give the man who was not ordinarily resident in Canada before his enlistment the right to vote. ,
The section becomes more objectionable when we come to consider section 3, because both these sections must be considered together. If the section passes as it is, the result will be that a man who has never been a resident of Canada, who has perhaps never set foot on Canadian soil, will have the right not merely to vote, but to select any one of the two hundred and thirty constituencies in Canada in which to cast his vote. That is giving him a far greater freedom that you are giving to the Canadian boy who is serving at the front. The Canadian boy at the front can only vote in the constituency where he belongs. His right to vote is limited to one candidate in one constituency-the candidate who is running in the constituency where the soldier formerly resided. But the foreigner-
I use the term in the sense of a non-Can-

adian, a non-resident of Canada-the man who may never have set foot in Canada, who has no interest in the civil government of this country, and may know nothing of the questions which divide the Canadian people, is allowed to select his constituency' in any part of Canada. Let me appeal to the committee to consider for a moment what the result of that will be. I am told that in the Canadian expeditionary forces there are several thousands of British subjects who have never been residents of Canada, and there may be more before the election. In many constituencies in this Dominion where the vote is very close, where either the Liberals or the Conservatives are in a slight majority, these non-residents of Canada, by making certain combinations, could practically turn the election, and in that way defeat and nullify the votes of the Canadian soldiers. Is that right? Is it a proper thing to do? On what principle can such a course be justified? One needs only to state the case, it seems to me, to show the argument against it. I do not want to take up the time of the House in discussing this matter further, but it does seem to me that the Government ought to consent to the striking out of these words. Every member of his House and every man in this country wants to provide by law that the Canadian man or woman who has gone to the front shall have the right to vote. Every one is desirous that the mere fact of a Canadian citizen being overseas shall not deprive him of his civil right, and surely, when we by law provide for that, we have gone as far as the 'Canadian soldier would desire us to go. I cannot conceive for a single moment that the resident of Canada, the Canadian boy who has gone to the front, would be desirous that that civil right-that right of expressing an opinion by his vote as to the government of the country during the next five years-shall also be conferred upon people who have never lived in Canada, who may know nothing about Canada, and who have no real interest in the civil government of this country.


Mr. GERMAN:: I feel that the section as at present constituted is an outrage on the civil rights of the people of Canada. It is moreover an outrage on the soldier electors, who are fighting the battles of Canada in the trenches. By whom will the designations be made of the constituencies to which these votes shall apply? We are deliberately saying that men who have never lived in Canada, and who have no interest in Canada in any way whatever,
and who very likely never will live in Canada and never have any interest in it, shall have the same right to vote, simply because they are fighting for the British Empire and in the cause of the Allies, as our own sons who have gone from home to fight the battles of their native land. Those men have no residence in Canada; they do not know anything about the political situation here. If they are asked to designate for whom they wish to vote, they can say "I vote for the Government" or "I vote for the Opposition." When they are asked "In what constituency in Canada do you want your vote recorded," they will say "I don't know." And as a matter of fact they do not know anything about the constituencies. Who will designate the constituency in which such a vote shall be recorded? Who is the only man likely to designate the constituency? Is it not as certain as it is that the vote is to be polled that the person who will designate the constituency will be the deputy returning ofii-cer or the poll clerk in charge of the poll? I submit to the House that this is what will be done. Now, assuming it would be done, to what constituency would that vote be assigned? In the Dominion of Canada we have over 100 constituencies in which the majorities range within less than 100 votes. The difference between the two political parties in this House at the last general election was forty-five members. How easy it will be to find fifty constituencies in the Dominion of Canada in which the majority for one candidate or the other would be much less than 100, and probably less than fifty. The deputy returning officer in charge of that poll will know these constituencies as well as we know them. That being so, to what constituency is he likely to assign tho6e votes, assuming him to be a hard-and-fast partisan who would do such a thing? In passing legislation of this kind we must assume the worst that can occur, and taking into consideration, all that could happen, could not the deputy returning officer easily pick out fifty or sixty of those so-called foreign votes or nonresident votes, and assign 50, or 60, or 70, or 80 or 100,.to make it certain, to each of the close constituencies, and carry the election by that vote? I submit to any reasonable man in this House that this could be done, and the danger and temptation of its being done is what we wish to avoid. It is our duty in legislating to give our sons and our relatives who are fighting the battles of the British Empire in the trenches

oi France the protection they demand, and see to it that their votes are not killed by the votes of men who have no earthly interest in Canada, and who very likely will never have any interest in the country. It is a mo-st outrageous thing that this Government should deliberately say that men coming from the United States, or from India, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Japan, or Russia, or any other place on God's green earth, simply because they happen to be British subjects and joined the Canadian forces ito fight the bat-4 p.m. ties of the Empire, should have the right to vote, and thereby possibly kill the votes of our own sons wno are giving their life's blood in the trenches. I am sure the Minister of Justice will admit that what I say can easily be done. The deputy returning officer, knowing the close constituencies, has in the hollow of ais hand 3,000 or 4,000 voters who have no local designation in Canada and who do not know where to assign their votes, and he can assign these votes as he sees fit. It does not make any difference to the men whether their votes are assigned to the county of Welland, or the county of Russell, or the Yukon territory, or British Columbia, or anywhere else. If they believe in this Government they say they want to record a vote for the 'Government, and that is done. If they disbelieve in the Government, they say they want to record a vote against the Government, and they do so. But they do not know where that vote will be assigned, or what constituency will derive the benefit of it. Who is to tell them? No one but the deputy returning officer ih charge of the poll. I think it is the duty of this House to amend the clause by striking out the words "whether or not" so that it would read: "Who being a British subject ordinarily resident in Canada." Residential manhood suffrage is the franchise of Canada, and it is the only franchise, except what we are now giving. We are now granting the franchise to minors and men who would not be entitled to vote were it not for the fact that they are going to the front as brave citizens of Canada and of the Empire to fight our battles. Why extend this franchise to men who have never lived here? It is an outrage on the civil rights of the people of the country, and if the Government insists on this clause going through as it is, I, for one, cannot help but think it is the intention, or the expectation at any rate, that these votes will be used in the very manner in which I say they can be used.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I cannot listen to a
proposition of the nature put forward by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) without raising my protest. I make the statement that a man who is a British subject and who has left this country and gone, say, to the United States, therefore, has not the same material interest in this country as a man who lives here, but who has sufficient manliness in him, sufficient respect and love for this country, to abandon his ordinary vocation in life and come across to this land and say: I am going to enlist, and, if necessary, sacrifice my life on behalf of the country of my birth-I say that, in some respects, that man is even more entitled to a vote than the man who enlists here in our midst. I know men living on the American side, who, when this war was declared, gave up lucrative positions and came back to this country and enlisted, donned the uniform, took the oath of allegiance, and who are now across the seas, fighting the battles of this country around Lens as valiantly and as much in the interests of this country as any Canadian. Will you tell me that the men fighting around Lens who lived in this country when they enlisted will not take that man by the hand and say: Good old boy, you have done your duty, you are one of us, and as much entitled to a vote.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And more, too.


William Sora Middlebro: And I say it is in the interest of the people of this country to give them a vote. I know a man of that kind, a married man, who left his wife and family on the other side, who came back here and enlisted and is overseas now. Is there a man who will say he is not as much entitled to the vote as any man in this House? I go further and say that that man, having taken his life in his hands, is more entitled to the franchise in this country than I am, sitting here as a member of Parliament, because he is willing to make the supreme sacrifice which I myself have not made, or have not offered to make, even if I could. I say it is an insult to this House to introduce a resolution of that kind and say that these men are not entitled to vote. Have not members opposite exactly the same opportunity of getting their votes as members on this side? The whole resolution is based upon the assumption that the men who have charge of these ballot boxes are going to commit acts of fraud, that they are going to endeavour to make these men, these British subjects, who have come from other countries to fight

for us cast their ballots in a certain riding, and in a certain way. The whole amendment is based on the imputation that the men who conduct the election over there, who are to have charge of the ballot boxes, the scrutineers, the deputy presiding officer, the presiding officers, will conduct the election on principles of fraud, and not upon principles of honesty, justice and fair play. When a man goes over there and takes his life in his hand he is not thinking of the little picayune, petty, peanut, party politics that some members of ' this House are thinking of here to-day. He has greater things and larger visions in his mind, and petty things of that kind are foreign to his thoughts. *


Mr. ARTHURS:: In the earlier ' stages of the war no doubt quite a number of men from foreign countries who were British subjects came over to enlist and many of them are still with our troops. Another element came into this country at the same time, and while gentlemen opposite are very insistent that the men who came over to fight for Canada and who are fighting for her to-day, whose interests are in many cases as great as those of other electors in Canada, should not be allowed to vote, they do not say anything about the men who came over at the same time from the United States or from foreign countries to take the places in the factories of Canada of the men who went overseas to fight for us, the true Canadians. They have the necessary residence of one year, if they are British subjects. But there is not a word said about their voting, and the fact is that it is upon these men that these gentlemen opposite are relying in the coming election. I hold in my hand an interview given by-*


William Manley German: I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that one year does not give foreigners


James Arthurs: I did not say foreigner, I said a British subject from a foreign country.


William Manley German: He has to be here three years.


James Arthurs: 
William Cameron Edwards: I do not think that some hon. gentlemen opposite are as anxious to give the vote to our Canadian soldiers over at the front, because perhaps they are apprehensive of that vote, as they are to give the vote to some of the foreign element in their own constituencies. I can understand the hon. member for fit. John (Mr. Pugsley) moving a resolution of this kind. It is in keeping with his whole course in this House since the debate started, in fact since the conscription Bill was brought in. He has opposed most consistently any assistance to our boys overseas. He has not done his part as a citizen of Canada, apart altogether from his duty as a representative in this House, in trying to get recruits in this country. Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, which will have the better right to cast his vote in this election, the man who came from the United States, we will say, into Canada, a British subject, who signed up and went overseas and is now risking his life in the defence of this country, or a young man who, in the fall of 1914, when we none of us knew how long this war was going to last, took out his commission as a lieutenant down in the city of St. John, and when the war showed that things were not going to be ended in a short time and the risk was great, took off his uniform, after drawing some pay, and preferred to run a garage in the city of St. John rather than go overseas and fight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is his
name?


William Cameron Edwards: The name will be found in the Militia Gazette, that little red book

containing the names of persons who took out commissions, and his name is Pugsley. Lieutenant J. A. Pugsley took out his commission as a lieutenant in November, 1914.


William Pugsley: I desire to say that the statements made by my hon. friend are absolutely false. I desire to say too, Sir, that it is a cowardly thing to attack a young man behind his back who is not here to speak for himself.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: What about General Gwatkin?


William Pugsley: Cowardly-


William Cameron Edwards: I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on that statement or remark of the hon. member for St. John, and ask that it be withdrawn. He said that a statement which I made was false.
ber for St. John, because I am in a position to prove that bis statement was false, and he cannot prove that my statement was false.


William Pugsley: I desire to repeat again, Sir, that the statement was absolutely false, and that it is an absolutely cowardly attack-to attack a young man who is not here to defend himself.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not smoking just at present. I think the fumes are rising from the hon. gentleman from St. John. He is the one who is smoking, and he is the one who is uncomfortable just at present.


William Pugsley: Yes, I repeat it.


William Cameron Edwards: I ask that statement be withdrawn, and I ask a ruling from the Chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. gentleman from St. John said that the statement was false. I think, under the rules, he could say that the statement was false. It was the statement that he said was false, and nothing else.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Chairman, may I also ask you in- regard to the'word "coward"? Is that also in order?


William Pugsley: I am perfectly comfortable.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: With reference to the words " put that in your pipe and smoke it"-


William Pugsley: I beg respectfully to
withdraw that remark.


William Cameron Edwards: I may say that I think the hon. gentleman from St. John will do a kind of smoking other than his pipe, if he does not mend his ways. At page 674 of the militita list, at the top of the page I find-
62nd Regiment, St. John, N.B., Lieutenant J. A. Pugsley, 17th November, 1914.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: As to the other words complained of, the hon. member for St. John^ used the expression "a cowardly attack." The word "coward" was applied to the attack, and not to the hon. member who was speaking.


William Cameron Edwards: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling is that the words are permissible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, and to tell this House, that the hon, member for St. John, an old member of this House, stood up in his place in this House and made statements that were absolutely false and were cowardly in the extreme.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: And, Mr. Chairman, I want^ to tell you, still further, that I am in a different position in making that assertion, from the position of the hon. mem-

May I ask the hon. member for St. John whether the J. A. Pugsley referred to there is his son or not?


William Pugsley: After the statement of
the hon. gentleman, Sir, I would decline to have any intercourse with him. I desire to repeat, that the hon. gentleman did not merely confine his statement to the fact that that young man had a commission, his statement went further. He made a statement which I declare to be absolutely false. I repeat it and can prove it any time.


William Cameron Edwards: I am more than borne out by the attitude of the hon. member for St. John. He puts himself in the position here this afternoon of absolutely disowning his own son. The only statement I made in reference to the hon. gentleman's son was this:	It was in the form
of a question of whether or not a man, a British subject, who had resided for some years in the United States, came over here to Canada, put on the uniform, kept the uniform on, went over and risked his life

in the trenches, was not more entitled to a vote than the man who put it on for a brief space of time, and then took his uniform off, and now runs a garage in St. John, instead of running a machine gun at the front. Why should the hon. gentleman from St. John object to that? It is a simple question. The hon. gentleman is moving an amendment to cut out men who have gone over to risk their lives for Canada. He has said that they should not be allowed to cast a ballot in the election to say who should govern this country for the next five years. I take issue with him, and I say that they should vote, that those men are entitled to every consideration. Let me say further that those men who have gone over there are not the unintelligent men the member for Welland would like us to believe. They have shown that they possess the right spirit, and I venture to say that these men who thought enough of Canada to leave the United States, come here and don the uniform and risk their lives, know what is going on in this country. Exception is taken on one point. These gentlemen opposite ask where will their votes be recorded? I confess if I were one of those men, and if I were aware of what is going on in this House, and aware of the attitude of the hon. member for St. John, or the hon. member for Welland, and had my choice and could say where my ballot could be counted, I would say; " Count it in St. John, and count it against the hon... member for St. John; he has shown he does not want to back us up, and does not want to help the boys in the trenches; let me get a crack at him, as well as at the Huns in Europe; let me get a crack at the Huns in Canada or at some of those playing the Huns game in Canada; those are the men I am after." It would be an act of retributive justice if some of those men had an opportunity to cast their ballots in St. John, in order to leave at home in St. John the member who has disgraced the city of St. John by this attitude in this House.


William Pugsley: There are some members of this House that so far forget themselves, and forget those gentlemenly instincts which ought to govern all members of this Parliament, that any man who respects himself would scarcely deem it proper to reply to any observation that these members may make. I should not say some members of this House. I think I should have said " one " member. We have in this House one gentleman who has shown himself, on many and many occasions, unworthy of the respect of any man, either in this House or outside of it. My hon. friend from Frontenac knows-his inner consciousness will tell him'-to whom I refer. That hon. gentleman has stated that I have disgraced my position as a representative of the constituency of St. John. He says I have given no support to our 'boys at the front. I do not know the age of the hon. gentleman who has made that statement. I do not know whether it would have been possible for him to have gone to the front, but I am beyond the years when I could go and fight for my country, and the most those who are beyond the age limit can do is to contribute of_ their means towards .assisting our country in the great struggle in which it is engaged.
I have made no boast, Sir, of what I have done, 'but I am willing that my record as to the assistance which I have given, compared with the means that I have, be placed side by side with that of any other man in this House, or any other man in this country. I say that I have .not boasted, from the public platform, or from my seat in this House, of what I have done; but those in my home city who know me know that, in respect of my relatives who have gone to the front and in respect of men who have been in my employ, I have done my part cheerfully and to the best of my ability.
I can appeal to my conscience to justify the assertion that I have done everything possible for me to do; everything that the most patriotic citizen would have felt bound to do. That is all I have to say in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend.


William Cameron Edwards: By making some reference to my remarks, the member for St. John himself answers the question whether they were entitled to any reply from a gentleman who respected himself. We must conclude that he is in the category of those who do not respect themselves; otherwise my remarks must, in his estimation, be worthy of some consideration on his part. I also am above the age limit for military service. I have never been connected with the militia in any shape or form. I have never been a fighting man; I have always been a man of peace; every person who knows me knows that that is true. This is the first time that I have ever made reference to the fact that my only son is to-day flying over the lines in France, risking his life every minute. I stand here as one interested in that boy and in others who are over there. I am confident that those who are to-day risking

their lives on the other side would, if they had opportunity of doing so, say that the right to vote should he given to those who, my hon. friend says, should not have that right. There would toe no dissenting voice; there would be no difference of opinion; every soldier over there, whether in the infantry, artillery, or flying squadrons, would say: give the ballot to every man who has put on the Canadian uniform and come over here to help us fight in this great cause. I am willing to place my record alongside the record of the member for St. John at any time and 'at any place before the people of this country-and I think I can make the suggestion with better grace than my hon. friend can. Moreover, I will place the record of my son against the record of his son; we will make it 'a family record, if my hon. friend is willing, .and we shall see which the country will approve.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I have not taken part in this discussion; any suggestions that I had to make I made privately to the Minister of Justice. But I take this opportunity of pointing out that in all ages naturalization laws have been overridden by the mere fact that a man dons the uniform and fights in the service of a country. That constitutes citizenship, and the rule should .apply in all lands. I am more than delighted that the minister is making it the rule in this case. British subjects coming from overseas and enlisting here and foreign subjects serving with the Canadian forces should have the right to cast their ballots as Canadian citizens, in view of the work that they are doing in this great war. At the beginning of the war it was regarded as out of place to give the soldiers votes. I happened to be in England at the time Sir Bichard McBride was trying to get the British Columbia soldiers the right to vote in the provincial elections. One evening I met him at dinner m company with Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bonar Law and others. The conversation turned to voting, and these gentlemen said that they could not see their way clear to give the British Columbia soldiers, the vote.
I asked them what they had to do with giving the British Columbia soldiers the right to vote. I took the ground that they had neither right, title nor interest in the matter; that the Government of Canada should say whether or not Canadian soldiers should have the right to vote. I pointed out further that it was unfair that the men at the front should be deprived of the 
right to vote while the men at home-some who could not go ; many who could-would have that right. According to the old Anglo-Saxon English law, the man who becomes a soldier loses no rights of citizenship. The Canadian citizen who dons a uniform, goes to the front and is deprived of his vote has a charge of ingratitude against the country that it would be hard to refute. However, the matter was looked into on the other side and the principle was adopted that the men who don the uniform lose no rights of citizenship. On the morning following the occasion to which 1 refer, Sir Kichard McBride was notified by the British Government that there was no objection whatever to the votes of the British Columbia soldiers being taken. Accordingly, the men were given a chance to vote, although only a few of them could be reached. I repeat that any man of any nationality who joins the ranks of the Canadian soldiers and fights in this war is entitled to cast a ballot in the coming election. I have run a good many elections and I have rarely challenged a vote. I always take it for granted that a fellow who is sixteen or eighteen years of age knows pretty well how to vote and how to conduct himself without any paternalism on the part of returning officers or politicians of any stripe. I remember one polling subdivision where my opponent had seven different officers-scrutineers, poll clerks and all that sort of thing-and I had not any, not even a constable or a scrutineer. When the count was made it was found that every ballot in the box was in my favour. These ballots included those of the poll clerk, the returning officer, the constable and the scrutineer.
An hon. MEMBEB: How did you do it?


Samuel Hughes: I let them exercise the conscience that the Lord gave them; that is how I did it. The agent of my opponent questioned these gentlemen. He said: Didn't I appoint you to act as scrutineer? Yes, replied the gentleman in question; I acted as scrutineer, but there was nothing to scrutinize. Then he questioned the polling clerk: Did I not ask you to act as poll clerk on the understanding that you would vote for our candidate? Oh, no; I did not have to vote any particular way; I was to act as poll clerk, and I have performed that duty. They thought that because these fellows got $5 or $10 on that occasion they would hand over their consciences and their votes. That is not the way the boys are trained in the district

that I have the honour to represent. I could mention various other instances along the same line.
A good deal has been said about -whether those of foreign nationality should vote. In the year 1914 I asked the British Government, through Lord Kitchener, to enrol a dozen brigades of German Britishers and put them in the firing line. It was my privilege to enrol the first body of Boers in South Africa-men who had been fighting against us up to a short time previously, but, who having found that they were in the wrong, expressed themselves as willing to fight in the right cause.
They were splendid fellows, and I had the privilege of meeting some of them in England the year before last. Had the British authorities enrolled a body of Germans who would fight for liberty as against the tyranny of Germany, this war would have been ended long ago, because the spirit would have spread until we would have had the free-born, freedom-loving people of Germany standing shoulder to shoulder with us in this great cause. The German settlements in Canada have done splendid work in this war. I saw the other day that the little town of Zurich had sent 20 men of German extraction to this war, and that a number of them had fallen. Thirty or forty boys of German descent fell on our side at the battle of St. Julien. The intelligence officer of the First Division, one of the finest soldiers, in the service, is the son of a German officer, and his mother has several brothers in the German service, but no more true, steadfast soldier exists than that lad. These people are not machine politicians, and my idea is to let those boys go to the polls. They have earned the right by becoming British soldiers, and 999 out of every 1,000 of those boys need no scrutineer, no returning officer, no polling clerk to tell them how to vote. They will vote according to the dictates of their consciences; they will vote for whatever candidate they choose, and no man would tell them to change their vote this way or that way. They will exercise their own judgment.


Frank Oliver: When this Bill was first under discussion, I understood the Minister of Justice to agree with my definition of the object to be attained under it, name-^ ly, to ensure that no Canadian citizen ghould be deprived of his vote by reason of his being a soldier. As I take it, the section, as it is drawn, provides that those who are not Canadian citizens shall be
entitled to vote because they are soldiers. That contention receives a good deal of support. I do not, however, follow the reasoning that is given in support of it. If it be a fact that, because a man dons the Canadian uniform and fights in the Canadian ranks, therefore, he is entitled to have a share in the control of the domestic ..affairs of Canada, I do not see why our /soldiers, who are fighting in France or in Belgium, or who are in England preparing to fight, should not have just the .same right to a share in the control of the domestic affairs of France, Belgium or England. It is a poor rule that will not work .both ways, and if citizens of those countries who happen to be in the Canadian forces are entitled to share in the direction of the domestic affairs of Canada, surely the rule should work the same in the other direction, and our soldiers should have a right to interfere in the domestic affairs of France, Belgium, or England. Nobody will contend that this latter suggestion is feasible, or workable, or even right, and I contend that the suggestion, that any person who chooses to join the Canadian army to fight in a cause that is not more Canada's than it is that of France, or Belgium, or England, should have a right to share in the control of the domestic affairs of Canada, is not sound reasoning.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. member aware that a Canadian serving in this war in France under the French Government, wearing the uniform of a French soldier, has a vote in France? I should think he would have a vote, and I believe he has.


Frank Oliver: I do not know as regards a Canadian serving in the French army, but , my contention is, following the contention of hon. gentlemen who have spoken, that inasmuch as Canadians are in France fighting for France, or are in Belgium fighting for Belgium, or are in England preparing to fight for England, they certainly should have the same right to share in the direction of the domestic affairs of France, Belgium, or England, as all those other men, citizens, we shall say, of the United States are to share in the domestic affairs of Canada, because they are fighting, as my hon. friend says, for Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Are not all these men fighting for human liberty?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Sir SAM HU  GHES@: They are not fighting for France, England, or Belgium; they are fighting for human liberty.


Frank Oliver: They are fighting for France, Belgium, or England, just as much as they are fighting for human liberty.


Samuel Hughes: They are fighting as Canadians.


Frank Oliver: They are fighting for human liberty just as our Canadian soldiers are fighting for human liberty. Our Canadian soldiers are in France fighting for France. No one will argue that they are not doing that. It is for France that they are fighting, although, of course, they are fighting for human liberty. We do not, however, insist that those soldiers of ours should have a share in the control of the domestic affairs of France because they fighting for human liberty in France. Then, why should we say that men who have citizenship in the United States or some other country, either concerned in the war or not concerned in the war, should have the right to a share in the direction and control of our domestic affairs, because they are fighting for human liberty in France, or Belgium, or England? The logic of our hon. friends opposite is absolutely at -fault.
It is not, however, on that point that I would take exception to the Bill as it stands; it is on this point, that when we include in our citizenship and within oui voting rights, those men who have no local habitation in Canada, we thereby place in the hands and in the control of the Government of the day the direction, in large measure, of the votes of those men, naturally, to the very great benefit -and advantage of tho-se in whose hands that direction and control for the time being happens to be, I suggest that that accounts, in large measure, for the unbounded enthusiasm with which the proposal is supported by my -hon. friends opposite, who have that much of a leverage and advantage over their opponents in any election that may take place. It is not because of the first proposition that I object to this measure, but it is because of the second proposition. I do not so much object to those men voting, because, after all, there is a -great deal to be said in favour of the men voting who have identified themselves with our country to the extent of fighting alongside of our soldiers; but when in OTder to give them what is claimed for them as their right, we thereby place in fact in large measure the

direction of this large number of votes in the hands of the Government of the day and its friends for the benefit of themselves and their friends, that is a negation of everything that properly belongs to a free franchise in a free country. It is for that reason I find it necessary to support the amendment of my hon. friend.


Mr. MORPHY:: I listened carefully to
many of the hon. members on the other side of the House who have spoken upon this subject and I was struck with the great trepidation and fear that they showed as to the enlargement of the class of voters. I wondered whether or not these hon. gentlemen opposite are afraid of the soldiers' vote.


Frank Oliver: We are afraid of the Government count.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have control of it by the amendment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The remark of the hon. gentleman shows that he does not know what he is frightened of. He has no justification whatever for any such remark. To my mind, one of the cardinal principles that should actuate any civilized people is the extension, rather than the restriction, of the franchise. I notice that some hon. gentlemen on the other side remained silent and did not share in the views propounded by my hon. friend from St. John, who voted against compulsory military service, though he says in this House that he has done everything to help the boys at the front. A man's actions best show what inspires him, and how his remarks should be construed.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend voted for compulsory service. How much has he done to help our boys at the front?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately, his son died, the same as yours.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not wish to enter into a discussion of my own personal attitude.


Frank Oliver: I mean, how much did the hon. member help the boys at the front by his vote in the House for compulsory service?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman says he knows what he means, but I do not, and I will leave it to the House to judge what he means. I do not wish to put forward here anything that I have done towards assisting the boys at the front, because I do not think it is anything par-

ticular to boast about. All I feel sorry for is that I have not done as much as I think I should have done, although I have done what I reasonably could, in view of the opportunities presented. Some lion, gentlemen opposite, if I may say so without malice, who boast with a good deal of effrontery of what they have done in aid of the boys at the front-and those whom the cap fits can put it on-have blocked and questioned every move that has been made to assist the boys at the front, and engendered suspicion, thereby retarding the efforts of the Government. Some of these gentlemen are frittering away the time of this House in practically obstructive tactics. They say that the Government has mismanaged the war, has ma,de a bungle of it.


William Pugsley: They have.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) the other night, in telling how the Government had mismanaged the war, spoke of the horse scandals. When one remembers that no less than 65,000 horses were bought by this Government at a cost of nearly $9,000,000, and shipped overseas in one year, of which 44,000 were for Prance and England, and that the scandal amounted to five horses which were surreptitiously passed off at Val-eartier, the horse scandal is not worth mentioning in this House. The people are net concerned about that, but they are concerned about the fact that the boys at the frent need reinforcements, and need them badly, and are crying for them.
'The Government has 'mismanaged the war, they say. Who is. a better judge of that than the soldier? Why should not the soldier vote upon that question? Who knows more about conditions at the front than the soldier in the Canadian expeditionary force, no matter whence he comes? I should think hon. gentlemen opposite would praise the soldier. This Bill does not go as far as the hon. member for Edmonton alleged. It does not presume to give the vote to a foreigner, just because he is in the Canadian expeditionary force, but it is giving the vote to those British subjects, no matter where they came from, who have joined the 'Canadian forces to fight for Canada and the Empire. Does not the man, no matter where he comes from, who becomes a member of the Canadian expeditionary force, earn his right to citizenship? On what higher plane, I ask the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for St. John oonld citizenship be .put in this great time of stress and
310*
trial, when the very foundations of the Empire are being shaken? Do not we welcome the British subject from the United States or any other place who joins the Canadian forces? In what does patriotism consist? It is all right for the hon. member for St. John to boast of his loyalty. No- one disputes his loyalty. But I do dispute his patriotism, and there is a great distinction 'between loyalty and patriotism.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. I did not boast of my loyalty at all. I do not think any man should do that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then I withdraw the statement that the hon. gentleman ever claimed to be loyal.


William Pugsley: I do not think it is necessary in this House, or anywhere else in this country, to 'boast of your loyalty.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is a difference between loyalty and patriotism. Loyalty is a sentiment, a feeling of love for one's country. A man may sing " We'll never let the old flag fall " for a thousand years, and be ever so loyal, but he would not he patriotic unless he did something to show his loyalty and to keep the old flag flying. Patriotism is loyalty in action -the doing o.f something. This Government has certainly been patriotic. Day in and day out they have had but a single purpose in all their war measures, the purpose of solidifying and concentrating the energies of this nation upon the great task before us, and when the boys in the trenches were calling, calling, and calling for more help in tones that could not be forgotten, the hon. member for St. John stood up and voted against the only Bill ever presented in this House to give the boys in the trenches the aid they required. It is by that I judge his patriotism, even if he does not claim to be loyal.


William Pugsley: I must correct the hon. gentleman. It is too much the habit of hon. gentlemen opposite to try and throw discredit on members on this side of the House. I did not say that I did not claim to be loyal. What I said was that I did not boast of my loyalty.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the hon. gentleman has very good ground for not boasting of it.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton, there is a great distinction to be drawn in connection with the argument he makes as to soldiers of this country voting to affect the internal

policy of France or Belgium. If a Canadian. soldier was fighting in the army of France or Belgium they should give him the vote, whether this Government gave him a vote or not. We are asking that men of British blood who happen for the time toeing to be living outside of this country, who have been moved by their patriotic spirit to enroll with the Canadian forces, get their kits, go into training, and go to the front and die, who under our law can take advantage of the Patriotic Fund, and the separation allowance, if they are married, who are entitled to hospital and Bed Cross benefits, who get socks and other comforts for the soldiers from the women of Canada-we are asking that they shall be given the vote. Hon. gentlemen opposite would give these soldiers of ours all these comforts,, but for political reasons, being frightened of them, would deny them the vote. Do we realize that a war is on, and that to encourage our soldiers we must give them not only material comforts, but also the abstract right to vote? They have taken their lives in their hands and gone to the front to do or die for us. They have earned their right to citizenship, and surely to God they are entitled to the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I very much hope that my learned and hon.' friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) will withdraw his motion. The men with whom this section deals are British subjects, not foreigners, as my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says. It is presumed that they are British subjects. As such they have come from the United States and other countries and have joined our forces, particularly in Western Canada. My hon. friend says they should not be permitted to exercise the franchise. They have no right to exercise the franchise in the United States, not being American citizens, and in this war more than in any other conflict of the ages, the destiny of the British Empire is at stake. The only opportunity these men will ever have of casting a vote as to what shall be the future of this Empire is as units in the Canadian forces, and not otherwise or elsewhere. I therefore submit that as British citizens governed and actuated by a patriotic willingness to offer their lives 'for the safety of the Empire and of this section of it-because after all their love was the love of empire, they found Canada a convenient place in which to enlist-Canada now offers the only opportunity that ever will be afforded to them 
to cast their votes for the defence of this Empire and determine whether or not in the midst of this war the conduct of the administration of this country merits the approval or disapproval of the men overseas. These men, British subjects, British citizens, coming here and signing on for three years, giving service to the state in Flanders and in France, offering their lives in the trenches, are asking now at the hands of this Administration an opportunity to cast a vote for the British Empire, for its salvation, 'for its destiny, and for that particular section of it which is called the Dominion of Canada. That is the first reason why they should have a vote.
The second reason is that these men have a deep and abiding interest in that portion of the Empire called Canada, because they have been receiving pay and separation allowances from our exchequer. They have an interest in the administration of the Dominion, because, in the future, their pensions must come' from the Dominion, so that they have a deep and abiding interest in the administration of the financial affairs of Canada. They have been enlisted for one, two or three years, and should have the right to say whether or not the administration of the financial affairs of the country has been such as to merit their approval or their disapproval, because they have been engaged undeT Canadian administration, because they are under the aegis of Canada, because they have been receiving their pay from Canada, they have a deep and vital interest in the right to cjust their votes. I. cannot see how it would be possible to get away from these reasons. Let us examine the question a little further. What are the essential qualifications for voting in Canada? Two things only: residence and citizenship, or, to put it the other way, citizenship and residence. Those British citizens come from other countrieis and enlist here, thereby answering the first qualification. The second is answered by service. I said some days ago, and I wish to repeat it, that service given to the State by willing offer of one's life as a sacrifice upon the altar of patriotism, is the highest, ' the noblest, and mcnst enduring service this world can ever know. Who would for a moment contend that service such as that for six, eight, or ten months, does not far transcend one year or three years' residence in Canada?' It is only necessary to be a resident of Alberta for one year, before a man is entitled to the franchise. 1 am sure from what I know of my

hon. friend from Edmonton he will agree with me, thiat any man who has done six months' service in France or in Flanders ha)S done more to establish his citizenship and his right to vote than he could do by living in our cities for any length of time. I submit that is the answer upon the question of- qualification by residence. In the West, as my hon. friend knows, we have a very large number of Austrian and German reservists. Only a few days ago I received a letter from one of the officers who went with one of my home battalions. He said "one of the prisoners we captured was a German officer whom you knew well in Calgary, but whose name I am not allowed to give you at this time." He was a Canadian citizen, and had he not been able to escape from this country he would have voted in Calgary, in this war for Germany and Austria, yet when a British subject comes along from the United States and enlists to fight the battles of the Empire, you wish to deny him the right to nullify a vote such as that. I saw a letter the other day from a young boy, not yet eighteen years of age, to his mother. He had captured two prisoners. He had been wounded, but had delivered his prisoners to the nearest camp. He said '' Mother, imagine my surprise when I found that one of them could talk English and had lived in Lethbridge before the war." So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are very large numbers of those men all through our Western country at the present time A whole settlement of them escaped to the United States, and were able to go across to Austria in some way that we do not know of. It is common for Canadians to capture German soldiers who were Canadian citizens before the war. They were naturalized, and many of those men would have the right to vote at the next election. I ask my hon. friend from St. John if in the light of that knowledge which he possesses, and which any man who reads the papers possesses; if in the light of the knowledge we possess of the recent elections in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and what passed there, he is not now prepared to withdraw his amendment, and afford to those citizens of the Empire the right to vote as Canadians ; afford to them the right to express their opinions upon the conduct of the Administration of the country, and upon those measures that must be taken to give them that assistance and help that will enable them to carry forward this conflict to a glorious and victorious end.


William Manley German: The motion has elicited just the style of speeches I expected it would.


George Green Foster: Very good
speeches.


William Manley German: Very good indeed, of the kind, but absolutely far removed from what is really the crucial point in this motion.
I have no desire to prevent a British subject from having a vote, and I never had any such desire. I have no fear of the votes of soldiers at the front who come from the county of Welland, or who come from any other county. The point involved in this motion, so far as I am concerned, is this: What right has any man or any number of men to say they will vote in the county of Welland, or in any other county, without any residence or even a legal status in that county?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not to be
a county election; it will be a war election.-


William Manley German: It is a county election, just the same as any other election ever was. It is an election which will decide the fate of the Government or the party, or decide who shall govern this country for the next five years-not for the next year or two years until the war is over.
If it was a war election, to decide what Government should be in power until the conclusion of the war, the contentions of hon. gentlemen opposite might be considered in point. But this is not a war election, it is an ordinary election in the Dominion of Canada to decide who shall govern this country for the next five years. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), in his fervid remarks, said that he would be very glad indeed, and that it would be wise, if a lot of these gentlemen who have no legal residence in Canada would record enough of their votes in the county of Welland to defeat me. So far as I am concerned, it makes very little difference to me whether I am defeated or elected. I never was a very ardent politician or a politician who desired particularly to participate in politics for the sake of being in politics. I have represented Welland for twenty-six years. I have been elected by majorities on every occasion running up into the hundreds. If the people choose to defeat me at the election, I am quite satisfied they should do so; they are the ones to choose, but I do not want the voice of the people of Welland to be smothered and killed by the votes of people who have never lived in Welland or in

Canada. Supposing, for instance, carrying out the idea of the hon. member for Fron-tenac, that the people of the county of Welland should choose to elect me as they have in the past by four or five hundred, or three hundred majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By acclamation.


William Manley German: Very well, by acclamation. They might do it again you know.


Mr. WEBSTER:: There is no reciprocity this time.


William Manley German: Lightning sometimes
strikes twice in the same place. But, assuming for the moment, and I will take that county for illustration, the people of Welland chose to elect me by three hundred majority, and thirty days after the election, a report came from London: Oh you are defeated. By what vote, I would ask and the answer would be: by the soldiers' vote from Welland in England? But the soldiers' vote from the county of Welland might be strongly in my favour-


George Green Foster: How do you
know?


William Manley German: I am mighty certain it
will be. But I would be told: There are five hundred votes recorded against you of men who never lived in Canada, and never will live in Canada. What will the people of Welland think of that?


William Sora Middlebro: Why should my hon. friend be afraid of these five hundred votes?


William Manley German: I am not saying I am
afraid of them. I am not afraid of any vote. I am not afraid of my hon. friend or his friends opposite. I am not afraid of anybody or anything, so far as I am concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only reciprocity you are afraid of.


William Manley German: I am assuming that these men who have no legal designation in Canada do not know where their votes should be recorded. They will vote, say, for the Government. Assuming for the moment that they all vote for the Government, who shall designate the places where those votes shall be counted? It will not be the voter, because he does not know. It will be the deputy returning officer, and the deputy returning officer will designate those votes in the constituency where they will do the most good. This Government may be entitled to be returned to power; perhaps they will be returned to power. I am not now contending or labouring that quesfMr. German.]
tion. Perhaps this Government could be returned to power by the vote of those men who absolutely have no residence in Canada. I say that, irrespective of all these high falluting suggestions of patriotism, it is not in the best interest of Canada that these outsiders, who do not know where they should vote, should have their votes placed for them by people who are in the employ of the Government. That is the point I take, and the point I make, and I submit that it is a point that should have weight, and that that clause should be amended in accordance with this resolution.


Frank Oliver: I wish to draw attention
to a point that may interest my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). Assuming that everything he says is correct with regard to the propriety of outsiders, non-residents, voting, he will have to recognize the difficulty that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has mentioned, the difficulty of distributing the vote. Assuming that the Government intended to be fair in the administration of the Act, would it not have accepted the .suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John1 (Mr. Pugsley) the other day whereby the Opposition would have some measure or share in the direction of the affairs of the voting, relating to this distribution of votes? If they had done that, the Government could fairly claim that they did not want to take an unfair advantage of the fact that they have control of the machinery of elections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the counting to which the hon. gentleman referred in his previous address adequately safeguarded now 'by the recast Bill?


Frank Oliver: I think the arrangements [DOT]as to the counting are greatly improved and very satisfactory. But in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Welland that these voters, these' men who are constituted voters by this Bill, who have no knowledge of any constituency in Canada, would have the right when they vote to make the selection of the constituency of which they have no knowledge, all the machinery, all the direction is in the hands of my friend's friends. I say that if the Government desired to preserve the appearance of fairness under these peculiar circumstances- everybody will admit that they are very peculiar-.the party of the Opposition should have some share in the control in connection with the distribution of this vote, that

is, the two parties should have an even break , in regard to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you not think that is covered by the provision as to scrutineers?


Frank Oliver: I understood not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you not think it is adequate?


William Pugsley: The scrutineers have
nothing to do with the allocation of the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they prevent the difficulty my hon. friend refers to.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ii they do their duty, yes.


William Pugsley: No, they have no duty in regard to it. The presiding officer is taking the vote. Naturally the non-resident knows nothing of the constituencies in Canada, nothing of the candidates. He will ask advice from the presiding officer-that will be a common thing-as to the different constituencies, and in that way there is an opportunity which ought not to be afforded by this Bill for these presiding officers to .really largely control the allocation o'f the votes of those who have never been residents of Canada. I quite agree with the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. E. B. Bennett) in his suggestion that the Bill, as it is proposed to amend it, will he greatly improved as to those who have once been residents of Canada, because they must specify their last place of residence in the country. But the objection still exists as to those who have never been in Canada, who have never set foot in Canada, who were not born in Canada, and therefore cannot be considered as Canadians. That class of people will still be allowed to vote under this Bill, and, under the provisions of section (e), will be enabled to choose any constituency in Canada which they care to select. Giving the fullest force to everything which the hon. member for Calgary has said, and so well said, in regard to the recognition which the country ought to give to every man who joins the Canadian Expeditionary Force and is prepared to risk his life for the Empire, let me ask him if he does not see a very great injustice to the Canadian boy who is at the front, whose choice is limited to the constituency in which he resides- does he not see the great injustice that is being done to him by giving to a stranger, a non-resident of Canada, the right to pick
out a constituency anywhere in Canada in which his vote shall be counted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we concede he should have a vote, obviously the complement of that is that he himself must select where his vote will be placed.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend would not suggest that the returning officer should do the choosing?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would not suggest that his scrutineers should determine the constituency?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor that our scrutineers should?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore, the man himself should?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we have done.


William Pugsley: The difficulty is the man will not select it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have faith in his intelligence.


William Pugsley: He will say: "I do not know anything about the constituencies in Canada." He will say to the officer taking the vote: " Give me your suggestion as to where the vote should be allocated." But the fact that there is an injustice to a soldier who has been a resident of Canada in allowing a non-resident to have a choice of the whole 230 odd constituencies is a reason why the non-resident should not be given a vote, or that 'his vote should be allotted to the constituency in which he enlisted. That would limit it. It might be an injustice, perhaps, to have a number of these votes given in the constituency in which the men happened to enlist, but it is very imuch better to incur that inconvenience, and that very slight injustice, than to allow an injustice to be done in .a large number of constituencies. But it all comes back to this, that no man should be allowed to vote unless he is able to make an affidavit as to some constituency in which, at some time or another, he has resided. The only effect of that would be to debar altogether those who have not been born in Canada, who have never lived

in Canada, and who can be described absolutely as non-residents of the country.


William Sora Middlebro: That is not the hon. member's amendment. The amendment proposes to give them no vote at all.


William Pugsley: Yes, for this reason; that we have to take this Bill section by section, and when we are considering this amendment we find ourselves confronted by the provisions of section 3, which we are bound to take into consideration, and which expressly provide that the man who has not had a residence in Canada which he can specify, is allowed to pick out, at his own whim, any one of the 230 constituencies in Canada. My hon. friend from Calgary appealed to me to withdraw the amendment. I would be perfectly willing to withdraw it, if I could have the assurance of the Minister of Justice that section 3 will be so amended as that the voter must specify some constituency in Canada in which he has, at some time in his life, resided. I would make it very, broad, so that it will apply to those who have been once in Canada, and if my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will say that he will propose an amendment to section 3, which will require that the elector shall specify some constituency in Canada in which he has at some one time in his life had a residence, then I shall be perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment. But I am not willing, as one member of this House, to allow the vote of the Canadian people, more especially the votes of our Canadian boys who have gone to the front, to be submerged by the votes of strangers, of non-residents of Canada, who are to have the privilege, under this Bill, of allotting their votes over the whole Dominion of Canada, to pick out any one of the 230 odd constituencies, and place their votes in constituencies which, in many cases, I am bound to believe, these partisan presiding officers, whose appointment this Government is determined to keep in its own hands, will have the selection of, rather than these non-resident soldiers.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I do not think I can be accused of obstructing, if I say a word or two, because1 this is the first time I have spoken in the debate on this Bill. I should like to point out to the Government that I am supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. John because I consider the Bill, as drawn, does an absolute injustice to the Canadian soldier. A soldier from the constituency of my hon. friend for St. John and Iberville

who happens to be a Conservative in politics, and would like to vote for the Government in a constituency where his vote might do some good, is not allowed to do so under this Bill. He must vote in the constituency of St. John and Iberville, where his vote will certainly be lost. But a man from the United States, who never resided in Canada, can place his vote where it will do most good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he will do.


Georges Henri Boivin: I really am in favour of
the principle of allowing every British subject, who is fighting in the Canadian 'army, to vote in this election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think they should vote, and should be represented in this House, I have a suggestion to offer, but I am not prepared to say that it can possibly be done, as I have not looked up the constitutional aspect of the matter. I should like to suggest an amendment, providing that, notwithstanding anything which may be contained in the Redistribution Act of Canada, a county at large be formed, which would be represented in this House by a member elected by all these soldiers fighting in the Canadian army who had not resided in some particular county in Canada before they enlisted. In that way, they would have representation in this House, and people residing in each constituency in Canada would still have the right to elect their own representatives, with the aid of the votes of their own soldiers. I offer this suggestion to the Government in the very best of good faith. I do not think the non-resident soldiers should be allowed to mass their votes, and thereby destroy the chance of a candidate in any particular district. On the other hand, I think they should vote in the election, and that their votes should be counted. They should have representation in this House. I do not see anything incompatible with the British North America Act in creating an extra constituency. The British North America Act provides that Quebec shall have 65 representatives, and that the representation of the other provinces of Canada shall be in the proportion that their population bears to the population of Quebec. If we had 35,000 strangers, or 35,000 British subjects-I do not want to use- the word strangers-who have not resided in Canada prior to the war, but are fighting in the Canadian army, or if we have twenty or thirty thousand, we have almost the population

of .an additional county. It is so much more added to the population of Canada. They should he entitled to representation, and I think a county at large could very well he designated for them, where they could elect their own representative, who could be sent here to represent them in the next Parliament.	v


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Would the hon. gentleman only give them one member, to these 35,000 soldier electors?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not know how many of these non-resident soldiers there are. If there is a number equal to the number of electors of two counties, I think they are entitled to two. members, and I would have no objection to allowing them two. I take it for granted that, of the soldiers who never resided in Canada before, there are probably fifteen or twenty thousand at the front, and that the others resided in Canada before they enlisted, and will vote in their respective constituencies. If the number is so great that they are entitled to two seats, I think they should have them.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived on division: nays, 51; yeas, 13.


William Manley German: I wish to draw attention to the manner in which the word " minor " is used in this section. The section says:
"Military elector" means and includes every person, male or .female, who, being a British subject, whether or not ordinarily resident in Canada and whether or not a minor or an Indian, has been, while within or without Canada, appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Militia on active service, or the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, or has been, while within Canada, appointed, enlisted or enrolled as one of the British Royal Flying Corps, Royal Naval Aviation Service, or Auxiliary Motor Boat Patrol Service, whether as officer, soldier, sailor, dentist, nurse, aviator, mechanician or otherwise.
A minor is any person under the age of 21 years. No minor below the age of 18 years has been enlisted in any of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. I submit that the word " minor " should not refer to any person under the age of 18. Further, those appointed, enlisted, enrolled, or called out for active service in the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve are not on active service. If they are appointed or enlisted in either of these forces prior to the election they will be in Canada at the time of the election. There will be no intention of sending them overseas for service.


Mr. HAZEN:: While they do not go overseas, most of them are engaged in active service. A great many of them .are engaged in service of a very dangerous character in connection with the patrol service along the Atlantic coast, searching for submarine bases, and work of that kind. The provisions of this Bill do not cover those engaged on fisheries protection vessels; they relate only to those actually engaged in naval service.


William Manley German: It would be .a very easy matter to enroll a large number of naval cadets prior to the election, who, though under 21 years of age, would have a vote by reason of this legislation. That might very well be done without the knowledge of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or of any member of the Government. I have taken the liberty of preparing an amendment to cover this point. I move that the following words be added to subsection 2:
(a) "Minor" in subsection 2 shall not refer to any person under the age of 18 years and shall only refer to such persons as have been appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or had been at the time of the passing of this Act so appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service in one or other of the several forces in said subsection set out.
That would mean that all minors down to the age of 18 who were actually enrolled or called out for service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force would have a vote; that all such persons down to the age of 18 who had been enrolled or appointed in any of the other services at the time of the passing of this Act would have a vote, but that those who enrolled after the passing of this Act and before the election would not have a vote. A large number of minors will no doubt be enrolled in the Canadian Expeditionary Force subsequent to the passing of this Act and prior to the election who should have a vote; no one wishes to deny them that right. But what I point out is that the organization of units of naval cadets or of minors in these other services subsequent to the passing of this Act and prior to the election, giving these minors the right to vote, would have a very serious effect on the election and a very unhealthy effect on the general sentiment of the country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the suggestion that we should limit minors to minors of 18 years, ^ery few would be enlisted under the age of 18 in any event. When a boy of 17 had enlisted and is per-

forming active service, why should we discriminate once we have, in our legislation, gone below the age of 21?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Cadets cannot enrol if they are over 16 years of age.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to cadets bona fide enrolled after this Bill is passed, it would be rather unfair to discriminate against them and to say that they should not vote, although their comrades have the right to do so
If that be so-and that seems to me quite clear, there is only one reason that remains why we should do this, and that involves the very grave imputation on all officers charged with enrolment of cadets of this kind, namely, that this Parliament thinks that they will proceed to enrol, as has been said, battalions of minors for the purpose of making votes. I appeal to the committee. Does this committee suspect that? Does this committee think it is necessary to put upon record that that is our view of those officers?


William Manley German: It is not the officers who are enrolling those men; they can be enrolled throughout the country. As I pointed out the other night, in different polling divisions there might be two or three young men whom they could enrol in the navy, so that they could register their votes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that can be done, it is news to me. I did not know that there were naval officers sittting at every poll to enrol cadets.


William Manley German: I am not saying that at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those lads can be enrolled and become cadets only if they are enrolled by officers authorized to enrol them, and at the proper place. You do not enrol naval cadets at every street corner.


William Manley German: Certainly not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is one reason for this amendment that is advanced, namely, that' the officers of our naval forces-and those officers are few in number-are open to the suspicion that they will enrol battalions of minors-that is the expression of the hon. member-for the purpose of making votes. I ask this committee: In all fairness, are they prepared publicly to put that imputation upon those officers? Is it credible that those officers would do such a thing? Those officers are known to the public; they have their responsibilities to the Government and to the public, and can it be supposed that men in those positions

of responsibility are going to bring upon theinselves the execration and condemnation of the whole population of Canada by abusing their position in the naval forces to proceed to the manufacture of minor votes? I must say, with all respect: This is an amendment for which there is no substantial reason advanced, and I would ask the committee to reject it.
Amendment lost on division.
*Section agreed to.
On section 3-Voting by military electors:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I call the minister's attention to these words in line 3 of subsection 2:
Of the year immediately preceding his appointment.
Does that mean the calendar year preceding his appointment, or does it mean within the period of twelve months preceding his appointment? If it read " within one year immediately preceding his appointment," it would be a little clearer. It might be read to mean that it was the calendar year preceding the year in which the enrolment took place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion is that
the wording might imply that it is not the year which immediately precedes, but the year that precedes that year. That was not intended. I would call the attention of the hon. membeT to the wording. It is to be " at least four months of the year immediately preceding his appointment." I think that makes it quite clear that the four months to which we refer are four months of the year that immediately precedes, his appointment, and I think, therefore, the year referred to is clearly the year immediately preceding his appointment. I have no objection to modify the clause if there is the slightest doubt about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest, to
make the matter absolutely clear, that the clause read:
During at least four months of the twelve months immediately preceding his appointment.
The word " year " might he construed as a calendar year, or as the preceding twelve months.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If no other good comes of this Bill the training I shall have had in accuracy in expression will be invaluable to me. I am not criticising; I am expressing my gratitude. I beg to move:

That subsection 2 be amended by inserting in the blank space in -the second line the word "four," and by striking out in the third line the word "year" after the words "of the" and substituting therefor the words "twelve months."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg further to move:
That section 3 be amended by inserting therein as subsection 3 the following:
"If he cannot state or so specify an electoral district or place wherein he has so resided for the time and within the period mentioned in subsection 2, but can state an electoral dis-t trict or so specify a place within Canada wherein he has at any other time resided, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or made ascertainable and his vote shall be applied thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg further to amend the section as a whole by substituting the figure "4" for the figure "3" at the beginning of the present subsection 3 and the figure "5" for the figure "4" at the beginning of the present subsection 4.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Ballots and custody:
Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a very trifling, but necessary amendment that ought to be made to subsections 5 and 6. It is to substitute in those sections the word "forces" for the word "troops," as used with reference to the commanding officer in Bermuda or elsewhere in North America, because there aTe forces other than military forces and the word "troops" would perhaps hardly properly apply to them. I beg to amend .section 5 by substituting for the word "troops" in line 20, the word "forces." There are some naval forces, and we do not wish to call naval forces troops.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 6-Information as to candidates :
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to amend section 6 by substituting in the forty-fourth line of page 4 the word "forces" for "troops."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 8-Conduct of polls:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have a suggestion to
make which I think it would be advisable, if not almost necessary, for the minister to adopt in view of the amendment which he proposed the other evening. Subsection 2 says:
The Canadian military and naval authorities at every camp or other place where any
poll is held shall afford to the attending deputy presiding officer all necessary facilities, and the officer commanding shall allow every military elector, so far as may be consistent with the proper performance of his duties, time and opportunity to vote.
I would suggest that the minister add, after the word "officer" in line 28, the words "and scrutineers."


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amendment that we passed the other evening read:
and, subject to the same condition, to every military elector who may be appointed a deputy scrutineer time and opportunity to perform his duties as such.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably that covers it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it does not completely cover it, we could say "to afford to the attending deputy presiding officer and scrutineer all facilities."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The amendment which
was carried the other evening read:
and, subject to the same condition, to every military elector who may be appointed a deputy scrutineer, time and opportunity to perform his duties as such.
Suppose that a civilian scrutineer were sent. I do not see anything in the Bill, either in the letter or in the spirit to prevent that, and I think it would be necessary to insert the words I suggested in order to give him. facilities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I would suggest that the word "official" would include clerks, scrutineers and any other necessary officers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have some doubt
whether a scrutineer is an official.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion is that we should say "officials or scrutineers."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would be all right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that subsection 2 of section 8 be amended by inserting in the third line of the subsection, after the word "officer" the words "officials and scrutineers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I (beg to move that subsection 4 of section 8 be amended by adding thereto t*he following:
Every scrutineer, deputy scrutineer, and military elector so acting shall on being admitted to the poll take before the deputy presiding officer the oath in form U of schedule 1 of this Act.

That is the same oath as is taken toy scrutineers under the general Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-.Manner of voting without Canada:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that clause (f) of subsection (1) of section 9 toe amended by striking out the words "administer to himself " in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the word " make/' and further, that the clause be amended by inserting the word " himself " between' the word " and " and the word " certify " in the third line "thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Forwarding the ballots:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that section 11 Ibe amended by inserting at the beginning thereof the following:
The ballot boxes for use in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe shall be provided by the assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the presiding officer, who shall deliver the same locked to the various deputy presiding officers, retaining the key, and forthwith after delivery of any ballot box despatching the key thereof to the ultimate destination of the ballot box as hereafter in this section indicated whereat any ballots to be obtained in said box are to be counted.
The effect is that the ballot box leaves the presiding officer locked. He keeps the key and sends it to the officers who .are to do the counting. The deputy presiding officer, therefore, receives the locked box, with an opening in it through which an envelope can be slipped, but nothing can be taken out of the box without it being opened.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that covers
everything, except the forms.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is one other suggestion which I think will meet the views of the committee. I believe we were all agreed last evening that thirty-one days after the polling day imposed as a necessary delay before counting the ballots was, perhaps, unnecessarily long, and the suggestion was made that supposing all the boxes were collected sooner there should be some method of counting them .sooner.
At six o'clock the committee took, recess.

After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We were at section 12 when the committee rose. I beg to move that the following be added to section 12 as subsection 11:
Notwithstanding .the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the secretary of the High Commissioner's office and the Commissaire Gfinferal du Canada in France, and the general returning officer, respectively, shall in the event of all the ballot boxes issued to deputy presiding officers in the United Kingdom, on-the continent of Europe and in North America respectively, being received by them respectively, and the proceedings under subsections 1, 2 and 3 of this section completed before the thirty-first day next after polling day in Canada, fix an earlier day whereof two days' notice shall be given to the scrutineers entitled to attend on the counting of the ballots and oil such earlier date the special returning officers shall proceed to the counting of the ballots in the manner in this section provided.
This is to make it possible not to wait for the 31 days if all the boxes come in.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section .as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Return of ballots:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I wish to move an
amendment to make good an omission in the printing of the Bill. I move to amend section 13 toy inserting in line 33 after the word " and " and before the word " transmit," the following words: "after the sixth day after he has made such final addition ". This provision permits the returning officer to retain the ballots until after the four days during which (a recount may be demanded.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On form (to)-Questions to voters:
Charles Joseph Doherty: It will toe necessary to change form B owing to the amendment made to section 3 in connection with which form it applies. I move to amend form B toy inserting therein as question 8 the following :
If you cannot specify as required by question No. 6, or state as required by question No. 7, then state in what electoral district or place within Canada (giving street and number where possible) you have resided at any other time than is referred to in question No. 6.
Questions 6 and 7 are the questions leading up to the electoral district or particular place where a man last resided for four months of the twelve months immediately preceding his appointment. This is to meet

the case of a man who cannot give that information, but who has at any time resided in Canada. He shall vote in the place where he resided in Canada.
I move further to strike out the present question 8 iand to substitute for it the following as question 9:
It none of your answers to questions Nos.
6, T and 8 specify or state as required thereby to what electoral district do you desire your vote to he applied?
This is to ask for an indication, in the case-which now will be, I think, a very exceptional case-where a man cannot state [DOT]either the district in which he has resided for four months in the last year or a district in which at any time he resided in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: In the first and second questions a certain form is adopted, and an opposite form is adopted in the third and . fourth questions. Is there any particular reason for that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, except that questions 1 and 2 are what you might call formal questions, and it is shorter to put
them in that way-"your name is?	
rather than "What is your name?" There was no intention in doing it, and I cannot see that it makes any difference.


Frank Oliver: Would there be any objection to casting each of these paragraphs into the form of a question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman suggests that we make it read, "What is your name?"


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is better to put them all in that form.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then it will read, "What is your name?" "What is your rank?" and "What is your number?"


Charles Murphy: Does the section to which this form relates provide that the certificate is to be filled in by the elector, or the deputy presiding officer? It is signed by the deputy presiding officer, but it is to be filled in by the person to whom the interrogations are addressed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention is that the presiding officer shall put these questions and fill in the answers. He asks the questions, puts in the answers, and certifies that the man has sworn to the answers.


Charles Murphy: There would be less likelihood of suggestion to the voter if he were to fill in the answers himself, particularly to No. 8.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is just a question of who will do the writing.


Charles Murphy: I appreciate that the
question of time enters into it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This very matter of not requiring the soldier to do the writing or signing was pointed out to us as one of the things that was desirable, by gentlemen who have had to do with the elections that have been held. It was pointed out that whatever shortened the procedure was of veTy great importance. I am not in a position to say why, but I think it is quite re-sonable that it should be so.
Amendment adopted, and section as amended adopted.
On form A-Ballot:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for
Queen's (Mr. A. A. McLean) calls my attention to the fact that in the enumeration of electoral districts in which two candidates can be elected, we omitted the district of Queen's county, Prince Edward Island. I move to further amend Form A, as already amended, by adding to the enumerated constituencies in which two candidates can be elected, the electoral district of Queen's county. Prince Edward Island.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it understood that the first blank space on the ballot is to be larger than appears on this form?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the space will be enlarged.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It should be much wider than1 appears in the form. There is no great distinction between writing the name after the printed matter, and marking an " X." There is quite a space there. It might be possible that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the Opposition would be able to designate some of the candidates under section 12, and perhaps it would be wise to allow the candidate to designate his party. Some complications might arise in regard to this provision.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Supposing two gentlemen claim to be the Opposition candidate, or two gentlemen claim to be the Government candidate, we shall be in a hopeless situation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no way out of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have thought the matter over a good deal, and I confess I do not see any way, unless we have some authority which is going to determine the question. Where there is only one man running as a Government or Opposition candidate, no difficulty will arise, and it is just to meet the ease where two gentlemen may be running as Opposition candidates, or two gentlemen running as supporters of the Government that this provision is framed. We have to get some authority that will decide between them.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Did the minister give further consideration to my suggestion the other evening that number two should be number one, number three should be number two, and number four should be number three? It should be arranged so that the first option is the Government candidate, the second the Opposition, the third the Independent candidate, and the fourth the individual candidate who might not be covered iby any of the three.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a discouragement to the personal vote, which we should encourage.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think it would be a wise arrangement, because nine-tenths of'the votes will be for the Government or Opposition candidates, and they would naturally like to mark their ballots in the first or second space. If they do not wish to vote for the Government, Opposition, or Independent candidates, they can indicate some other candidate for whom they wish to vote. The present arrangement is going to be puzzling. A voter may desire to vote for a certain candidate, and will write his name in the first space. If that candidate happens to be the Government candidate the voter will put a cross against number two, and thus the ballot will be marked in two places.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that case, if the candidate he names is the Government candidate, the voter has twice indicated his intention. We have provided that if a man inserts a name and then makes a mark, say, against "Government candidate" and it turns out that the man whose name he put down is really the candidate of the Opposition, the vote will be counted for the Opposition candidate. The purpose of asking the voter to vote either for the Government or for the Opposition is that the name of the individual candidate for whom he voted may be ascertained. Wherever the individual does know the candi-
date's name, you are saved the additional operation, with possible errors, of transmitting to a particular candidate a vote that is marked for the Government or for the Opposition. After all, the election in each constituency is between particular candidates, and the thing to be found out is the name of the individual candidate for whom the voter voted.
I think the question whether more men will vote for a particular candidate than for Government or Opposition, or vice versa, is in the realm of speculation. The hon. gentleman anticipates that more ballots will be marked for Government or for Opposition than for individual names. We have taken pains to provide machinery by which the names of candidates in all constituencies may be brought to the knowledge of the military electors, and I anticipate that the greater number of votes will be for particular candidates. I think that the sense of the committee, when the matter was discussed, seemed to be rather in favour of the first space being that in which the name should be written.


William Manley German: I think that the very
reverse of that suggested by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) would happen. The soldier from Canada who knows the constituency from which he comes and the names of the candidates in that constituency will vote for the candidate of his choice. Undoubtedly a section of voters do not know who the candidates are, what the constituencies are, or who they are voting for-except that they are voting for the Government. That class,
I understand, would come within the purview of what the member for St. Antoine has said. The military electors from Canada, however, will vote, I think, more generally for individual candidates than for Government or the Opposition.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In view of the fact that there is no distinguishing mark on the ballot-that the ballot does not contain the returning officer's initials-some provision should be made that the person who prints these ballots in London or in Paris will make an affidavit similar to that made by the printer of ballots in Canada. Under the Dominion Elections Act the printer haa to make .a positive affidavit that he has printed so many ballots and no more. It would be a simple matter for a printer employed in London to1 print ballots and send them out by the thousands, as they are wanted, to any applicant who would pay the price. It is true that the law says that the ballot

shall be marked in the presence of the returning officer, but the provision is that it must be marked in such a (way that the officer will not know how he votes, and it would be a very simple matter to- substitute one ballot for another.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to accepting that suggestion. The best way would be to lift the section of the Dominion Elections Act right in there. I move that the following provision be inserted as subsection 3 of section 5:
The printer shall, upon delivering the ballot papers to the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in1 Chancery, file in his hands an affidavit setting! forth the description of the ballots so printed by him, the number of ballots supplied by him and the fact that no other ballot papers have been supplied by him to any one else.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not be wise to state in form A that the cross with which a man marks his ballot shall be marked with a particular kind of pencil or pen?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hardly think,we ought to do that, im view of possible conditions. There was an amendment which I thought had been passed the other evening, but I find that it has been overlooked. It was an amendment prescribing that when the presiding officer appoints his deputy presiding officer he shall give due notice to the scrutineers of each party.
I now move to amend paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 4 by adding thereto the following:
Every presiding officer shall notify in writing, by mail or other expeditious means, the scrutineer of each party whose place of address may be nearest to him of the names of all deputy presiding officers appointed by him.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose the minister will have this Bill reprinted before it is read the third time? It is rather confusing, and we would all like to have an opportunity to go over it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister look at form A again? Would it not be well to change the first and last sections so that the first shall be last, and the last first?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was agreed that that should be done, but I find that the amendment was not drawn up so as to meet that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any better word than the word "party" there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What would be the suggestion with regard to that word?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is apt to be a confusion as to whether the word "party" means "person" or a particular party .as represented by the Government, Opposition or independent candidate. We spoke of that the other day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the purpose of
clearing that up, we substituted for the words "particular person" the words "particular candidate or candidates designated by name," and when we put in contradistinction to each other a party or a particular candidate or candidates designated by name, I would think, under these circumstances, the word "party" could mean nothing other than a political party. Nobody could then confuse it with person, 'and it is a little difficult to find another word to substitute for ''party" for that purpose that would be any clearer unless we had a long description. I move to amend form A by making the instructions as to the method of voting for a particular candidate or candidates precede that as to the method of voting for a party. When this amendment is carried we shall have Form A printed in that way.


Charles Murphy: Has the ballot as it appears in the draft Bill been altered? Has there been an addition to provide for voting for a labour candidate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: An amendment carried to make that addition and also to widen the spaces. Furthermore, we substituted for the word "person" the words "candidate or candidates designated by name." That was to clear up the distinction between a party and a person.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: Will the Government assume any responsibility in the matter oi informing the voters overseas as to the nomination of candidates? That, of course, is not a matter within the scope of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 6 makes a
special provision imposing the duty upon the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to send the information and upon all officers to circulate it in every possible way.


Frank Oliver: That is all very well, but unless the information is over there in good
time-


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be sent by cable on nomination day.
Bill reported, amendments read the first and second time, and concurred in.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Supplementary Estimates, 1917-18-Immigration-Salaries of agents and employees in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries->
Further amount required, $20,000.
['Ryan was acting as a switchman on December 22 last. It appears that he fell off the car and a train backed over him. He leaves a wife and two children-a boy four years old and a girl nine months old-in very poor circumstances.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.\nSaturday, August 25, 1917.']
Mr. ROCHE:: The House will remember that when my Estimates were up before I was asked if it was the intention to increase the salaries of members of the Outside Service, and I replied that it was my intention to have an item in the Supplementary Estimates to provide for an increase in the Outside Service similar to the increase provided for the Inside Service under the legislation of the Minister of Finance, namely, that in deserving .cases those in receipt of less than $1,000 per annum should receive an increase of $100 a year.	.


Frank Oliver: The higher salaried agents receive no increase?


William Roche: No.


Charles Murphy: In how many countries outside of Canada and Great Britain are agents employed?


William Roche: Only in the United States, where we have seventeen agents at the present time.


Frank Oliver: Is the movement of people from the United States increasing?


William Roche: I think possibly there was in increase of 50 per cent this year over last. Immigration from the United States was down to a minimum in 1915, but there was a considerable increase in 1916, and this year again there has been a large increase until very recently. It is possible, however, that conscription in the United States may have the effect of checking immigration.


Frank Oliver: Is the increase largely among men looking for homestead lands, or among those desiring to purchase lands?


William Roche: Both. This year there is possibly a larger influx of those who are purchasing land. Quite a number are also going into the Peace River country and taking up homesteads. Our information is that those who are coming over consist

of agriculturists, agricultural labourers, and those with money of their own who have sold out their properties in the United States with the idea of buying cheaper land in Canada.	_


Frank Oliver: Would it be correct to say that the Peace River district is attracting a larger number than other sections of Canada?


William Roche: Yes, as regards homesteads.


William Cameron Edwards: Are there any special agents from the province of Quebec working among the French of the United States with a view to getting them back to this country as settlers? If there are any such agents, I should like to know how many there are, how many settlers they brought back to Canada last year, where they were settled, and what money has been spent on these agents for salaries and expenses. There is another point:	It has been
rumoured that agents from the province of Quebec working among their compatriots in the United States, in the New England states presumably, have taken advantage of their position as immigration agents to transport people, not from the United States but from Ontario and Quebec to the Northwest. If anything of that kind has gone on-I do not say it has, but I have heard rumours to that effect-I do not think it is exactly what was intended by appointing immigration agents. The idea in appointing them was not that they should arrange for the transport of -men from one province to another, but to get people from outside to come into this country. I should like to know if this rumour is well founded, and to what extent this thing has been going on in the past, if at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the minister
answers my hon. friend, I should like to say that this is the first time I have ever heard of any such scheme. If there is any truth, or any semblance of truth, in the rumour that agents appointed to promote immigration from the United States to Canada are sending to the Northwest people from the province of Quebec or other provinces, under the pretext that they are immigrants from the United States, I would urge the Minister of the Interior to order at once a very thorough investigation to ascertain the facts.


William Roche: From time immemorial agents have been working amongst the French Canadians who migrated from Canada, principally from the province of

Quebec, many years ago, to work in the mills of the New England states.
Their children have been growing up, and it has been the desire to secure our fair share of immigrants from the United States, including the repatriation of Canadians who have gone to the New England States. Colonization agents have been employed for that purpose for many years past under this Government and under preceding governments. I understand there are three of those gentlemen working in the New England States, Rev. J. B. H. Giroux, whose headquarters are at Montreal and whose salary is $600 per annum; Rev. J. B. Bourassa, whose headquarters are at Montreal and whose salary is $1,200 per annum, and Rev. O. Corbeil, whose salary is $600. We have no. separate statistics as to the number of French Canadians brought into Canada from the United States. They are all classed as immigrants. Roughly speaking, however, I should say about fifteen per cent of those coming back to Canada from the New England States are repatriated Canadians. They are not classified-as French Canadians, English Canadians, etc,-they are all repatriated Canadians. The idea is that a propaganda should not be carried on in any one province to get a movement into another province. There were some complaints made to me on that score about two years ago against one particular colonization agent. He was at my office one day, and I told him about these complaints, explaining that the province of Quebec had objected to any propaganda tending to take their people away and locate them in the northern portion of Ontario, or any other province. I told him we were not spending money for that purpose. He said he had not been carrying out any policy of that character except in a few -instances where he knew the people were about to move away from Quebec to the United States, and rather than see them leave Canada entirely, he had done his best to get them to settle in other provinces of the Dominion.


William Cameron Edwards: Can the minister give me any idea as to the numbers, or as to what part of the country they have settled in; also the total amount expended through these three agents? I would also ask why there is a difference in the salaries. I notice two of the agents receive $600, and the other $1,200. Is it accounted for by the difference in the time they spend at the work?


William Roche: I believe Rev. Mr. Bourassa receives the larger salary because he devotes more of his. time to the work. As a matter of fact, he devotes his entire time to it. He is very much more energetic and he has brought in many more immigrants from the New England States than the other two gentlemen have. I think one of these agents is temporarily taking the place of another gentleman who went to the front. It is impossible to give even an approximate idea as to the number of immigrants who have been brought in by these officials. All I can. tell my hon. friend is that about fifteen per cent of the total immigrants from the United States are repatriated Canadians. Some of them are located along the Transcontinental railway, in the northern portions of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, some of them are taken right through to Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is quite a colony in Northern Alberta, and quite a colony at Prince Albert.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the cost?


William Roche: There is no cost to the country,"over and above the salaries, paid to the gentlemen I have named.


William Cameron Edwards: Are the expenses of those agents paid?


William Roche: Their travelling expenses are paid. The expenses do not amount to very much. As a matter of fact, I think they are supplied with passes by the transportation companies. There is no per capita allowance or anything of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the explanations given by the minister, it would 6eem to me that the department spends very little in what I consider to be a splendid field for excellent immigration. Of course, it is always good policy to get the best class of immigrants for Canada. I have frequently heard if admitted on the floor of this House that the best immigrants who have settled in the West are those who came from the United States. The best amongst those American immigrants ought to be our own people-the Canadians who have gone across the 'boundary line years ago to settle in the United States when times w-re hard in Canada. A Canadian visiting the New England States is amazed to find so many Canadians. One would find hundreds and Indeed .thousands of Canadians at the Canadian clubs in and around Boston. As a matter of fact they say Boston is only an annex of Nova Scotia. There are thousands



of Canadians, and especially French Canadians, around Lowell, Lawrence, Holyoke, Springfield and other cities in the New England States. I am told there are over 30,000 Canadians in Chicago; and there are large numbers of Canadians in Philadelphia, Buffalo and Cleveland. If the department could bring those Canadians back to Canada, certainly it is the best policy to follow, and the country ought to congratulate the Government on the large number of Canadians who have been induced to return. The latest statistics show that there are nearly one million French Canadians in the United IStates. Some years ago, in company with the then Speaker of the Senate, Hon. Mr. Dandurand, I had the honour to represent the Dominion of Canada at the semi-centennial celebration of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, in the state of
9 p.m. Michigan. We addressed a gathering of perhaps five thousand or six thousand people, and we had to speak in French as well as in English, because of the large number of French Canadians present. All those French Canadians are the sons of farmers, and are excellent farmers themselves when they return to the land. It seems to me it is good policy on the part of the department [DOT]to induce those farmers to return to Canada. If my hon. friend has travelled through the valley of the St. Lawrence in the province of Quebec, he will have noticed that the farms are already occupied, and those long narrow strips are not sufficient to maintain large families, so the sons emigrated, and now when they return to the land it is quite natural they should go to the West, where there are such immense domains for those who have any farming propensities. I am told there are excellent colonies of these French Canadians in the West. Some years ago a gentleman brought from" the United States several hundred French Canadians and founded two colonies, and there are some pf them settled in the Peace river country. I commend that policy to my hon. friend and I hope he will bring back many .more thousands of French Canadians from the United States.
Seed grain to settlers on unpatented lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $100,000.	i


Frank Oliver: Will the minister be good enough to explain this item?


William Roche: In the early part of August last year there was a very heavy frost in the Peace River country which destroyed much of the crop, and it was represented to the department this spring

that many homesteaders there could not seed their lands. The department sent in officers who visited the different paints m the Peace River, Grande Prairie and Spirit River country, in co-operation with officers from the Provincial Government of Alberta. The Provincial Government supplied se,ed to those needy farmers who had their lands patented and the Dominion Government supplied it to homesteaders. Sufficient good seed was 'found among some of the farmers in that country to supply all needs, so that we avoided the expense of shipping grain in.


Frank Oliver: What amount was supplied by the Provincial Government in the Peace River country?


William Roche: We have no record of that.


Frank Oliver: And what amount of this money?


William Roche: We have not it differentiated as to the particular portions of the country. The bulk of it was supplied to the Peace River farmers.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Reverting to the item of salaries, how many persons connected with the Immigration Department in North Sydney will participate in the proposed increase, and who are they?


William Roche: We have an agent named Dooley at North Sydney who receives $1,100, so that he will not receive the $100 given to those receiving less than $1,000. There is a medical inspector who receives $1,000.


Mr. KYTE:: Has there been some difficulty recently with regard to Newfoundlanders wishing to return to their country though the port of North Sydney?


William Roche: There was some difficulty because of the Order in Council passed to prevent men of military age leaving Canada. An appeal was made in the case of Newfoundlanders, and I gave instructions to allow them to go to their own homes.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Was the seed supplied in Northern Alberta largely barley, or was it wheat, oats and barley, and what prices were paid?


William Roche: Wheat, oats, barley and flax. We supplied 21,712 bushels of wheat, at an average cost of $1.76 per bushel; of oats, 42,486 bushels, at an average cost of 67 cents; of barley, 1,696 bushels, at an average cost of $1.03 per bushel; and of flax, 533 bushels, at an average cost of $2.93 per bushel. As a matter of fact, most of the farmers purchased the seed from their neighbours.


James McCrie Douglas: I understood that in certain sections the homestead inspectors looked after the distribution of the seed grain, which largely consisted of oats in that locality, in the district west of Edmonton. Very little wheat went into that country. I understood that the average price paid for oats was over 75 cents per bushel.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is probably correct in regard to the oats that were purchased. A very trifling quantity of wheat was distributed in that district. I do not know the price paid in that locality, but I was quoting the price paid on all these distributions.
Scientific Institutions-Department of thei Interior-Astronomical Surveys-To pay W. Simpson for special services performed at the. Dominion Astronomical Observatory from May 1 to October 31, 1916, inclusive, $500.


William Roche: This is an item to pay to Mr. W. Simpson, who was the assistant to the late Dr. King. An item was voted every year of $1,000 for payment for these particular duties. After Dr. King's death the duties were performed by Mr. W. Simpson. It is not an additional sum, but the balance of Dr. King's vote.


Frank Oliver: Who is discharging the duties performed by the late Dr. King?


William Roche: Dr. King had a triple position. He was chief astronomer, chief commissioner of the Geodetic Survey and chief commissioner of the International Boundary Survey. There are very few men qualified technically to occupy the triple position which he occupied. He was a man of superior accomplishments and attainments, and it is most difficult to fill his position. However, in our treaty with the United States there was a provision that, in the event of the death of this officer, the position should be filled forthwith, and Dr. King's position on the International Boundary Survey was filled by Mr. J. J. McArthur, who was second in command, or, really, in command, of the field of the Geodetic Survey. He was appointed to the Boundary Survey, and he is also acting head of the Geodetic Survey. No appointment has been made to the position of chief astronomer as yet.


Frank Oliver: Might we express the hope that, under all the circumstances, in the future the expenditures in the Astronomical Survey Department will show a less rate of increase than they have through the past year?
311i
Dominion Lands and Parks-Salaries of the Outside Service-further amount required, $20,000.


William Roche: This is to increase the
salaries of the Dominion Lands Branch, in the outside service, similar to thait in the Immigration Service, and with a similar increase to the inside service; that is $100 increase per year to all those receiving a salary of $1,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that increase continued from year to year?


William Roche: No, not from year to year, it was an increase for this year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose some of them get more than others?


William Roche: Yes, some receive $65 a
month, some $50 and some $55.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the increase would be proportionate to the salary they are receiving.


William Roche: Yes. Of course increases do not apply to all of them.	.
Dominion Lands and Parks-Salaries of the commissioners to be appointed under the Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1917 to assist returned soldiers in settling- upon the land, $16,000.


William Roche: This is to cover the salaries of the three commissioners to be appointed under the Soldiers' Settlement Bill which passed Parliament a few weeks ago, -in which it was provided that three commissioners should be appointed for the administration of that Act, the chairman of which was to draw $6,000 per annum, and the other two commissioners $5,000 each.


James McCrie Douglas: Have these two commissioners been appointed yet?


William Roche: No, the Bill has not yet
received the Royal Assent.


James McCrie Douglas: Has the minister any
idea who they might be?


William Roche: Not the slightest, but I
can assure my hon. friend they will be excellent men, because it is of great importance they should be.


James McCrie Douglas: Under no circumstances would 'they be partisans?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The Union Government would appoint them?


William Roche: I will not say too much about it, because perhaps I may not have much to do about the appointment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Six thousand dollars seems a large salary for a position of that

kind. You require a person who knows the work well, and who would know the best place to settle these men and give them practical assistance, but it does not follow that the kind of man who usually gets $6,000 salary is the man for that sort of job. A judge of the Supreme Court gets $6,000, but he would be a very poor agent to settle soldiers in the Northwest. He would not have the qualifications for that kind of work. There may be a man who will earn the money, but it seems to me it is-not the class of work that calls for such a high salary as $6,000 a year, which I suppose would carry travelling expenses, and other disbursements with it. I would like the minister to think over it, and see if, in view of present conditions, he could not get a man to do that work just as well as it could be done, with a smaller salary than $6,000 a year.


William Roche: When the Soldiers' Settlement Bill was under discussion in the House, it was impressed upon me by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House how very essential it would be in order to make a success of this scheme, to have first-class men appointed. It was stated particularly by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) that the success of this scheme largely will depend upon the personnel of the commission. It will be difficult to get a first-class man, without paying a good salary, because it is not a life job, like a judgeship, and it will take whoever we may appoint away from his ordinary avocation in life for the time he has to devote to it. My own idea is that the soldiers should have the nomination of one of these commissioners. They have asked for that privilege, and I think it is a reasonable request. The soldiers should be made jointly responsible for the administration of the Act.
I am satisfied that amongst returned soldiers could be found men who would fill a place on this commission to the satis' faction of the soldiers and of the country as a whole. It is essential that one of the men should be a trained and experienced agriculturist, and that the other should be a financial man who has had considerable experience in the lending business. As the position will not last a lifetime, it is desirable that the salaries of both commissioners shall be commensurate with the duties to bd performed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If you engage an educationalist or a man high in some profession to take up work of this kind-to deal

with lands and new settlements in the West -it may be a new field of activity for him; he may have a good deal to learn. On the other hand, I would think that in the minister's department there would be men whose experience and training in connection with lands, settlement in the West and immigration would make their services exceedingly useful. I would suggest that he look over the list of men in his department whose experience and training qualify them for these positions.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister give the serial number of this particular commission in .the list of those which have been appointed since the Government took office?


William Roche: This one is not yet appointed.
Advance to soldiers settling upon the land, and cost of administering the Soldiers' Settlement Act. 1917, including clerical assistance, $2,500,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister received any application for advances under the Soldiers' Settlement Act?


William Roche: Yes, a number of applications have been received. We are awaiting the assent of His Excellency to the Bill and the appointment of the commission to administer the Act. We have put this amount in the Estimates with the idea that it will cover advances to those who locate on the land during the first year. We hope that we shall have to ask for more next session, because the larger the number of soldiers locating on the land the better for the country, as well as for the soldiers themselves.


Frank Oliver: Has the Government taken up the suggestion that I made on a previous occasion

that of expropriating unoccupied and unused lands contiguous to railways?


William Roche: 'Some consideration was given to that matter; some soldiers' deputations presented that aspect of the case to the Government by way of resolution of returned soldiers' associations. After discussing the matter with representatives of returned soldiers who waited upon myself and other members of the Government, we put this before them: in view of the fact that we do not know how many soldiers may desire to locate upon land, it would not be desirable for the Government at this time to expropriate a large acreage of land and incur the expenditure that would be involved in such a transaction. Under present conditions, if the soldier does not desire to go on free homestead land in the

western provinces, he has the opportunity of purchasing lands in any part of the country, and we will' assist him financially to purchase or equip the land. We suggested that that would be much better than our buying the land, because if we bought the land some soldiers might be satisfied and others dissatisfied. Some might not care to locate in a particular province or in a particular part of a province. We suggested that, at any Tate during the first ye'ar, any soldiers who had a little capital of their own and who desired to purchase land near transportation facilities and in a vicinity where population was comparatively dense might avail themselves of the privilege of selecting their own land and of receiving assistance from the Government by way of loan.


Frank Oliver: The limit of assistance to be that fixed by the Act?


William Roche: That fixed by the Act.


Frank Oliver: In the case of the purchase of land, as I said on a previous occasion, the Government would be safe enough in making additional advances within the value of land that would give sufficient security. There would be no danger of loss to the Government if they .made some additional advances towards the purchase of the land so long as they kept within the margin of value.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: It would be interesting to know the terms upon which the minister proposes to make these advances. What will be the rate of interest and how much will be advanced to any one person? '


William Roche: That	is provided in the
Bill. The interest is 5 per cent and the maximum amount to be advanced to one applicant is $2,500.


Mr. ROSS:: Was the rate of interest
specified in the Bill?


William Roche: Yes.
Administration of the Northwest Game Act the Migratory Birds Act, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: I am not familiar with the terms of the Migratory Birds Act, but I am inclined to believe that if this expenditure is intended to he applied to the enforcement of the Northwest Game Act, it is hardly a necessary expenditure, owing to present conditions.
To pay expenses connected with the moving of residences at Prank, Alberta, $5,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that matter still under consideration?


William Roche: To pay expenses connected with the moving of residences at Frank, Alta. (Revote), $5,000.
The sum of $30,000 was voted in the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year 1912-13 for this service, but as only a very small amount had been spent in that year, part of that sum was revoted in the fiscal years 1913-14, 1914-15 and 1915-16. No expenditures in this connection were incurred during 1916-17, but the secretary-treasurer of the town of Frank, Mr. T. Wilson, informed the department that the sum of $5,000 will probably be needed during the fiscal year 191718, and the same is accordingly asked as a revote. The sum of $20,150.96 has been paid up to this date, so that there is still a balance of $9,849.04 to be expended out of the amount originally voted.
in the spring of 1903 a landslide from Turtle mountain took place entailing the lose of seventy lives of people in .the town of Frank, Alberta, together with the destruction of a large amount of property. According to recent observations, the danger of another landslide was found to be still more threatening, and it was decided to move the buildings from their present location to a safer site. A statement of the amounts of the contracts for moving the buildings has been prepared by Mr. Sterling who is looking after the interests of the provincial government, and the total cost will be $69,220, to be borne as follows:
By the Dominion Government .... $30,000 By the Provincial Government ....	20,000
By the owners	 19,220
This is the revote of the balance of the amount to be expended by the Dominion Government.


Frank Oliver: Is it intended to make a clearance of all the houses in danger, or is it just a matter left to the judgment of the owners of the houses?


William Roche: The idea was to have all
the houses cleared away from the old site to a safe site.


Frank Oliver: Is this a compulsory clearance, or is it a clearance in the discretion of the occupants?


William Roche: I do not think there was any compulsion further than persuasion, but I think generally-the owners have agreed to the movement. I do not know of any that have remained on the old site to run the risk of another land elide at some future date. We have had no necessity for using compulsion.	j


Frank Oliver: If houses are left in the
vicinity of a mine, it is quite likely that people will occupy them, and, of course, the lives of these people will be in danger.


William Roche: We have done our utmost to have the houses moved, and we are not financially liable if houses are destroyed.


John Howard Sinclair: Why are we moving the houses at all? Can the minister be induced to do some house moving in any other part of Canada than Alberta? What is the explanation of our paying for the moving of houses?


William Roche: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not take cognizance of the statement of the case that I made. This was an arrangement made between the Provincial Government of Alberta and -the Dominion Government that they assume joint responsibility along with the owners for moving the houses away from a site which it was considered was dangerous for residence. Frank is a mining town, and it is absolutely necessary to have these houses moved away, because if they were allowed to remain there further loss of life might occur. The owners were not in a financial position to move their houses, and therefore, at the request o: the Provincial Government, the Dominion Government and the Provincial Government assumed joint responsibility, the Dominion Government, the Provincial Government and the owners bearing a lair proportion of the cost of removal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In that part of the country from which I come, if a man starts a farm in a green forest, he has to make a clearing by cutting down the trees and he has to build a house. If he wants seed, he has to buy it. If he has not sufficient money, he has to go to the mines in order to earn enough money to buy seed. I find, however, that, in the West, not only does the Government build houses for the men, but if anything happens to a house, they will move it to another site, and if Providence happens to bring on a landslide, they will fix the landslide. If a man run-s short of seed, they will buy it for him and, I suppose, put it into his barn. I am afraid our people in the East will find this out, and there will then be no need for any agent, the people will flock to this land of Canaan presided over by the Minister of the Interior. Has the minister any particular right to take our money and apply it to the removing -of houses and the buying of seed without first asking our leave? That is a very nice thing to do, but the people

in my district will be looking for the same privilege.


William Roche: Parliament has already sanctioned this.
Indians-New Brunswick-to provide amount to repair road through the Edmunston Reserve, $600.


William Roche: There was a mile of the municipal road passing through the Indian reserve, and it is being built jointly by the municipality and' the department. The municipality builds the road; the department assumes a portion of the cost.
Civil Government-Department of the Interior

to promote the director of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory to first division, subdivision A; to promote the assistant astronomer of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory to second division, subdivision A, $5,400.


William Roche: The sum is to promote Dr. J. S. Plaskett, D.Sc., F.R.S.C., from Subdivision B to Subdivision A of the First Division. Dr. Plaskett is in receipt of a salary at the rate of $2,800 per annum. He was appointed by an Order in Council dated April 10, 1917, director of the Astrophysical Observatory at Victoria, B.C., and, upon assuming his new duties, it is only fair that his salary be increased in accordance with the importance of the position to which he has been assigned. As the promotion of Dr. Plaskett is to be made above the minimum of Subdivision A of the First Division, it is necessary that the amount be specially provided in the Estimates.


Frank Oliver: The astronomical activities of our Government have taken a new phase, and, as usual, the new phase has added to the expenditure. I made a plea a little while ago with the view that changed conditions would tend to reduce expenditures in this particular department, but it appe rs that my hope was vain and we are having the usual increase of expenditures in this connection. We are, of course, all interested in the stars, but when it comes to a point that .salaries are continually being boosted until there is no limit but the stars, that is not exactly the proper policy for war times.
Lighthouse and coast service

Amount required as compensation to G. F. S. Townsend for the seoond-hand compressors sold at auction in 1914 by agency of department in Halifax, which were inadvertently broken in yard: before delivery to purchaser, $2,000.


John Douglas Hazen: The facts are these. In September, 1914, the department sold through its agent at Halifax to Mt. Frederick S. Townsend, of Halifax, for the sum of $748, which amount was paid to the

department, eleven second-hand compressors, which were reported by the chief engineer's branch of the department to be of no further use in the service. Mr. Townsend claims he succeeded immediately after the purchase, at considerable expense in travelling, etc., in selling one of the compressors for $500, and had the sale of three others well advanced at a profit of about $900. When Mr. Townsend came to obtain delivery of the compressors, he found that employees of the Department of the Naval Service, who required some scrap in an emergency, had dismantled a number of the compressors and made use of parts, not knowing that they had been disposed'of and were not the property of the department, and Mr. Townsend declined to accept delivery and requested to be reimbursed the amount of the purchase price, also loss of profit on sales, travelling expenses, interest on outlay and incidental expenses incurred. At that time both the Marine and Fisheries Department and the Naval Service were occupying the Naval Yard at Halifax. After the outbreak of war the yard was required for naval purposes entirely, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries was moved across to the other side of the harbour. The Naval Department, requiring some junk for certain purposes, took these compressors, not knowing that they had been sold to Mr. Townsend. After considerable .correspondence^, the department, on the 14th of July, 1916, offered Mr. Townsend, without prejudice, $1,500 in settlement of his claim, which offer he declined to accept, claiming that his loss was upward of $3,000, but on discussing the matter recently with the officers of the Department of the Naval Service and the Department of Marine and Fisheries he agreed to accept $2,500 in full settlement.
The purchasing agent considers that Mr. Townsend has a good and valid claim, but that in his opinion $2,000 would fully compensate him for all his loss, and he recommends the payment of this amount to Mr. Townsend. I have a report from the deputy minister concurring in that, and having looked into the matter myself, I think it is a fair and equitable settlement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who is Mr. Townsend?


John Douglas Hazen: He is a junk dealer in Halifax. I do not know him personally, but I have met him once, and once only, and that was when I was in Halifax in December last with Mr. Bennett. Mr. Townsend called on me then about the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: How mudh did he pay
for the compressors?


John Douglas Hazen: : He paid $748. We offered to settle for $1,500, but he refused that and asked for $2,500. After looking carefully into the matter, the purchasing agent thinks that $2,000 would toe a fair settlement. This meets with the approval of the deputy minister, and also has my concurrence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did he buy these machines as junk?
Mr. HAZElN: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He made a pretty good profit on them.


John Douglas Hazen: He made about $1,300. When the compressors were sold, tenders were asked for, and Mr. Townsend's was the highest.


John Howard Sinclair: It seems to me somebody has been very careless. In the first place, the goods were sold very much too cheap. If it turns out they are worth $2,000 they should not have been sold for $748. Having been sold, they should not have been taken by the Naval Department, but should have been set aside for the purchaser. Who was responsible for this blunder?


John Douglas Hazen: : I admit there was carelessness about the matter. The goods were sold by Mr. Harvey, who is our agent at Halifax and has been for a good many years past. I am not saying he was to blame. He represented to us that $748 was the best figure that could be got, and it was on his recommendation and report that the goods were sold. The trouble occurred through the two departments using the yard at that time. The compressors were lying in the yards until Townsend should take them, and the naval people, who wanted them for the purposes I have mentioned, thought they were junk and used them. I do not think they should have taken them without the consent of the agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a legitimate claim, and that being the case, there is nothing to do but settle on the best terms possible.
Compassionate allowance to Mrs. Josephine Hilyard, widow of the late Charles Hilyard, formerly keeper of Head Harbour light and fog alarm, N.B., who was drowned on the 3rd

February last when proceeding from the fog alarm to the dwelling connected with the light, while in the performance of his duties, $500.


John Douglas Hazen: The facts are these: On the 3rd of February last the late keeper left his house at 1 a.m. to go to the fog alarm station, and after having performed Ms duties left the station at 5 a.m., and was drowned on his way back home. There was a gully between his dwelling house and the lighthouse, which at high tide was full of water. Mr. Hilyard used to cross on a ledge of rock, and this time he fell in and was drowned. He was employed in the department for about ten years, and during that time proved a very efficient employee, doing some repairs, etc., to the station which under ordinary circumstances would have required the sending of men from St. John agency to carry on the work, and thus saved hundreds of dollars to the department. The late keeper left a widow and one child seven years old. The widow is in poor health and poor financial circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think she should have been given more.


John Douglas Hazen: I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend. As we are giving a compassionate allowance I think it ought not to be less than $1,000. I am not quite sure as to the procedure, but if I may, I beg to move that this amount be increased to , $1,000.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Another Estimate
should he brought down.


John Douglas Hazen: I can bring down another Estimate.
To pay expenses of suit, etc., in the case of McGillivray vs. Kimber, Sydney Pilotage authority, $2,821.05.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from North Cape Breton ('Mr. McKenzie) is familiar with this item. I have discussed the matter with him. The facts are these: In April, 1912, the pilotage authority of Sydney dismissed one of its pilots, John A. McGillivray, for misconduct. In March, 1914, McGillivray brought action against the P'lotage authority for wrongful dismissal on the ground that the authority had not proceeded properly. On April 22 following, the action was tried at Sydney before Mr. Justice Drysdale who gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $1,800 damages. An appeal was taken from that judgment, as the action of the pilotage authority in dismissing the pilot was upheld by the Department of Justice, which accordingly appealed the case to the Supreme Court of
[Mr. Hazen.l
Nova Scotia. The Supreme .Court of Nova Scotia unanimously reversed IMr. Justice Drysdale's judgment, and dismissed the action. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and this appeal was allowed and the original judgment of Mr, Justice Drysdale was confirmed. The agent of the Department of Justice who had charge of the case, Mr. T. S. Rogers, K.C., of Halifax, urged an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and permission for such an appeal was actually obtained on condition that the appellants pay all costs, including those of the respondent as between solicitor and client, whether the appeal was successful or not. As the amount of the judgment was only about $1,800, and the costs would have come to nearly four times that amount, it was hardly considered good business to go on with the appeal, so the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not proceeded with owing to the very large expense it would entail and to the advice of the Deputy Minister of Justice that, while his own view of the case was unchanged, the success of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not free from doubt. The total amount of judgment and costs is $2,821.05, which I am asking Parliament to vote.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amount to
'be voted includes the amount of the verdict?


John Douglas Hazen: It includes the amount of the verdict and the costs.


John Howard Sinclair: Are we responsible for that?


John Douglas Hazen: We considered, after con-"ultation with the Department of Justice, it was only fair and right that we should pay the amount.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose the pilotage authority has no funds?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Has it any control over the pilot?


John Douglas Hazen: It is like most of the pilot commissions, it can only pass by-laws and so on, and with the approval of the Governor in Council it puts those by-laws into effect. It conducts examinations of pilots, etc.


John Howard Sinclair: Has it any funds?


John Douglas Hazen: I am not aware that it
has.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quite familiar
with this pilotage commission,
10 p.m. and they have no property or assets. The pilots are paid by dues which they get from the ships and which are divided up between them at the end of every month.
Ocean and River Service-Amount required to pay claims of Merryfield & Co., $242.23, and G. J. Frizzell, of Prince Rupert, B.C., $585.03, for provisions supplied to defaulting steward Alex. B. Gordon of the C.G.S. "Estevan," $S27.26.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the meaning of that?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will perhaps remember that at several other sessions we have had small amounts like this. Contracts were entered into with the stewards on board the Government steamers to supply meals to the officers and to the men at so much per meal. The " Estevan " is a buoy steamer belonging to the department, in the service on the Pacific coast. The contract was entered into with the steward, who unfortunately did not pay his bills to the merchants with whom he dealt. The merchants always held that as he wore a government uniform, and was on a government boat, the Government was responsible for his bills. Some years ago the system prevailed by which the department paid for everything; the steward contracted the bills, and the department paid them. It was found that that was a very expensive method, and it was changed to the system of entering into a contract with the steward at so much per meal. This effected a very large saving. When the change was made we put up notices in the different ports where these steamers were likely to be, to the effect that the Government was not responsible for bills contracted by those stewards, but in some cases these notices escaped the attention of the merchants. In some instances we took bonds for the faithful performance by the stewards of their duty. We could not get any guarantee company to accept the responsibility, so we had to take personal bondsmen. Those bondsmen are reported on by the agents of the department in the different places, and as far as possible we endeavour to get bondsmen who are satisfactory. We have proceeded against some of these bondsmen and they paid up. Unfortunately, in this case, the bondsmen met with business reverses and were not able to pay the amount.


John Howard Sinclair: Why should not the
captain do the business?


John Douglas Hazen: The contract is made with the steward, who purchases the supplies. The captain has to look after the management and navigation of the ship.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that, but, usually in the ship business the captain has control of the whole thing.


John Douglas Hazen: That has not been the
practice in the Marine Department for many years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The old system has been abandoned.


John Douglas Hazen: It was abandoned because it was found to be a most extravagant practice1, which led to a great deal of waste. The officials of the department were all against it, and the result of the change has been very satisfactory, and has effected a very considerable economy.


John Howard Sinclair: What became of the defaulting steward?


John Douglas Hazen: He cleared off, to the United States, I think .


John Howard Sinclair: Was he not prosecuted?


John Douglas Hazen: We placed the matter in the hands, of the Department of Justice, asking that the necessary action be taken to recover the amount of these claims from the steward's sureties under the bond. These sureties were Annie Janet Gordon and Mary E. Lnxton, respectively wife and sister-in-law of Gordon. Action was brought and judgment registered against the real estate in Victoria belonging to the defendants, but it was discovered that there were mortgages outstanding against the real estate. Perhaps under normal conditions there might have been a surplus after satisfying the mortgages, but there was a depression in the value of real estate all over the country, as my hon. friend knows, and the amount of the mortgage was practically the value of the real estate.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say how the steward gets, the money? Does the captain furnish the steward with money to purchase the supplies?


John Douglas Hazen: The steward, is the contractor. His contract is fifty cents a meal for men and .seventydive cents for the officers. He is paid by the department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is any precaution taken to guard against any recurrence of these troubles?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. One precaution is to publish at the ports (where the vessel is likely to call an anouncement that the department will not he responsible for any debts contracted by the steward. We also try to secure a bond in the case of such steward. We tried to have a company do this but could not find one willing to undertake this class of business, so we have had to take individual bonds.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will see
how easy .it would be for a steward to defraud merchants in a town. For instance, in my own town if a man in uniform from one of these ships entered a store he could have anything he wanted, as. the storekeeper would think that the. Government would be responsible. .


John Douglas Hazen: We take all the precautions we can.
Arts and Agriculture, purchase of seed grain -Governor General's warrant, $500,000.


Mr. BURRELL:: The first warrant was issued on October 7, 1916, before the opening of the session, for $400,009. The second for $800,000 was issued on December 14. It was then found that we were having large demands, not only from the West, hut also from Eastern Canada, and that we would likely require more money for oats, so on March 23, during the recess, this Governor General's warrant for $500,000 was issued. We have now advanced $1,400,000 to the commissioner at Regina, the head of the Se^d Purchasing Commission.:, and the total purchases amount to nearly that amount. We have turned into the Receiver General $1,401,299 up to August 21, and really have a surplus on hand. We shall make a considerable profit out of the transaction, although if the market had gone the other way we would have lost, as we sold at the purchasable, price plus the cost of bagging, cleaning and handling. We have a surplus of 50,000 bushels of oats and some wheat which we are selling at commercial rates.


John Howard Sinclair: Why were the Governor General's warrants issued at a time when Parliament was really in session? Parliament met in January, and in the following March $500,000 was drawn by Governor General's warrant. The minister must have known while Parliament was sitting that this money would be required.


Martin Burrell: No, it was only after the most thorough investigation by Mr. Oliark, the seed commissioner, that we found that the demand would be so strong that we would need the additional warrant.


John Howard Sinclair: Why did not the money drawn in September by Governor General's warrant appear in the main Estimates?


Martin Burrell: As a matter of fact, I find that it appeared in the Supplementary Estimates of the previous year, 1916-17.


Frank Oliver: The full explanaion given by the minister will be a sufficient warrant for the questions and the insistence of the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). It was an important transaction, and it was very desirable that the House should be informed.


Martin Burrell: I thoroughly appreciate that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have all moneys advanced for 'the purchase of grain been returned?


Martin Burrell: Yes, and a little in addition. We shall make a profit on the transaction.
Civil Government-Department of Agriculture-To provide for increase in salary of the assistant deputy minister and secretary, and assistant deputy minister of patents to ?4,000, $250 ; to provide for the promotion of M. J. Morison from Third Division, subdivision A to Second Division, subdivision B, $1,250 ; to provide for three clerkships in First Division, subdivision A, $8,400-$9,900.


Frank Oliver: Is it usual to make provision for the increase of civil servants in the 'Supplementary Estimates?


Martin Burrell: Mr. Morison's case was not taken into consideration as it should have been in the main Estimates. We thought Sir Thomas White's Bill might have included this officer. He has been in the employment of the Government since 1890, and was placed in subdivision A of the Third Division at $1,100 as a third-class clerk.
He had an exceedingly good record, and, as he obtained his clerkship by Order in Council in 1890, through being specially named in the estimates submitted to Parliament the previous session, he does not come under the provisions of Sir Thomas White's Bill for promotion. It seems to be one of those cases where a man has had an absolutely good record, but is not qualified under the Act, and we simply ask by this increase to put him where he would have been. I think the officer of the department says he is a specially deserving official, and has been in the department * a long time. Without this procedure he could not get this increase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a precedent for the suggestion I made a few minutes ago, that we should increase the compassionate allowance of that woman in New Brunswick. I find on page 6 of the Estimates that a man lost his life under similar circumstances in the service of the Government, and his widow is getting $1,500. I suppose a man in New Brunswick is just as good as a man in Prince Edward Island.
Canadian Government Railways - rolling stock, purchase of steamers McKee and Drummond-to provide for building of two wooden ships, $26,620,000.


Mr. COCHRANE:: This item is for 100 engines and 600 cars.


Frank Oliver: The House is very, very thin to consider such a large item. For my own part, I am just as well prepared to consider these large items now as any time, and accept the minister's explanation, but would it not be possible for the minister to select less important items than this one, and put them through, and not take up these large items, which some might desire to discuss.


Francis Cochrane: I think there is not a member in the House who does not want more equipment on the railroad. When the main items were being considered I think these items were all explained. We were asked if we had placed orders for these, and we said we had.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree that it is a proper proposal to increase the rolling stock, but very few members who take a deep interest in the matter are present. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is not here.


Francis Cochrane: Let it stand.
Welland Ship Canal-construction

revote,


Francis Cochrane: This is a revote of what was left over last year on the Welland ship canal. There are some accounts to straighten up yet, and I do not think we have used it all. The amount was in the Estimates last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the work been stopped?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. The amount is $1,000,000, but we do not propose to use that.
Railway Subsidy-To the Edmonton, Dunve-gan and British Columbia Railway, for a subsidy for a branch line from a point on its line
as located, situated near the Spirit River settlement, to and through the Grand Prairie Land District, Alberta, for a distance not exceeding sixty miles; on the same terms and conditions as subsidies were granted in aid of the construction of certain railways as embodied in the Act 3-4, Geo. V., Cap. 46, 1913-* * revote, $253,797.16.


Francis Cochrane: This is a subsidy voted for that road that was built to Grande Prairie last year and the contractor had not completed the road in time to get the full subsidy. I do not know whether he has completed it yet or not. We have not had an examination of it lately, but this is really a revote of last year's amount.


John Howard Sinclair: How much of this has been built?


Francis Cochrane: It was all built, but not all ballasted, before the Estimates expired last year.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the length of it?


Francis Cochrane: About 60 miles.


John Howard Sinclair: Does it belong to the
Government?	*


Francis Cochrane: No, it belongs to J. A. McArthur.


John Howard Sinclair: This is a subsidy?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, voted last year, and this is only a revote of what had not then 'been earned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is the only railway subsidy this year?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The road is built on provincial government guarantee, but owing to the urgency of the case, in the year 1915 it was decided, I believe, by this Government to give a subsidy to aid in the construction of this branch, in order to rush the branch into the Grande Prairie settlement.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, there was a large number of settlers in there, they had a considerable quantity of grain, and they could not get it out without this Toad.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some people have left the county of Rouville to settle at Grande Prairie, and I have been told that they consider it one of the most fertile regions of the Northwest.
Mr. 'SINCLAIR:	Will this build the
road?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. He had not finished the road, and had not earned the

money, but we expect he will finish it this summer.


Frank Oliver: The road has been in operation since the spring of 1916 to Grand Prairie City. The rails have been laid for the full length, but, as the minister said, the road is not finally completed, and has not been ballasted, and I suppose, on that account, the contractor is not entitled to the subsidy.
Rideau Canal-towards	construction of
bridge on the Rideau Canal at Pretoria Avenue, Ottawa-revote, $8,000.


Francis Cochrane: This is for a bridge in Ottawa. This money was voted !ast year, and they did not complete the bridge and could not get the subsidy. The justification for the subsidy is this: there was an old bridge there; we had to employ men to open it to allow steamers to go through. They are building a new high level bridge now, and by voting the subsidy we get rid of the annual expenditure.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the city pay any
part of it?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, they pay the
larger part of it. We gave $40,000; I think the 'bridge is to cost something like $160,000.
Compassionate allowance to the widow of the late Andrew Ryan, who was killed while in the performance of his duties as switchman on the Transcontinental Railway, December 22, 1916, $2,000.


Francis Cochrane: Ryan was acting as a switchman on December 22 last. It appears that he fell off the car and a train backed over him. He leaves a wife and two children-a boy four years old and a girl nine months old-in very poor circumstances.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.
Saturday, August 25, 1917.