1917-07-24

FORBIDDEN CIRCULATION IN CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I might say to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. 
Oliver) that I expect we shall be able shortly to make a statement in connection 'with the exclusion from Canada of the book called "The Fiddlers," which he brought to our attention. One of the chief objections to the book is that it contains certain statements which are entirely unwarranted with regard to the conduct of the men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I think it proper that whenever any action is taken in the matter some statement should be made expressing the view of the Government as to the absolute unreliability of the book, so far as these statements are concerned. To-morroW, or, at the outside, Thursday, we shall be able to make a full statement to the House.
In connection with the same matter, my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) asked me about the deputy chief censor, and, speaking on the spur of the moment, I am afraid I rather confused the press censor and the deputy chief censor. I should like to make the matter perfectly clear. The action in this case was taken on the report of the chief press censor for Canada, that is Lieutenant-Colonel E. J. Chambers, who is an officer under the Secretary of State. He is not connected with the British press censorship in any way, but is an independent officer acting in this country and discharging in this country the same functions as the chief press censor discharges in the United Kingdom. I confused him for the moment with the deputy chief censor, Lieutenant-Colonel C. F. Hamilton, who is administering in Canada the cable and wireless censorship. He is an officer of the Department of Militia and Defence, and works in co-operation with the chief censor in London, who is the head of the cable and wireless censorship for the whole Empire. I should also add that there is an additional officer wiho has duties in connection with censorship in this country, that is Dr. Coulter, the Deputy Postmaster General, who is the chief mail censor for Canada. There has been more or less confusion in the nomenclature regarding these various officers, both in this country and in the United Kingdom. I think it is desirable to make this statement to the House, and I hope it is perfectly intelligible.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT-1917.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 75, respecting Military Service.
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, as I happened to be absent during most of the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, I desire now to say a few words, as I think it is due to my constituents to explain why I am supporting the Bill, especially as, in doing that, I am voting contrary to my leader and to the majority of the members who sit around him. Let me say here that while I am taking this course I claim that I am staying absolutely by the policy of the Liberal party that was enunciated at the time the war broke out; which was that Canada should put every man, every resource, and every dollar at the back of the Empire to win this war. That was the policy of this House until notice was given of this Bill. But as recruiting has largely fallen off, it seems to me that the provision in this Bill is the only sensible way, the only proper way, in which we can secure the necessary men to carry on the war, as I understood it was the policy of both sides of the House to carry it on.
I voted against submitting the matter to a referendum for two reasons. One was that if it carried it did not lead us anywhere, so far as I could see. The second reason was that a referendum on the straight question	of	conscription orno conscription	was	beaten beforeit started. We	have one provincethat is practically solid against it, rich and poor, learned and simple, Liberal and Conservative alike. We have also a very large foreign vote throughout the country, and' I do not think that any one could expect that the Germans and Austrians would vote to be conscripted to fight against their own countries. Then, joined to these two large votes, you would	have practically
every slacker from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who would take that position, and in my judgment conscription would be beaten on a referendum. In my judgment also, and I say it in all kindness, the great majority of the members who in this House voted for conscription voted for it on the understanding that it could not possibly carry on a vote in the country. Well, while I would endorse the statement that if the majority would vote for it it ought to be the law of the land, I think a time may come when the majority should not say what the law of the land will be. That may not sound logical, but remember that we are at war, and the first consideration is to win the war, and if, by any vote that may be taken on a referendum, conscription would be turned down, what possible chance have
we to win the war? Does any man think that after this coming election is over, with all the hard things that will be said, all the bitter things that will be said by our friends from Ontario, from the West, and from Quebec, from all over the Dominion, that there will be much recruiting in Quebec by the voluntary system, or in Ontario, or in the West? This election will end voluntary recruiting. My friends here, many of them, say that we will be able to get the men. Well, if that is the case, why not go a little bit further and unite everybody and say that if we do not get the men by the voluntary system to enable Canada to maintain the position which she has taken all along, then we will apply the law and get them in that way. That seems to me to be a reasonable position. But many do not view it in that light. They have as good a right to their opinion as I have to mine, but my opinion is that we are out to win this war.
Now, how are we going to win the war if out four divisions at the front keep dropping off?-and can any one imagine from reading the papers to-day that we are near the end of the war? Look at what is going on. I read in the papers yesterday that, since the first of January of this year, three million, five hundred and seven thousand and some odd tons of shipping had been sunk by German submarines- over three and a half millions of tons. And to-day Germany is holding back her enemies on every front, and what will be the result if we do not maintain our position in the lines? Mr. Speaker, I received a letter only the day before yesterday from an officer in high command at the front. I know him fairly well. He is a thoroughly reliable man, and a friend of the members on this side of the House. In that letter he says:
I hope the coalition is a success and conscription becomes law. We are getting short of men, and if any serious fighting takes place in the near future our supply of reserves here will be about depleted. If the 5th Division is sent to France as an independent fighting unit before we get more reinforcements, it will leave us in a very bad state for reinforcements. I hope they leave the 5th Division until conscription gets in good working shape.
That is the opinion of a man who went to the front with the first contingent. He is to-day in England, looking after the preparation of the men who are to go to- the front. If I felt that there was any possible chance of a no conscription Government being able to get the men, and being able to send them to the front and that Canada under that system would be enabled to main-

tain the position that she has held right in the front line since the beginning of the war, it would be the greatest pleasure to me. It is not a pleasure for me, nor for any man who has been as strong a party man as I have been, not to be able to agree with those who are sitting around me. It is forty-eight years this summer since I took my first active part for the Liberal party, and to-day, Mr. Speaker, I claim that I am as good a Liberal as I ever was, and hope to remain eo; but I am going to support whichever party will do their utmost to win the war and see that Canada does her part in winning this war. There are times when the majority should not rule. Let me point out to hon. members in this House that in the year 1897 my friends on this side of the House took a referendum on the question of the liquor traffic, and the majority of the people voted for the supression of the liquor traffic, but my friends on this side did riot carry that out, and I absolutely think they were right, but if it was right at that time, why should it be wrong to-day for the red blooded men of this country to say that the men who do not fight should not dictate to the rest of the men of Canada? The thing is to win this war; we can settle our party differences afterwards. In my judgment there should have been conscription at the first, but I am not going to blame hon. members opposite, because if we had been in power we should not have adopted it. Why? Because no one diearnt that the war would last as long as it has, and there were more men offering than could be handled at that time. But now, when the volunteer enlistment has stopped, how else are we going to get the men? I think the hon member from Hum-bolt (Mr. Neely) stated on the second reading that every government had an inherent right to take men for the defence of the country. Why should the men not be taken for the defence of the country? It is no use saying, "We will defend the country when we are attacked on Canadian shores." The place to defend Canadian shores to-day is on the fields of France and Flanders. What good could a Canadian army do fighting on Canadian soil, if the British and French armies were overcome and Germany could land an army in Canada? It would be too late; and I think many of my hon fiiends will regret in the future the line of action that is taken today. Glorious pages of history are being written by Canadian sons at the front. But when half the men of France of military age are killed in defending France 
and defending Canada as well; when thousands and tens of thousands of women and girls in France and Flanders are being practically driven into slavery-into white slavery at that-and subjected to such indignities that their friends only wish they were in their graves, I solemnly believe that the people who stand by quietly and do not want Canada to send more men to the front to keep our army intact will reproach themselves in the years to come for the action that is being taken to-day.
I believe that until the end of the war it would be much better if we had a national Government. I do not think the present occupants of the treasury benches are in a good position to administer the conscription law; I do not think a party government composed of those now on this side of the House would be in the best position to do so. I think it would be a mighty good thing for Canada if the two parties could bury their differences for the time and unite in forming a national Government until the war is over. Then no one would take off his coat with greater pleasure to fight the battles of Liberalism than I would. I have not much sympathy with hon. members across the floor of the House, never had, and never expect to have. It would be no great pleasure for me to work with them. But I say that in view of the conditions of to-day, when the fate of the Empire and of the country is trembling in the balance, this is no time for us to be fighting out our party issues. We should drop them in the meantime, form a national 'Government, continue the w.ar and win it, and settle our differences as best we may afterwards.
I do not think the conscription Bill of my hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) goes far enough. I want to see conscription of men, but, in addition to that, I want to see, along with it, the conscription of resources and the conscription of wealth, and I use the term "conscription of wealth " in the same sense as my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) used it the other day, and in the sense in which the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has used it. I do not think the Government should go to the bank and lay hands on $10,000, which some man had placed there. I hold that if the man with an income of $50,000 to $100,000 who is not -as many such men are not-paying as much taxes as the average man here, were tapped for ten or twenty per cent of his cash income until the war was over it would not be a bad idea. Take the man

who has a cash income of $100,000 a yeai; could he not live very well upon $75,000 or $80,000?
If my hon. friends opposite attempt to enforce a measure for the conscription of men without conscripting wealth by the imposition of an income tax that will fall equitably upon .all, their conscription measure will not be a success. They should not attempt to conscript wealth only; one is just as necessary as the otheT.
I am supporting the third reading of this Bill on the understanding that, .as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) told us the otheT day, during this session legislation will be introduced to provide for the levying of an income fax under which each person will pay in accordance with his ability.
I thought it due to my constituents to make it clear that I am for the winning o.f this war and that I propose to support any party that will win this war. It has never been the practice of the Anglo-Saxon race or of the French race to lie down in the middle of the fight; .and I, for one, do not propose to do so. During the last three years I have done what I could to induce men to go to the front and fight, and I am not going to go back on the men who have gone. I will try to be loyal to the men who have gone to the front some of whom have laid down their lives; I am anxious that the sacrifices that have been made shall not have been in vain. It i.s the duty of every man in Canada to see that Canada maintains her position in the struggle for the freedom of our own country, the freedom of Great Britain, the freedom of the British Empire, of the Allies and of the world.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have anything new to- say to the Hou.se with regard to this Bill. There seems, however, to be some .misunderstanding as to my position in certain matters. I desire to detain the House for ,a few minutes to refer to the report of the meeting of the Liberal members of the House of .Commons and the Liberal Candidates in Ontario for the House of Commons, which was held in Toronto on Friday last. The report states that certain conclusions were arrived at, as set out in the issue of the Globe of 21st July. The report further goes on to- say that the Ontario federal Liberal members .and the candidates in the field, after earnest consideration, came to certain conclusions unanimously. Let me say to the country that I do not agree with those conclusions. I stand exactly where I .stood
when I spoke on the 'second reading of this
Bill. I am a conscriptionist Liberal, with all that that implies, believing that the .adoption of conscription i.s the only way for Canada properly to prosecute her part in this war. I stand to-day where I have stood for months past. Notwithstanding the fact that I expressed regret in this House the other evening that it was seemingly impossible to have a national Government, I believe that the affairs of this country to-day demand a national Government, if it can be formed on a proper basis for the proper administration of those affairs. I am speaking for no other person or persons who attended that meeting; I speak for myself alone, and I propose to follow my line of conduct as vigorously in the future as I have in the past. 1 expressed these very sentiments at that meeting.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, may J be permitted to add a word to what has just been said by the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). I do this because I have received over a score of letters from the constituency which I represent, protesting not against the article in question, but against the statement that certain conclusions were unanimously supported at that meeting. I take this opportunity of answering these various letters from my place in the House. I merely say that the report in question is not in accordance with my views. With regard to the Military Service Bill, I expressed my views fully in this House in the month of June last, and I have seen no reason in the interval which has since elapsed to change those views. Indeed, my views are more confirmed now than they were then. I sincerely hope that when this Bill comes to a vote upon the third reading, a majority even greater in its favour than on the second reading may be rolled up, in order that the country may see where the largest element in the House of Commons stands in regard to this measure.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speeches to which the House has just listened, especially the speech of the member for Assiniboia (Mr Turriff), with whom I have been associated for so many years, I crave no indulgence, though I may rise to fruitless effort, for placing once more before the House the dangers which in my judgment must follow if the Bill now before us is enacted and put into operation.
On the second reading of this Bill, as the House recollects, I moved that the principle
.'5722

of it should be referred to the people. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who spoke immediately afterward on behalf of the Government, characterized this amendment as a miserable, dilatory motion. That it was a dilatory motion I do not dispute; I asked that the House should pause before imposing such a measure upon the people. Whether or not it was a miserable expedient, time alone can tell-nay, time has already told. It required but a few weeks to get the answer. That answer is already written, not upon the walls of this hall, in flaming and mysterious letters, to be explained only by a seer, but in very plain language in the records of this House, in the division upon the second reading, and even in the spectacle which is offered every day in the division of opinion that exists among both parties upon this question. The reason which I urged against this Bill was that, presented as it was, after the numerous statements which had been made by the Prime Minister and the Government that compulsion would not he resorted to; that to the very last we would win the war on the voluntary principle, if this Bill were forced upon the people by a moribund Parliament, division, irritation, friction, and disunion would follow.
Already we have the verification of my statement, even 'before this Bill has left this House. The statement which I made was combatted by many hon. members on both sides of the House, and by none more vigorously than by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), who spoke after the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Solicitor General took the ground that no such disunion would follow from the intentions, of the Government, which were to be found within the four corners of the Bill, and which were to get more soldiers to fill the ranks of our army. As to the intentions of the Government, I do not purpose entering into any discussion here and now. If there be those who have affirmed-and there are some-that the intention of the Government was more to win the elections rather than to win the war, on such a statement I do not offer any reflection at all, and I do not purpose entering into any discussion at the present time in regard to it. If there be those who contend that this measure was forced upon, the Government by the jingoes and the ultra-imperialists, who, not only in this country, but in all British countries, have tried to force upon those countries the continental mili-
[Sir Wilfrid T.aurier. 1
tary system of Europe, I have no intention ' of entering into any discussion in regard to that. To those who, like the Solicitor General, affirm that the intentions of the Government are to be found within the fdur corners of the Bill, I have only this observation to offer: That I accept the statement as it was made, but the attitude and the conduct of the Government showed a singular lack of foresight and forethought. I charge against the Government, in introducing this measure as they did, without any more preparation than they made, and upon their declaration, maintained, since the first day of the war that there would be no compulsion, and that they would continue the voluntary system; that to precipitate this Bill as it has been precipitated upon the people certainly showed that no calculation had been made as to what would be its effect, and although its intentions were not sinister, the results were sinister, and in this House and in this country, more violent speeches have been made than were ever before heard. The Solicitor General spoke very confidently as to the result of this Bill-more confidently, perhaps, than he felt. He stated that he had no doubt that the Bill, when it was studied by the people, would produce no bad effects. Perhaps I had better read his language. He said:
I am as confident as I have ever been of anything in my life that if the members of this House, reading- and studying this Bill, and hearing this debate, will go to their constituents and tell them the meaning, purpose and spirit of this Bill there will be no possibility whatever of discord or resistance.
This was very easily said. Whence comee this assurance of my hon. friend? Would he speak to-day with the same assurance?
I have no doubt that he did what he said should be done, namely, that he studied the Bilk; that he explained it to his followers; that he showed them there was nothing in it to which they could take exception. How do I know that he did that? He would have been recreant to his office, to his duty and to his self respect, if he had not attempted to explain this Bill to his followers and to show that there was nothing in it to which exception coul 1 be taken. But he failed, as anybody must fail who had to give the same explanation. I followed the speech of the Solicitor General with more than usual attention. It was, as customary with him, a closely-knit argument. Still. I thought the tone of his speech was not free from anxiety and doubt. There was a passage in particular which struck me very forcibly. I do not know

what effect it had on the other members of the House who listened to it. He said:
We are told this action will result in disunion. I see no reason why it should produce disunion. It should not produce it. It is framed to avoid, disunion. Let no man deceive himself. We do not avoid disunion by dropping back to where we were, any more than we avoid disunion by going ahead with this measure. I see no more peril in the one course than in the other.
This is a singular confession of impotence. Mark the words. There is peril behind and in front whether this measure is proceeded with or not. That confirms what I said a moment ago, namely, that the Government was singularly deficient in foresight and forethought when it introduced such a measure without calculating the effects as they were calculated by the Solicitor General. *
But the Bill is before us at the present time, and we have to deal with it. The apple of discord has been thrown into this assembly and already the assembly is divided on it. It is nothing new in Parliamentary history for a Government when it introduces a new measure, to find itself deserted by its followers or its friends. That has happened in this country; it has happened in all countries where there are parliaments. It is, however, something which is very unusual when a measure is introduced which creates division, not only in the one party, but in the two parties at the same time. Why should I be blind to what has happened? I have already heard three of my friends take exception to the course which I have taken as the leader of the party. I find myself on the present occasion estranged from friends who were just as near and dear to me as any of my own brothers. I need not tell the House- every one will believe me-that such an estrangement, even if it be only temporary and upon this question alone, is a wrench at one's very heart strings; but every one of my hon. friends knows that I have not tried to impose my views upon any of my followers. I respect their consciences; I would not attempt to bring any one of them around to my way of thinking. I have my conscience and they have theirs; tout this situation shows that we are face to face with a cleavage which, unless it is checked, may rend and tear this Canada of ours down to the very roots. Such is the situation and no one can be blind to it. If there are in this House men who affect to be impervious to the situation, to be careless about it, I am not one of them. If I may give a personal allusion, this is a matter which has caused me a
great deal of anxiety within the past two weeks. But what is the use of lamenting over a situation? We must face the situation like men. 'What is the attitude of the Government with regard to the situation? How are they purposing to settle it? We have had the answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), when he rose after me to answer my speech on that occasion. The answer is simply these words of my right hon. friend:
What we propose is to do, in the light of the experience and knowledge that we have, our plain duty, and let the people pass their verdict as they choose later, or by history. At least, we will stand as not having been afraid.
That is the only position which is to' be taken by the Government. They will carry this measure by coercion, let the consequences be what they may. This attitude of coercion and this disregard of the consequences which may follow, coming from friends of mine on the other side, grounded in Toryism, do not surprise me, but I am more surprised when friends of mine, Liberals brought up in the old days of the Liberal school in which I myself have been torought up, take no more concern upon this question than is taken on the other side. May I call attention to the attitude Of my good friend the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who, speaking upon this very subject said:
He (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has referred to another question, which I will discuss very, very briefly; that is that this Parliament is in the nature of a moribund parliament, or, as he described it, a rump parliament, his contention being that, on that ground, this House should not deal with it.
I do not take that view of the matter. My view is that this Parliament is in every respect legally constituted.
There is no doubt at all that this Parliament is legally constituted, and so long as it is not dissolved, either by the effluxion of time or by the decree of the Governor General, it can pass this law and many other laws equally nefarious and equally dangerous to the Canadian people. But that is not the point I wish to bring before the House.
It is not a question of legality or illegality, but a question of policy. Is it wise, is it prudent, is it good statesmanship to force on the Canadian people at the present time such a measure as is now before the House? Upon this point I have simply to say to my hon. friend, who was brought up in the same school as I was, that again and again, not only in England but in every

other country under British institutions, and particularly in Canada, Parliament has been dissolved for the purpose of consulting the people on a measure which it had the power to pass. The last instance I recall is the reciprocity question, on which we went to the country six years ago. We could have passed that law, for we had a majority behind us, but we preferred to submit it to the people, and for my part I am prouder to be standing here defeated by the will of the people than I should be if I had denied to the people the right to have their way upon this question.
All through my long parliamentary career my object has been to try and convince. But where I could not convince I would not coerce. The attitude of the Government upon this question is simply that we must have more soldiers at the front. A letter has been read from General Currie, commanding our forces in France, asking for more soldiers. There is nothing new in that. I do not know of the general who, now or at any other time in history, did not ask ifor more soldiers. I say to my hon. friend from Assiniboia, I say from the bottom of my heart, that I stand on the same platform to-day that I have stood on from the very first day of this war; my conviction is still the same. I wish that we could send more soldiers to General Currie. I wish that our population and our resources would allow of our sending not only half -a million but a million men. But the question is how many men can we take from the life of the nation at the present time without imperilling the public services which are essential to this country, and essential to carrying on our share of the war. This is a subject which, in my humble opinion, has not been sufficiently considered by the Government. They went into this war without any previous calculation whatever, without taking any census of our resources in men and in other respects. They asked for
100.000	men, 200,000 men, 300,000 men,
400.000	men, and, at last, for 500,000 men. When they reached the 500,000 figure they were told by several people that they could not get the men. One of the most important captains of industry in this country, Lord Shaughnessy, expressed his opinion in no uncertain terms, that the men could not be got without injury to the public services. But the Government paid no. heed to that. They paid no heed to the other consideration, that it is not only men the Allies require at the present time, but food. They paid no heed to the question whether the

men could not be better employed in producing food in Canada than in fighting at the front.
It is manifest that the campaign of 1917 will not materialize as we had hoped. We had expected that the offensive of this year would be effective. We had supposed that an offensive would take place on all fronts, especially on the western front, where we expected the Allies would pierce the German line, and roll it back to the Rhine. I have no doubt these plans were laid, and if they could have been carried out the effect would have been as I have stated. Unfortunately, events in Russia materially interfered with, the plans, and enabled Germany to transfer thousands of men from the Russian front to the western front, with the result that the Allied offensive was checked. But there is some comfort to be found in the situation. There is one good omen, it seems to me. The strategy of the German staff in this war has been to strike wherever they thought there was a weak spot in the Allied line. They would throw an overwhelming force upon that point, with the object of breaking down resistance, and pushing into the Allied territory as far as possible, and then they would entrench. Such has been their strategy since the beginning of the war. At the very opening of the war Germany attacked Belgium, in the face of the treaty which she had herself signed, because she knew that by attacking France through Belgium she could break through the French frontier at its weakest point. The same thing happened in Roumania. Instead of protecting their own frontier, the Roumanians invaded Transylvania and the Germans at once penetrated Roumania, and have remained in possession of it ever since. As I said, there is some comfort to be found in the war situation. When the Russian revolution took place everybody expected that the Germans would begin their much-talked-of offensive to Petrograd. The fact that it has not taken place is simply an evidence that the Germans did not have the men. Their resources in men are beginning to fail. It is an evidence that the policy of attrition, which was inaugurated by the Allies in 1914, after the battle of the Marne, is commencing to tell. And if the German forces are being depleted it is due almost altogether to the British navy, which day in and day out, at all times and at all seasons, has brought pressure to bear upon the German Empire by its blockade in the North sea. The Germans have countered by sub-

marine warfare, and have brought about a very serious position, perhaps the most serious of the war, but there is this comfort in it: it seems to me that already the effort of Germany in this respect has failed. They expected to achieve their object by submarine warfare within four- or five months, but we all know that that object has not been achieved. But there is, however, a heavy toll to pay, and the duty has been imposed upon the Canadian people to produce more than we have ever done, because we have not only to send food to feed the people of England, but also to make up for the food that week by week is being sent to the bottom of the sea. But all these considerations seem to have been of no consequence to the Government. The Government seem to have paid no attention to them. Their energy has been employed in the last few weeks upon this new policy of compulsion. The genesis of this new policy still remains obscure.
It never wias sufficiently explained, it never was explained at all, how, from one day to the other, the Government changed their attitude from voluntary to compulsory service. But, upon this point, at all events, if we do- not know what the genesis was, unfortunately, we know what have been the results and the results have been to impress many classes in the community with a sense of deception; that is with a realization that -they have been deceived by the Government.
I contrast the action of the Government with the action of President Wilson. When President Wilson had made up his mind that war with Germany was inevitable, what did he do? He did not launch his policy upon the people but he consulted almost every class of the community. He consulted his opponents of the Republican party, he consulted the great Democratic party, he consulted the churches, he had their assistance, he consulted the American citizens of German, origin, and the consequence was that the day that he put his policy before the people every American citizen was behind him. Has that been the policy of the present Government? How did they manage this matter? They have consulted no one outside of their own- Cabinet. One of the first bodies that they should have consulted was the labour party. They did not consult the Labour party-far from it. The labour party came *to the (Government and we have it on the statement of one of the most prominent members of that organization that it has been deceived by the Government. On the
15th June Mr. J. G. Watters, President of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, made this statement:
Up till the time the Prime Minister left for London we had repeated assurances that conscription was . not contemplated by the Government. On the 27th of December last while discussing with him the registration scheme of the National Service Board, he stated, in connection with the adoption of conscription in the hearing of Vice-Presidents Simpson and Rigg, Secretary Draper and myself that he would consider it his duty to consult organized labour before undertaking to act on a matter of such grave importance.
The first intimation I had was in the daily press and no official of our Congress was consulted.	-
We were not consulted, but the Congress executive sought an interview with the Prime Minister after his pronouncement on May 18 last to learn his reasons for his changed attitude. There was not the shadow of a reason revealed at the interview to warrant a change from voluntary to compulsory service. On the contrary, the statements made by the Prime Minister, taken in conjunction with the information I gleaned while in Washington the week previous, all went to demonstrate that the need of the hour was not men at the front so much as food for the people in our Motherland, Prance and Italy, the means of transportation of the same by overcoming the submarine menace, and the manufacturing of all war supplies and building of ships.
Here is a direct statement that the labour people were deceived as a Tesult of the announcement of their policy by the 'Government.
But, that is not all. When the Government introduced) the system of national .service, for which they issued their cards, it was thought that- these cards might be considered as being perhaps the first move towards conscription. In this connection they sought the assistance of the church. I do not know whether they consulted other high dignitaries of the church (but I do know that they consulted a high dignitary of the church in Montreal. I do not know what passed between him and the ministers who interviewed him, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin), but the impression was conveyed to this high dignitary that there would he *no. conscription. The Minister of Justice stated the other day that he had 4 p.m. -made no' promise. Of course, I accept his statement. He made no promise but, whether he made any promise or not to the high dignitaTy when seeking to obtain his assistance, the impression that he left on the mind of this high dignitary was that there would be no conscription. I grant that my hon. friend may have made no promise hut that was


Robert Laird Borden: I must take exception to my right hon. friend's quotation. I do not think that I put it in the way he suggests.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon. friend stated, if he stated anything, that conscription was not contemplated.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, exactly.


Wilfrid Laurier: I asked him at the time what was the meaning of this
500,000	promise, I wanted to have a plain answer, and my hon. friend answered that conscription was not contemplated. We had his statement in our ears, when we granted this extension, that conscription was not contemplated., and yet within twelve months it was executed.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I must take exception again. My right hon. friend's chronology is very defective.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what respect?


Robert Laird Borden: The statement
was made in January, 1916, if I remember correctly. My right hon. friend states that conscription was announced within twelve months.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, that
would he only four months longer. The fact remains that the Prime Minister asked this Parliament to grant an extension which was a twelve months' extension, and during these twelve months he brought in a Bill which he said would not he introduced. The statement made to-day in justification of this measure is that recruiting has failed. Recruiting has not failed, but recruiting has decreased, I admit. If recruiting has decreased the fault and blame lie at the door of the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches. I make that statement and I make it advisedly. We have had in this House, during this present session, recriminations and recriminations and differences between the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) as to what has taken place in regard to recruiting. The ex-Minister of Militia complained that he had been interfered with in his recruiting. He stated in one speech, and he repeated it here, that if recruiting had decreased, it was because his work had been interfered with toy the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. There is no doubt about that. That is a statement that everybody .has heard. Explanations or excuses have been from time to time offered. It may he true that the minister was never actually stopped in his recruiting, but he was told how not to recruit. He was told: Do not go to this part of the country, do not go to that part of the country, do not go amongst manufacturers, do not do this, do not do that, and the result was that, being interfered with the work stopped, and, of course, recruiting failed.
You will remember, Sir, the famous chapter in one of Charles Dickens works as to the effect of the circumlocution office. It is an exact description of what is taking place with this Government. Charles Dickens somewhere says, speaking of what he called the circumlocution office:
The circumlocution office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of this circumlocution office. Its finger was in the largest public pie and in the smallest public tart. Whatever was required to he done, the circumlocution office was beforehand with ail the public departments, in the art of perceiving how not to do it.
That is the case with my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes); he was told how not to do it; he was balked

at every step, and here we have the consequence. When the Government places as the basis of this Bill the fact that there has been no recruiting for some time past, they do not impugn anybody but themselves, and they show up their own delinquencies. But, Sir, after all here is the Bill, as I said a moment ago, and we have it before us. The strongest indictment which was made against this Bill, in my humble judgment, was made by the hon. member for South * Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in a speech which he delivered a few weeks ago. He said that this Bill, if it became law, could not be carried out unless it were'by the joint effort of a union government. What does this mean? If it means anything it means that the sentiment against this Bill is so strong, is so rooted in all parts of the community, that the Bill is such a departure from the traditions of the past, that it requires the efforts of the two political parties to put it into operation. If that be true, and if this measure was unavoidable, it should have come in, not as the measure of a party government, but as the measure of a coalition government.
I may be told that I was asked, and my friend from South Wellington may have had it in his mind that I was asked, to he a party to a coalition government. Sir, I was asked to form part of a coalition government when the policy had been framed, when the Bill had been prepared as a party measure, by a party government; and when it had been framed, deliberated on in council, determined upon, and launched before the public. When the Government could not retrace their steps, my poor assistance, such as it might have been, was sought. If, Sir, the Government had been in earnest, they would have consulted me before they determined on their measure. But they did not consult me, they did not ask my opinion upon conscription; they did not ask me what would be my opinion upon .its possibilities, its results, and its dangers; they did not ask me to discuss with them the situation, against which [they wepe determined to close their eyes; but when they had concocted a measure, then they were kind enough to ask me to carry on what they had devised in their wisdom. As in the play of children, they ask,ed me:	close your
eyes and open, your mouth and swallow. I refused.
Sir, some of my Mends have reminded me, some of my Liberal friends have reminded me, that George Brown once entered 'into a coalition Government. He did, and under such circumstances nobody would
blame him. In those days, party government in Canada had come to a deadlock. The powerful agitation of George Brown, asking for representation by population, had depleted the majority of the Conservative party until there was a deadlock between the two parties. Then mutual friends asked that George Brown should enter into a coalition. He asked the basis of it, and when	representation	by population	wasgranted, which had been refused up to that time by John A. Macdonald, when the principle of union of the provinces had also	been granted, which also	hadbeen refused by	Macdonald,.	hethen	entered into	a	coalition.	But,
Sir, I was not approached in the same way. I have my views upon conscription. They have not changed. It is not a pleasure for me to find myself at variance with so many of the friends I have around me; hut I thought and still believe that a measure of conscription, under the circumstances, was an apple of discord, and I could not accept it. That is all I have to say upon that point.
But I may be asked: what is your policy; it is not sufficient for the Opposition to say " nay " to any proposition, what is your policy? Sir, I laid my policy before Parliament upon the second reading of the Bill. I asked that a referendum should he had and the judgment of the people taken upon this question. I have not the merit of this policy; it did not originate with me; it was not my own device. Sir, it was asked by the whole organized body of labour in the Dominion of Canada. We are familiar with the strong resolutions which have been placed upon the table of this House, passed by the central labour organizations. Every member of this House, I would venture to say, at all events, the large majority of the members of this House, I am sure, have received from labour organizations within their ridings, petitions, resolutions and communications to that effect. I have received them by the bushel. They are there, before the House, and, Sir, under such circumstances I say I have no merit in having proposed that policy. That policy would have given us peace, harmony, and concord, which to-day are in much danger. Objections were made to it, and what were the objections? The objections were that this policy of a referendum should not be granted because, forsooth, the soldiers could not vote. Well, Sir, we passed a law two years ago to give the franchise to the soldiers, and by the same measure we established machinery to

give facilities to the soldiers to express their views. Are we to be told that this law is a mere scrap of paper, that it is a mere dead letter, that it cannot be put into execution? Why, Sir, are we to be told that those who two years ago were so insistent upon passing this law intended it only as clap trap? If, Sir, when this measure was proposed, we on this side of the House had opposed it, and if we had defeated it, the welkin would have rung and would be still ringing with denunciation against those who had deprived the soldiers of the sacred right to vote. We did not oppose it; the law is there, and when we are told that the law cannot be put into force upon a referendum or an election, when we have given the right of voting to the soldiers, hon. members are simiply playing with the common sense of the country when they advance such an argument.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL:: Is the right hon. member aware that the Act to which he is referring provides only that soldiers shall have votes in elections and not on a referendum?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I am
aware of that. I am aware also that the Parliament which gave them power to vote in elections could give them power to vote on a referendum. The difficulty is not serious.	.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Parliament
has not done so; the Act is confined to elections.


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is to be a referendum, the law would have to be passed by this Parliament, and this Parliament could as easily give a vote to the soldiers on a referendum as on an election, and I would be the first to vote for it, and, I suppose, so would my hon. friend. The objection that a soldier could not vote on a referendum has no weight. It would imply that this Parliament refused him the right to vote, and nobody would suppose that. Moreover, a3 I said a moment ago, in Australia there have been both an election and a referendum upon this very question of conscription, and the soldiers voted upon both issues. That I do not know personally, but I am told it, and I have reason to believe it is true. More than that; in British Columbia there has been an election and there has been a referendum on the question of prohibition, and the soldiers voted on the referendum and in the election also. Are we to be told that what can

be done in British Columbia, Australia and New Zealand cannot be done in Canada? To state such a proposition is simply to refute it. Furthermore, to-day I heard my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) tell us that he was against referendum because he was sure it would not carry. In other words, he said that a referendum would be defeated. Well, Sir, I ask, is that a reason why a referendum should not be taken? Again I ask: Where are we living now? Is it Canada, or is it Prussia?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: We want no more hypocrisy. If that is the position, no more can it be said that we are fighting to maintain t'he government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Sir, we have a vast country composed of different nationalities, brought here by the force of circumstances. We have opened our doors to all the working people of Europe to come here and help us build up this country, to develop it and bring it up to the standard we hope it will attain some day, and are we to be told that in this year 1917 we are going to deny a vote to the men whom we have made British subjects under the law? That is not British, policy. It is the policy of Paul Kruger, the very policy which started the war in South Africa. When Kruger, after inviting British subjects to come and live in that country, denied them the privileges he promised them, and after giving them the privileges of citizenship, took away their right by an Act of Parliament, the war ensued. For my part, I do not believe in such doctrine as that. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said a few minutes ago that, if there was to be a referendum, the whole of the French province would vote against it; the foreign voter would be against it, and the slacker would be against it. I do not want, in this country, to hear of any such division. I stand upon the broad line of Canadian citizenship.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh. oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know very well that the same feeling does not appeal to all Canadians. I know that the majority of French Canadians have a certain way of looking at these things. I know that English Canadians look at them in another w'ay, but when you tell me that all French Canadians are on one side, and all English Canadians are on the other side, I do not

believe one statement or the other. It has been said that all the French Canadians are on one side and all the English Canadians are on the other side, and if that be so the English Canadians are more numerous, and they would carry the vote. It is not by such appeals as this that we can hope to settle this vexed question. It is simply by appealing to the better instincts of the people, and for my part I hope that the day will never come-and I am sure it will never come-that I shall appeal either to the prejudices of one man or to the prejudices of another.
Referring to the position which I have taken upon the floor of this House on this question, if I cannot defend it in Ontario as well as in Quebec, I want to lose my name as a French Canadian citizen, as an English Canadian citizen, and as a Canadian. I am prepared to defend my policy. I may be''right or I may be wrong, but at all events I am sincere in my belief, and when a man speaks the voice of his conscience, there is no part of Canada where he should fear to state his views. T have been told that there is no constructive feature in the policy of a referendum. On the contrary, I say it is the most constructive policy which has yet been presented in this debate. I do not know how the vote will go. I have taken my pledge, and I repeat it again to-day with more fervour than before, that if the vote had gone for; conscription the verdict would be accepted in every part of Canada, even in the province of Quebec, where it has been said it would not be accepted. When the people had .spoken by way of ia referendum, I believe that those who voted against it would, had it been carried, come forward to do their duty and uphold the law. If it were defeated, a duty would be imposed on all, and there would be a new basis, and a new appeal to the whole people of Canada to lend their best endeavours in the defence of a noble cause. But my hon. friend said that the minority must govern sometimes. I do not admit that proposition at all. If you admitted the policy that the minority could govern, you could say goodbye to representative institutions. My hon. friend was very badly advised when he referred to the referendum on prohibition in 1898. Let the hon. gentleman look at Hansard. I have not looked at it for twenty years, but he will find that the Government stated that they would not be satisfied with a bare majority, even if prohibition were endorsed, unless there was behind it such a body of public opinion as would insure its success.
But when we found that prohibition had been carried by a vote of only 10,000 out of more than half a million, we thought we were not justified in putting it in force. I have been asked as to what my policy is.
I may say that it is the same as it has been from the first. I am in this war to the finish.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am in this war under the voluntary system to the last. I am in 'this war as Australia is in it today. Australia voted against conscription but still she is in the war. I am sorry that on an occasion of this kind I cannot see eye to eye with my hon friends on the other side. I do not want to speak severely of anybody. I do not want to introduce any bitterness that it is possible to avoid. I respect the convictions of all men, and I hope my own convictions will be respected.
In the position that I occupy on this side of the House, I am part and parcel of the machinery of the Government, and up to the 18th May no man occupying a position similar to that which I occupied, in any country, whether in England, France, New Zealand, or South Africa, gave to the Government a more consistent support than I gave them. But when the conscription measure was proposed I had to oppose it, and why? Because, presented as it had been presented, before the country, it had been made an instrument of coercion.
It is a denial of those principles of democracy which we hold dear and sacred. I oppose this Bill because it has in it toe seeds of discord and disunion; because it is an obstacle and a bar to that union of heart and soul without which it is impossible to hope that this Confederation will attain the aims and ends that were had in view when Confederation was effected. Sir, all my life I have fought coercion; all my life I have promoted union; and the inspiration which led me to that course shall he my guide at all times, so long as there is a breath Left in my body.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, nothing was farther from my mind when I entered the House this afternoon than to speak upon the third reading of this Bill. I am constrained to do -so, however, because of the most remarkable performance of the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I am afraid that his many thousands of erstwhile friends in Canada who have been so profundlly disappointed at the course of his



can, but for the life of us, we cannot tell what we think about conscription ourselves? We should immediately be asked: what is your policy? Where do you stand on conscription? And, unless we could answer definitely, we should be rightly sent back to our places and told to do our duty. The only initial step any government can take in any matter of public 'policy is to announce its position and appeal to the'people to follow. Then we get the reading of the people's will, and the Government does not evade but discharges its obligations.
We are told by the leader of the Opposition: You have brought in your policy of conscription and then you have asked for coalition. He says: I do not like the priority; I do not like the order of precedence; you should have asked me for coalition first and then brought conscription in next. I have heard other hon. gentlemen say that we should have consulted the leader of the Opposition about coalition first and announced conscription next. But the leader of the Opposition himself says that no matter when we consulted him about coalition, he never would have come into coalition upon a policy of conscription. Where is the difference between going to the leader of the Opposition and saying: We invite you into coalition on a policy of conscription which we intend to announce, and going to the leader of the Opposition and saying:	We are for conscription;
we invite you to come in and cooperate with us on that policy? Had we on the other hand gone to him and said: we do not know where we stand, but we would like you to come in and help us in this matter of getting soldiers; his immediate reply, and that of his followers would have been: have you not the courage to take your own position, to pronounce your policy?-pronounce your policy first; that is the duty of a Government; then we will say where we stand.
We took the full responsibility. On no other basis than that of compulsory service, could coalition have been of any service to this country. That alone was the basis, and on that ground we took up our position. Then it was the duty of the leader of the Opposition to elect his course. He elected his course, and the tragic election he made is the reason of whatever disunion may exist to-day.
He tells us further-and I am surprised that the leader of the Opposition should use the sentences he does when referring to this subject-I cannot agree with you now that

you introduce conscription, because you promised us you would not. And he went so far as to say that the leader of the Government, in January, 1916, stated that under no circumstances would the Government resort to compulsory service in Canada. The Prime Minister said no suoh thing. The leader of the Gdvernmen.t, on every occasion when the subject has been discussed, whether in Parliament or before labour organizations, or before delegations of any sort, has been scrupulously careful never to say that under circumstances that might be conceived, conscription would not be introduced. In January, 1916, he said that there was no compulsory service Bill in contemplation by this Government. That was the absolute truth in letter and in spirit. Why? Because then-the necessity for compulsory service had never arisen in the smallest form on the horizon of this country; because at that time we were recruiting men at the rate of 1,000 a day; because there was no necessity to supplement the army of this country in Prance by the adoption of a compulsory law; because the State would not be imperilled by the continuance of the voluntary system, for that system was then successful. That is a long way from saying that under different or other circumstances there would not be a resort to compulsory service.
The leader of the Opposition tells us that we did not consult the various classes of people in this country. There is not a class of the people in this country that had not made representations to this Government and consulted with this Government on this subject of compulsory service. Those representations had been made and those consultations had between various sections of our people and the Government of the day since a time less than a year after the war began. And if there is one class of the people of this country who are in the weakest position possible to plead surprise on this subject, it is organized labour itself. The great body of organized labour indeed does not complain at all. Two or three office holders cannot speak for the labouring men of Canada. Several months before the policy of compulsory service was announced in Parliament representatives of organized labour came to this Government, and I believe came in the person among others of the very gentleman referred to by the leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and were told that we did not contemplate compulsory service in Canada. They were not satisfied with that, and asked the leader of the Government whether or not he would give an absolute continuing pledge

that he would not put into effect conscription in this country. What did the leader of the Government do? In the plainest possible language he told that labour organization, and told Mr. Watters, that he would not on any account make any such promise or commit this Government to any such a pledge; that, in a word he would have to be governed by events as they transpired, and that whenever it appeared that the safety of this nation depended upon compulsory service he would not hesitate to resort to compulsory service. In the face of that plain intimation-and it is in writing-that the policy of Canada in the war as to the voluntary system or conscription must be dictated by circumstances, just as the policy of every other nation in war must be dictated by circumstances, Where is the organization that can plead surprise? For under the circumstances' that have developed, it appears by the plainest figures ever presented to the mind of man, that unless conscription is resorted to we cannot sustain the defence of this country. No organization can plead surprise or bad faith; the words "bad faith" have no proper place at all in this connection, and I think the leader of the Opposition should never have used such words. No organization can plead surprise. But the gravest charge that could be brought against any administration would have been brought against this Government if in the face of the falling figures of our defenders in France; if in the face of figures that show seven casualties for one recruit in two months; if in the face of the appeal from the General in the field that there was the greatest possible need, the direst necessity for men; if in the face of figures which established that unless an impetus was given that under voluntarism had not been given to recruiting in Canada for ten months at least, our forces could not be maintained in the field; I say the gravest and most damning charge would have been brought against this Government if in the face of those facts we had been guilty of the crime of refusing to resort to any measures for strengthening the arm of this country and sustaining our defence.
We are told that this measure is coercion. It is coercion in the same sense that every law of the land is coercion, and in no other sense at all. Unless there is coercion, that is to say, power, behind a law, there might as well be no law. This is coercion in the same sense that the leader of the Opposition used coercion upon this country when
237J
he tied it up to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project; it is coercion in that sense and in no other. And by the way, he tells us that because there was a difference of opinion, or alleged difference of opinion, between two members of the Government as to the method of proceeding in recruiting, we are answerable for anything that may now be complained of in the way of voluntary recruiting. Let me answer him. How wide would be his smile if a member on this side of the House were to rise in his place and say that the unfortunate position we find ourselves in to-day with reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental is entirely due to a difference of opinion that existed between the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Railways in 1903 as to the character the Transcontinental should take! But infinitely more reasonable would be such an attitude than his attitude to-day.
This is no measure of coercion, because the only principle embodied in this Bill has been a principle imbedded in our law since Canada was a country; because his own Government placed conscription on the statute books of Canada in a wider, bolder and more drastic form than is embodied in this Bill; because from the day this nation took its birth in 1867 down to this hour the principle of conscription has been part of our military legislation, and has been applicable to this country at any time upon the word of the Government in a more drastic, extreme and more comprehensive form, by far, than is to be found in this Bill. Where is the coercion in a restricted, a modified, a moderate application of a principle that has been our law for fifty years? If we are to have no coercion-and he alone calls it coercion-if we are to have no force behind our law, better pass no law at all.
The right hon. gentleman started out by raising the shadow of civil dissension if this law should pass. He says that because of the serious cleavage of opinion on this subject, therefore we must retrace our steps. He points to this side of the House and says that there is a cleavage of opinion here; he points to his own side of the House and says that there is a cleavage there. He draws to my attention the fact that I and those associated with me have not been able to convince every hon. member on this side of the House that this Bill is a right and a just Bill. That is very true. What I stated, though, in my speech was not what the right hon. gentleman said I stated. What I stated was that

if every hon. member in this Parliament were to go to his constituents and make clear the meaning of this law, its extent and purpose, then whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the expediency of the Bill, the whole of this country, in every section and in every province, would willingly support it when it became law and there would be no disunion. That is what I stated, and I call it to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite. I lay that thought especially before the leader of the Opposition, because to no man should this responsibility come home with the force it should come home to him. If hon. gentlemen will lay this Bill-not a distortion of this Bill-clause by clause before their constituents, give the reason for it, the meaning of it, its purpose and its limits; then, though there might be difference of opinion as to the expediency of the measure, there would not be the slightest resistance to its operation, but all would loyally support the law of the land. I do not believe there is a gentleman on this side of the House coming from any province in this country 

and now I take his own argument-who would for a moment rise in his place in this House, or rise in any other place in this country, and advocate resistance to this measure once it becomes the law of Canada. It is true there is some difference on the part of a very few of our supporters from Quebec as to its expediency; such as that is inevitable on every principle ever presented to Parliament. But because there is difference of opinion as to its expediency, does that mean there is disunion and that we must retrace our steps and retract our measure? I put another question to him who talks of schism and dissension: If we on this side of the House have not succeeded in demonstrating the justice of this measure to every hon. member who sits with us, what is to be said of the leader of the Opposition who has to an infinitely greater degree failed to convince those on his side of the House of the injustice of the measure now presented? His side is divided almost into two.
But why talk of disunion? From the first hour this Government took office until this afternoon, has there ever been a great measure passed by Parliament that was carried by so overwhelming a majority as was the second reading of this Bill? If ever there was evidence of a substantial majority of the thinking people of 'Canada in favour of a measure that evidence exists upon the measure that is now before the House. Why is it the leader of the Opposition is not able to retain behind

him supporters who through five, ten, and fifteen years have been the most valued of his followers and the bitterest of our opponents? It is because opinion in this country of the substantial thinking people of every race is behind this Bill with such force that these hon. gentlemen cannot believe they are doing their duty to their country if they yield themselves any longer to the solicitation of the leader of the Opposition.
Why is it that this afternoon there rises in his place the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) than whom there never has been a more valiant-shall I .say a more extreme, a more relentless party critic within the four walls of this House-why does he rise in his place this afternoon and say .that on this issue, which goes to the very root of the defence of our country, which goes to the very question of our existence as a nation:	" I hold myself no
longer accountable to the leader of the Opposition, hut I speak for the vast majority of .the people of my country and I stand behind our soldiers in France." Does such a stand as that show disunion? No, it is because there is such an overwhelming majority of the thinking people of this country behind this measure that hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House agreeing with their views are bound to respect their wishes. If hon. gentlemen take this attitude it is because so vast a majority is behind the Government of the day that they would be failing in their duty to their country if they, thinking with that vast majority, did not support the Government on this measure. Why is it that the hon. member for South Wellington (lMr. Guthrie) rises this afternoon and proclaims throughout this country that there is no meaning in the proclamation issued on Friday night out of a certain Liberal caucus in the city of Toronto that they were going at one and the same time to get behind Sir Wilfrid Laurier and win this war? It is because the hon. member for South Wellington knows that although he may talk, and hon. gentlemen may talk till Doomsday about winning the war, you have to get down to a definite, concrete plan, before you can win war or anything else, and because you cannot win this war behind the policy of the right hon. gentleman. Has the right hon. gentlemen ever lost a more faithful-may I say-a .more affectionate supporter than the hon. member for West Lambton? (Mr. Pardee). The hon. member for West Lambton left the leader of the Opposition because there is

such an overwhelming preponderance of sound public opinion in support of this measure that he has not it in his heart to vote against the Bill. It is because the overwhelming mass of his own party, concurrently with his own conviction, is behind the Bill; it is not because there is a difference of opinion but because there is a substantial unanimity throughout this country in support of the measure.
I deplore that cleavage should even be predicted, but I do not believe that there will exist in this country disunion to the extent of resisting the law of the land passed by a majority of the representatives of the people. I see no reason still for such a thing existing; I do not believe it will exist; but I repeat now what I have said before, that I would prefer-infinitely prefer-to have disunion between the forward and the backward portions of this country where we can settle it within our own borders than to have disunion between, this nation on the one hand and this nation's defenders on the other. That is a type of disunion, a kind of disintegration, a tearing up by the roots of Confederation to use the words of the leader of the Opposition-that I do not want to see. There is a backward and a forward portion of the population of every country that ever existed in 5 p.m. this world. You cannot point to any nation, even though it be an autocracy, much less can you point to any nation whose institutions are built on the bedrock of democracy, where there does not exist a distinctly forward and aggressive portion of the people in all national aims, and where there does not exist a portion that lags behind, a class which has to be brought forward and who are rather an impediment than an assistance in any national movement. Does the leader of the Opposition believe that the only way in which we can get on harmoniously is to move just as fast as the slowest? Is that his contention? Is that his position? Undoubtedly that is what he is doing; he is moving with the slowest. In Canada, in the midst of a war that demands the utmost speed that any war ever demanded of a nation, if we can only produce union by walking at the 'Speed of and abreast with the backward portion of the Canadian people, then I do not want union in Canada; I am ready rather to face disorder or dissension. Is our arm in this conflict in which our liberties, our very lives are involved to be measured by the strength of the arm of those who do not want to be in the conflict at all?
If there is one man between the shores of this country who is responsible for the shadow of disunion I say it is the leader of the Opposition. It is only two months ago since an offer was made to the right hon. gentleman, which, if it had been accepted, would have cemented together all, or almost all, in this House and throughout Canada who stand behind this war. That offer he declined-an offer, than which a more generous was never laid at the feet of a political opponent by a statesman in power-and he declined on one ground only: that we should insist on walking in this conflict with those who hold back instead of walking with those who would go forward. Let the leader of the Opposition beware, let him not deceive himself; the coalition that he refused in the Commons and in the Government of Canada has infinitely more effect to-day than he has any idea of. There is a coalition among the people of the country that will astonish the leader of the Opposition when the word of the people is heard. This coalition has gone on among the people, although it has failed amongst the members of this House by virtue of the conduct of the leader of the Opposition-attributable to him, and almost to him alone.-The people that he feign would divide are united now, and they will stay united until this war is won. They will decide that the Government which vigorously carries forward the war is the Government which represente them no matter whether it be Liberal or Conservative, or both. It is the fault of the leader of the Opposition, and on his head the charge wi'jl rest so long as time endures that'in this, the vastest, most perilous struggle in which this or any other nation ever engaged, there was not such a union of those who want to win the war as would produce for the sons of Canada the greatest assistance in their struggle to the death in Flanders. That is a responsibility that I would not want to have becloud my memory after my days on earth are done. It is a responsibility that the leader of the Opposition lightly and airily assumes.
There wa.s a time when the influence of no man in this country, whether in the province of Quebec or elsewhere, was so great as that of the right hon. gentleman. I beg of him this afternoon Ito go where his influence still is great and speak of this measure as this measure is. Let him not speak of it as hon. gentlemen of his own race have spoken of it in recent weeks at Sunday meetings in their province, but let him tell the people of his own province that within

the four corners of this measure there is no word of unfairness and no element of injustice to the French Canadian people. Let him say that although he himself has spoken on this measure in this Parliament on three or four diffrent occasions, he had never alleged for an instant that there was a 6hadow or fragment of injustice in this Bill against the race which he represents and from which he springs. Let him repeat these things to the people of the province of Quebec, to the sane, thinking people of that province, and represent to them their duty to march on with the rest of Canada. Let him, their leader, see that they are sanely led, and I feel satisfied that they will be ready to perform their duty. But I repeat once more that of all the prices we must never pay for harmony in Canada, the price we must most Of all decline, is national dishonour. No nation can survive a cost like that.
We either have national aims, a national will and a -sense of national honour, or we have not. Have we national aims, have we any national will, h-ave we a trace of national honour, if we send 100,000 men into the battlefields of France, into the furnace of war, before the cannon of Germany, and leave them there to be decimated and destroyed, (abandoned by the people of this country?
Let the right horn, leader of the Opposition say now whether the time has not coone for him to take his place beside those who sustain the national will and the national honour of Canada. Let him not be found any longer among those who hold back in this country, whether they be of alien enemy origin or not. Let him be found with those who press on. And if he is found there, then there will not be many hon. members from the province of Quebec or many public men of that province who will, with very much influence, appeal to their compatriots to resist this Bill. Then there will not be found the disunion which he predicts this afternoon; nor will there be encountered a disunion infinitely worse than that which he describes-disunion between the nation at home and its defenders overseas.
The House divided on the motion of Sir Robert Borden for the third reading of the Military Service Act, 1917.
The Bill was read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS. Messrs:
Ames (Sir Herbert), Armstrong (Lambton), Armstrong (York, O.), Arthurs,
Ball,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe),
Best,
Blain,
Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Buchanan,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Carrick,
Carvell,
Champagne,
Charlton,
Clark (Bruce),
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Cruise,
Currie,
Doherty,
Donaldson,
Douglas,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Glass,
Graham,
Green:
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Henderson,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Knowles,
Lalor,	.
Lewis,
Macdonell,
Maclean (Halifax), Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCraney,
McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), McMillan,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Morris,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Pardee,
Paul,
Rainville,
Reid,
Roche,
Rogers,
Ross,
Schaffner,
Scott,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tremaine,
Turriff,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Sir Thomas), White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wright.-102.

Messrs:
Achim,
Barrette,
Bellemare,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Chisholm,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
Girard,
Lapointe
- (Montreal, St. James), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
Macdonald,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Marcile (Bagot), Martin,
Michaud,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Patenaude,
Power,
Proulx,

Kyte,	Seguin,
.Lachance,	Tobin,
Lanctot,	Turgeon,
Lapointe	Verville.-44.
(Kamouraska),
PAIRS:
Boyce,
Jameson,
Chabot,
Hazen,
Davidson,
Nickle,
Barnard, ,
Kemp (Sir Edward), Wilson (Wentworth), Robidoux,
McLean
(Queens Sunbury),
Lafortune, Hughes, P.E.I. Beland,
Pugsley,
Carroll,
Kay,
Paquet,
Robb,
Wilson (Laval), Copp,
Mondou.


Mr. COPP:: I am paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robidoux). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion for idle third reading of the Bill.


Mr. CHABOT:: I am paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), who is a prisoner of war in Germany at the present time. Had I voted, I would have vote for the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I am paired with the hon. member from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. PAQUET:: I am paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion for the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. JAMESON:: I am paired with the hon. member (from Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes). Had I voted I would have voted for the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. NICKLE:: I would like to state that when I voted on the third reading of the Military Service Bill, I was not aware that the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), with whom I was paired, was not in the House. I should, therefore, appear as paired with him.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rain-ville in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-Canada Gazette, $21,000.
["That matter is\nunder the consideration of the Department of Justice at the present time.\nProgress reported.\nAt six o'clock, the House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. GRAHAM:: Could the hon. minister inform us if a profit is made on the publi~ cation of the Canada Gazette, and if so, how much?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have not been in the habit of looking on the Gazette as a money-making concern, but I think there is a slight profit. I do not know how much, but I will get the information for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: The public have to pay a pretty good price for advertising in that publication. It being an official notification, so far as notice to the public of anything about to take place is concerned, it might as well be buried in the river, unless it be a case where the party interested has a solicitor watching the Gazette very closely. In such case he can discover when the notice appears. The Government gives its patronage, war advertising and otherwise, to its own friends, but I would rather see it in a Tory paper alone, even if it had a very few subscribers, when the notice is supposed to reach the public, than to have it buried in the Canada Gazette. In a great many Bills passed by the House we provide that notices shall be inserted in the Canada Gazette, and that is supposed to be notice to the public. I submit it is not notice to. the public except, in the sense which I have indicated. During this session, in dealing with the important measures, I think the House has insisted on a paragraph being inserted that, in addition to notice in the Canada Gazette, similar notice shall be inserted in some of the newspapers. The Government ought to make it a practice in all their measures where the public is supposed to receive notice, to provide that such notice be printed and published in newspapers, because the ordinary notice in the Gazette alone is not sufficient, and there should be a supplementary notice in some publication where the people interested in the matter would be able to find it right at their homes, or at any rate, be able to get the information looked for as soon as possible. It is possible, under many of our statutes, that a man might take some action which would deprive an individual of rights that he or she may have possessed, of which action he or she never would have had the slightest notice from the publication in the Canada Gazette. Did the minister ever consider that the practice should be changed and that notice to the public should not be considered sufficient, if simply published in the Canada Gazette?


George Eulas Foster: That question has often been considered, but the fundamental idea is that the Canada Gazette is the official publication and is not a paper for general advertising. It is designated as the one official place in which the notices of statutes and orders in council shall appear, and consequently publication in the Gazette constitutes legal notice. In nine cases out of ten, perhaps ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the legislation of which notice is given in the Gazette, in regard to important charters, rights of incorporation, etc., is in

the interest of certain corporations or Sir GEORGE FOSTER:' Sometimes it is parties, and the notices are watched by the very thick, A .tremendous amount of print-solicitor, so that notice in that way is effec- ing is involved
tive. The only other alternative is to advertise generally in the newspapers, because notice in two or three newspapers would not bp sufficient. If we started to advertise in the newspapers, we would immediately get into a general system of advertising, and it has always been considered that it was best to avoid that, on account of the greater expense, and if the argument as to expense is good at any time, it is certainly good at the present time.


Mr. CARVELL:: I quite appreciate the statement by the minister that the Gazette is official, and I can tell the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew that it is very necessary in many legal matters that we have some official document to be used in court as evidence.
The production, of the Canada Gazette in court is, in many cases, prima facie proof of publication. I know that to talk .about the expenditure of $21,000 to a Government that is'spending money 'by the hundred of millions may be considered as somewhat picayune. But I do not understand how they dispose of that $21,000. I suppose they have an editor who' has nothing to do. I do not see what in the world he would have to do except read proof. The matter is all furnished to him; it is all official. He does not have to write editorials; he does not have to* look after advertising or financing. Many people who rim weekly newspapers .in which the same amount of paper is used as in the Canada Gazette would be glad to publish the Gazette and pay all expenses for $10,000. I do not see how they get rid of $21,000, unless it is because the expenditure is .made in Ottawa. Of course, that accounts for almost anything in the way of expenditure of public money.


George Eulas Foster: If there is anything in the department which is run on *strictly economical grounds., it is the Gazette.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: .1 should be glad if my hon. friend would give me two minutes' explanation of this expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon.
friend regularly read the Gazette?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


George Eulas Foster: He is a lawyer; he gets copies now and then.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I file it away; it becomes useful sometimes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know that there is
some printing in it, but it is not' like the ordinary newspaper, where the type is set up every day. The advertisements and notices in the Canada Gazette stand for three and four weeks at the time. If there is .any real explanation of this expenditure, we should like to have it.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) can tell you all about it.


Mr. MURPHY:: I can tell my hon, friend something about it, but it is rather difficult to understand, in view of the practice at the Printing Bureau in connection with the Gazette, why this amount is required. It is true that the Gazette has grown very large in volume. But the Printing Bureau treats every other department just as a newspaper would treat a customer; it makes them pay for the advertising inserted. All advertising that is done in connection with the incorporation of companies is charged up against the Department of the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that all the orders .in council and things of that kind which have been printed in the Canada Gazette in connection with the war have been charged up against the Militia Department, the Privy Council office, or isome other department. In view of the fact that the Printing Bureau receives pay for the advertisements published in the Canada Gazette, it is difficult to understand why $21,000 is required.


George Eulas Foster: Every cent that goes in as revenue in respect of the Canada Gazette goes into the consolidated revenue fund.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know that very well. What I am complaining about is that it
Gazette are; if they got in $22,000, then there was a profit of $1,000. Even so, I do not see why the profit should not be twice as much. A man at a typesetting machine would print the Canada Gazette in a week- and he would Vhave so little to do that he would not know what to do with himself. He would be worse than the ordinary civil servant in Ottawa. He -would work until about eleven o'clock in the morning; he would leave at three in the afternoon and play golf the rest of the day. That would account for about $35.

Then you have pressmen, that would be $20 or $25 more; then you have paper and ink. The actual cost of setting up the paper would only be about $5,000; but in this case the country is paying $21,000. That is what I am complaining about.
Printing Bureau-Plant, repairs and renewals, $7,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What do they do with the old machineary that they put out? A good deal of it must be thrown away. Would it not be well to notify the newspaper people in the country that they can get very valuable machinery in this way at a low price?


George Eulas Foster: Machinery does wear out; there is no doubt about that. In some cases it is scrapped because of its being entirely worn out. In other cases, I do not know what they do with it; but they dispose of it in some way. I will hand my hon. friend's name to the Printing Bureau and ask them to notify him when they have any old scrap printing machinery to dispose of, and to inform him as to the price.
Distribution of Parliamentary documents, $45,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to find fault, but there has been a great deal of discussion about the distribution of Parliamentary documents. Many suggestions have been made with a view to bettering the conditions. A change has been made within the last year which, I think, is an' improvement. We are notified that a certain report is ready for distribution and that the members can get copies if they apply for them. But even with this saving, we are adding $5,000 to the cost. I should like to have an explanation.


George Eulas Foster: I shall have to ask the Clerk of the House to give me some information on that point. Let the item stand for the present.
Miscellaneous printing, $100,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does that include the printing that is distributed amongst friends in different parts of the country, or is it business done in Ottawa, or what is it made up of?


Mr. NESBITT:: I would suggest that this item stand until we get the details of the expenditure of last year.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $5,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some time ago I raised a question about some elections under the Canada Temperance Act in New Brunswick, on account of the passing of the prohibitory law. There are, I think, seven or eight counties in which the Canada Temperance Act is in force, and many people, myself included, would like to see that Act repealed in order that the prohibitory law may come into force. We felt that it was a mistake to have an election upon the matter, for this reason-my right hon. friend will remember that under the Canada Temperance Act, no matter how the local option vote may go, there can be no further decision or appeal for three years. It is a provision of the New Brunswick prohibitory law that, as soon as peace is declared, a plebiscite of the people shall be taken as to whether the prohibitory law shall continue in force or not. I hope the prohibitory law will be maintained, but if it be not my right hon. friend will see that if we voted out the Canada Temperance Act in those counties in which it is in force, it will be three years before we can get it into force again.


George Eulas Foster: That matter was brought up, and it has been before the Minister of Justice, and I have discussed it with him and some other members of the Cabinet. I think there is a method by which that problem can be solved.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I very much hope so.


George Eulas Foster: We are trying to arrange a method if it is possible to arrange one. My hon. friend will have noticed that one of the counties is moving for an election for the repeal of the Canada Temperance Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Four or five counties are doing so.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, that can be done, but there is trouble and expense occasioned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I 'believe that in practically all of those constituencies an election would result in a repeal of the Act. What I am concerned about is that in case the Act should be repealed, and then by a plebiscite taken, we shall say, a year hence, prohibition should be repealed, we shall be in a position of temperance constituencies subject to license. If this could be brought into force by 'an order in council for a limited time under the War Measures Act, then if the Prohibition Bill should be defeated upon the referendum, we could dissolve this order in council and come back to the Canada Temperance Act, which, in my judgment, is veTy far ahead of license.


George Perry Graham: Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill at this session dealing with the interprovincial traffic in spirituous liquors where the provinces * have passed prohibitory laws within their own borders?


George Eulas Foster: That matter is
under the consideration of the Department of Justice at the present time.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways), Bill No. 13, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-To provide for the expenses of the Acting High Commissioner, London, England, $12,000.
['We have a number of patients there.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\nWednesday, July 25. 1917.']
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: There is an increase of $2,000 in this item, due to the increased cost of living and the increased expenses generally.


George Perry Graham: Would it be out of place to ask if any change has been suggested as to the High Commissioner's office.


William Thomas White: Not to my knowledge.	.


George Perry Graham: The Government have not discussed the advisability or otherwise of having a new High Commissioner?


William Thomas White: The matter of the High Commissionership is not under consideration.
Miscellaneous-Grant in aid of the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association, $5,000.


William Thomas White: In answer to a question put by my right hon. friend when this item was under consideration some time ago, I might say that the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts' Association is composed of prominent gentlemen representative of all the provinces of Canada. This council exists for the purpose of promoting generally the object of the Boy Scout movement in Canada. The honorary

head is His Excellency the Duke of Devonshire; the Dominion commissioner, Lt.-Col. Sir Percy Sherwood, and the honorary secretary, Mr. Gerald H. Brown. Headquarters at Ottawa.
The records of the association as at June 30, 1916, show that there were 1,032 Boy Scout officers and 17,542 Boy Scouts in Canada.
The Dominion Government grant of $5,000 is distributed in toto to the provincial committees, to be expended by them in promoting the general woik of the Boy Scout movement. The grant is divided according to the membership in each province, the division in 1916 being as follows: Alberta, $661.13, British Columbia $289.93; Ontario, $2,016.26, Saskatchewan, $428.02, Manitoba, $564.23, Quebec, $539.47, New Brunswick, $260.58, Nova Scotia, $212.13, Prince Edward Island $28.25; total, $5,000.
Miscellaneous-Canadian Associated Press- Towards expenses of a National News Service, $50,000.	'


Wilfrid Laurier: That requires some explanation.


William Thomas White: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Are all newspapers entitled to the benefits of this service, or only members of the association?


William Thomas White: I am informed
that the Canadian Press is a co-operative news agency cf whidh all publishers of daily newspapers are members and stockholders. The officers of the association are the following:
E. F. Slack, Gazette, Montreal, president; E. H. Macklin, Free Press, Winnipeg, first vice-president; W. J. Blackburn, Free Press, London, Ont., second vice-president; J. S. Lewis, Star, Montreal, secretary-treasurer. Directors, J. F. MacKay, Globe, Toronto; J. E. Atkinson, Star, Toronto; J. H. Woods, Herald, Calgary; E. W. McCready, Telegraph, St. John; J. Ross Robertson, Evening Telegram, Toronto; W. F. Kerr, Leader, Regina; G. Fred Pearson, Chronicle and Echo, Halifax: John Nelson, News-Advertiser, Vancouver, B.C.; W. L. Roblin, Telegram, Winnipeg; W. M. Southam, Citizen, Ottawa; Lorenzo Prince, La Presse, Montreal.
Miscellaneous-Expenses under the Naturalization Acts, $11,000.


George Perry Graham: The Naturalization Acts have changed very materially during the past two years. There is a rumour constantly floating around the corridors, and it has been voiced in the speeches of one or tv o hon. gentlemen in this House, that the Government contemplated bringing in a Bill to disfranchise certain- naturalized citizens of Canada. I think the Government, before asking for this vote to provide for the expenses of carrying out the Naturalization Acts, should take the House into their confidence and tell them what is their intention in this respect. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I believe, would be the man who would know.


Mr. DOHERTY:: As I am appealed to as the man who ought to know, I may say
that I am not aware that the Government has reached any decision to take the course which has been mentioned.


George Perry Graham: Has it been considered?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say what may be occupying everybody's mind, but I confess that I have not myself given consideration to the idea.


George Perry Graham: What expenses are incurred in the carrying out of the Naturalization Acts? Does not the individual himself pay some portion of the expense?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The administration of the Naturalization Act is under the Department of the Secretary of State, but I know that the party has to apply to the judge of a court to obtain a certificate. Provision is made for a certain payment-I think it is $2 or something of that kind-to the clerk of the court who does the work. I think there are some other incidental expenses in connection with the administration of the Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is news to me. 1 have had some experience along this line of business, but in our country the man who applies for naturalization pays his own expenses, and it is news to me if the clerk gets $2, or any amount, from the Government.
Mr. DOHERTY': I think that under the Act there is provision for payment of some remuneration to the clerk of the court. The item might stand while I consult the Act.
Item stands.
Miscellaneous printing, $100,000.


George Eulas Foster: The amount expended last year was $99,965, so that the vote this year is practically the same. It is for printing the departmental reports.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are they printed at the Bureau?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and most of them are now distributed from the Bureau.
Distribution of Parliamentary documents, $5,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why, at a time like this, should this vote be $3,000 more than last year?


George Eulas Foster: I am informed that more matter has been sent out. The whole subject will be discussed when the reports of the two special committees -are before the House. The committees order the printing of the documents.

Miscellaneous, supply of Canadian publications to library of High Commissioner's office, $1,000.


George Perry Graham: Would "The Fiddlers" be among that contribution to the library?


George Eulas Foster: I am not sure, and it did not seem worth while sending a cable to get the information.


George Perry Graham: Cables are sometimes sent on just as silly errands.
Miscellaneous-Public Archives, $60,000.


George Perry Graham: I suppose every effort is made by this branch of the service to keep up to the necessities of the present period in regard to collecting everything that might be of future use, interest and information with regard to the war. I imagine there would be a good deal of work, even now, in connection with this branch of the service along these lines, and that what might be obtained that would be of use in the future can hardly be calculated.


George Eulas Foster: I think that matter is being very thoroughly and sufficiently handled. Some months ago I took the matter up, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), with Dr. Doughty, the Dominion Archivist, and a plan was elaborated which covered the gathering of necessary information with reference to the war, and all its subsidiary activities and services, both in Canada and on the other side. Dr. Doughty, about a month ago, left for the other side. He has two assistants with him, one of whom, I think, was appointed from the forces there, and the other went with him. They are carrying out the plan in connection with the Records Office in London, and with the other offices- which are engaged in services along that line. The idea is to have the whole thing mapped out -as one plan, and all the offices operating upon that plan, under the general supervision of Dr. Doughty. The plan was very elaborate and very thorough, and he assured me that it would really do what had probably never been done before. Whilst the thing was going on, and before the war was ended, and consequently before the records had got out of hand, they were all being tabulated and scheduled and kept in proper place, so that they should be available for the future historian.
To provide for the expenses of the Conservation Commission, $80,(WO.


George Eulas Foster: That is the same as the vote for last year.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Would the minister be good enough to give us a short state-

ment, showing the results of the expenditure, and what advantage we obtain from it?
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER:	As my hon.
friend knows, the Conservation Commission was constituted with an independent management, and its honorary officers are distributed throughout Canada. Sir Clifford Sifton has been chairman of the commission since its inception. The staff which is doing the work i6 in Ottawa. I do not "know the size of the staff. Mr. White is the controlling personage in it, and they are carrying on explanatory and examination work generally in reference to- the resources of the country. One operation which they have been carrying out is the tabulation, in so far as possible, of the timber resources of Canada. They have, up to the present time, I think, thoroughly finished plotting out a number of provinces and are carrying that work through. They placed an annual report upon the Table, which I have no doubt hon. members have carefully and diligently perused, and they issue monograms from time to time on matters concerned with their general work. I have not the direct supervision of it myself, but have just a general idea of the work.


Mr. OLIVER:: I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a certain condition existing in Northern Alberta, and, I believe, in Northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that, it seems to me, might very well call for examination and consideration by this conservation commission. There is, particularly in Northern Alberta, in the part that is not occupied by settlement-but into which settlement is pressing a magnificent growth of white poplar. The poplar grows very large, clean and straight in that country, and millions of acres are occupied by that growth. In that country the white poplar grows on good soil, which is very suitable for farming. Settlers pressing into that country naturally desire to get the land under cultivation at the earliest possible .moment, and in dry years fires accidentally start, and do marvellous work in clearing the land; in other words, destroying this magnificent growth of white poplar. If it were possible to turn that wood to account, say, in the making of paper, it would be a tremendous gain, and a conservation of the resources and wealth of this country of enormous value. The .poplar will be destroyed by process of settlement, unless something is done to turn it to account while it is still in its natural condition and suitable for such development.

I have made some enquiries in regard to the [possibilities of using it for paper, and it has not been convenient or possible for me to obtain definite and direct information on the subject. I, therefore, make the suggestion that the commission take up this matter, and consider ihow far the white poplar can be used for the purposes of making paper, and under what conditions it can be properly worked up. The area of country affected is very great, and, with the pressure of settlement, the poplar will disappear without having been of use to any one. As a matter of fact, at the present time it has no value. It is a detriment and impediment to the settlement of the country, and the settler does not use any means to protect it; in fact, it may be suggested that sometimes, in the dry years, he drops a pipe of tobacco by accident and great damage results.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Some time ago I called the attention of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) to a question which I think should receive the immediate attention of the conservation commission. I do not rise to advocate at the present moment the closing of all distilleries in the country, but the point to which I wish to call attention is in connection with the distilleries. It has been discovered in Germany and Sweden -but the invention is of Swedish origin- that alcohol was distilled with the residue of a liquor which comes out of every sulphite manufacture. Tests were made some years ago.in Sweden and in Norway by an inventor, and this large quantity of liquor, which was allowed to waste by being run into the sea-where it had the effect of destroying fish-was found to be the means of producing alcohol through another process. In Sweden and in Germany this liquor of sulphite is used 'for alcoholic purposes'. Four years ago the invention was taken hold of by an American sulphite paper manufacturer, who has established a distillery which produces alcohol of the purest kind from that liquor. There are in this country large sulphite mills. If that liquor, which now goes to waste, were utilized for the purpose of 'manufacturing alcohol, large quantities of grain would be saved for use as food and a supply of alcohol could be secured for use in the munition plants. The case is abundantly clear; within twenty-four hours the establishment can be visited and full information obtained. I do not now remember the name of the city where this plant is established, but one of the officers of the Imperial Munitions Board
visited the place this last winter and reported on the whole question.


George Eulas Foster: The matter was brought to my attention by several persons, my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) amongst them. I had a conversation with a gentleman who knew a great deal about it, and I asked him to give me a complete report on the subject. As soon as I get that report I shall be very glad to look into into the matter.


George Perry Graham: Is it true that large
quantities of goods upon which the duty has not been paid or which have not been called for are every year destroyed by the Customs Department at various large centres throughout Canada? I heard of one case where valuable liquors were destroyed; these might well have been sent to the hospitals. Other articles might have been disposed of by sale and the proceeds given to the Treasury. At this time we are all being asked to economize in our own homes, and I think that this practice of destroying goods should not continue when there is need for the articles which are so disposed of.


Mr. REID:: Some time ago it was brought to my attention that goods that had not been claimed, or upon which the duty had not been paid, were being destroyed. I took the matter up with the Commissioner of Customs. The provision in the Customs Act which deals with that matter does not give us power to dispose of such goods, if they are not sold, other than by destroying them. When they are sold by auction, they do not bring anything like their value. It did seem too bad that goods that could be used for some practical purpose should be destroyed, and I took it upon myself to distribute some of these goods as the hon. member has suggested. Some liquor which had been seized, and which would otherwise have been destroyed, I handed over to the hospitals at the nominal price of one dollar. I gave instructions to the commissioner that goods of any value that had collected at these places, and that might be used in hospitals or charitable institutions, should be sent to Ottawa. When they get to Ottawa they are handed out to some charitable institution at the nominal price of one dollar, and a record is kept to show that they have been so distributed.


George Perry Graham: I know that there is such a provision in the Act as my hon. friend has suggested.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that we are handling the matter in a satisfactory way.
Expenses of the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this commission doing anything at present?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Since the war began
the operations of the commission have been suspended. This item was passed, as Hansard shows, when my estimates were passed. But by some error it has not figured in the Votes and Proceedings and therefore does not appear on the official Tecord as having been passed. I am bringing it forward now so as to clear up the irregularity. This vote of $5,000 is merely to make provision in the event of the war coming to an end before the close of the current fiscal year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Pecuniary Claims
Convention have given out findings in some cases. How many cases remain to be decided?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not having come prepared to deal with this matter, thinking it was passed, I cannot speak with any definiteness on that subject, hut in a general way I think quite a number of cases remain to be disposed of.
Grant to assist the Canadian Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have the Government
any one to represent them on the board of that association which is a very worthy one? I read the report which is sent annually to hon. members,


George Eulas Foster: This is just a
grant towards its expenditures which are very large.
Grant to the Canadian Handicrafts Guild,


George Eulas Foster: This society looks after and encourages, by teaching in some localities, and by giving prizes, manual work of a fine character.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I would like to suggest that in the Parliament buildings which are being erected, some memorial or tablet be placed to commemorate the death of our late colleague, Mr. Law, who lost his life there under very distressing circumstances. No tablet and no stone of any kind marks his resting place, and it would be a nice idea and a thoughtful act on our part if somewhere in the corridors of the new Parliament buildings it were to be memorialized that
[Mr. Graham.}
the remains of the late Mr. Law rest in that building.


George Eulas Foster: The suggestion
of my hon. friend appeals to me personally, and I will see that the matter is brought to the attention of the com-9 p.m. mittee that has general charge of the erection of the building. It is a sad thing to commemorate, but as the hon. member has said, there is no place other than in the Parliament buildings, where Mr. Law's remains do rest.
Civil Government-Office of the Conservation Commission-salaries, $37,650.


George Perry Graham: I think a motion was
introduced in the House this session by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) urging the advisability of establishing a department of public health.


George Eulas Foster: That has no connection with the commission.


George Perry Graham: The conservation commission has a health department, and one of their officials has been overseas for some time inquiring info health matters. What is the commission doing in this Tegard, and has the Government given any consideration to my hon. friend's resolution that a department of public health be established?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know
that any special consideration has been given to hie resolution. At all events, no decision was arrived at. As regards the health department of the conservation commission, their work, I think, must he very limited, but I will get the information for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: I think they have done considerable inquiry work.
Arts and Agriculture

Towards the encouragement of cold storage warehouses for the better preservation and handling of perishable food products, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: Is this for the encouragement of cold storage proprietors?


Mr. BURRELL:: There are about ten or a dozen subsidies still due, and this amount is to cover these outstanding payments. We have been granting practically no subsidies since the war began.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Under what authority was Mr. O'Connor appointed to make an investigation into the cost of bacon and so forth, an'd what has been done in regard to a further inquiry? Why was not the [DOT]matter referred to a committee of the House of Commons?


Martin Burrell: My department has
practically nothing to do with that. I understand that Mr. O'Connor was appointed by the Minister of Labour to make an inquiry into the cost of living, including cold storage. Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer my hon. friend's other question.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour could give more information than I can, because it comee more directly under his department. An order in council was passed appointing Mr. O'Connor a commissioner for the purpose of obtaining certain information. The inquiring consisted in obtaining certain returns, upon which he based his conclusions.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I saw in the papers that another order in council had been passed appointing certain gentlemen-I assume under the Inquiries Act-.for the purpose of inquiring into the truth of the report made by Mr. O'Connor. I think the right hon. gentleman should make a statement with regard to the matter. It seems to me that the reasonable and proper thing to do, after receiving a report by a properly authorized official of this Government, would be to refer the matter to a committee of the House of Commons.


Robert Laird Borden: These gentlemen were appointed under the Inquiries Act and under the order in council to which allusion has been made. The question was largely one of accounts, profits and so forth. The inquiry, in my judgment, was eminently one for gentlemen of the experience possessed by those who were appointed. It does not seem to me that a committee of the House of Commons, with all deference to their qualifications, would be the best tribunal for an inquiry which has to take into consideration complicated accounts, and deal with matters of a more or less complex nature in relation to very laTge business affairs. For that reason we thought it better to make other provision for an inquiry of such a nature.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I ascume the Prime Minister does not intend the constitution of this new tribunal to be any reflection upon Mr. O'Connor or his inquiry?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. O'Connor himself, in his report, recommended a further inquiry.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Who constitute the commission?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Geo. F. Henderson, K.C., residing in the city of Ottawa, who has had a good deal of experience as a drainage referee in Ontario; Mr. A. B. Brodie, of the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Company, Montreal, and Mr. Geoffrey Clarkson, member of the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth. I am informed that both of these gentlemen are very expert chartered accountants, and that they are as good men for the purpose as could be found anywhere in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The newspaper, the
morning or this evening, announced that a gentleman from Chicago had been sent here by Mr. Hoover, the food controller of the United States, to act upon this commission and that his name was Connor, or O'Connor. Is there any truth in that?


Robert Laird Borden: The board consists of the three gentlemen I have named. The food controller, Mr. Hanna, has stated that Mr. Hoover, the food controller in the United Spates, has offered to place at the disposal of this board, in an advisory capacity, if it is desired, a gentleman experienced in questions of this character who is attached to the staff of the food controller i nthe United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are these gentlemen
working without remuneration, as stated in the newspaper?


Robert Laird Borden: These gentlemen are.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are these two accountants working without remuneration?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are very capable men so far as I know, but I do not know what in the world Mr. Henderson knows about investigating accounts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I see that in the United States legislation has passed Congress by which industries which produce articles that enter into the common life of every one, and which are also essential to the successful prosecution of the war, must be licensed by the Government. In view of the serious problems that arose during the past winter in regard to the consumption of food and other articles that enter into the life of the home, it would seem that the best method of dealing with the conditions that have arisen, and which have been disclosed by the report of Mr. O'Connor, would be to take hold of these enterprises, license them, and thereby control them in such a way that the difficulties complained of by Mr. O'Connor could not arise. I gather

from reading the report that Mr. O'Connor obtained from the William Davies Company information as to the cost of the basic product which entered into the production of bacon, and that he also obtained the price at which the finished article was sold, but that they did not give him either the cost of storage or of delivery or any of the intermediate information. It is a most serious matter when an official of the Government, engaged in carrying out the duties which have been assigned to him under an order in council, makes the statements which Mr. O'Connor does and which the Government think of sufficient importance to inquire further into and develop. If the condition described by Mr. O'Connor exists in this particular industry, it does not seem to be an undue inference to draw that it may exist in other industries. More particularly in the winter months in Canada the cost of living will again become a problem of the most serious character. I would like to inquire of the Government whether they have considered the advisability of dealing with this whole matter along the line of licensing the men who are engaged in these various industries as has been done in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I will take into consideration the suggestions made by my hon. friend.
Mr.	CARVELL: I	have a	suggestionto make to my right hon. friend which	I hope he	will	at	least consider,	if he does	not	accept it offhand.	There is no doubt	that	the result
of the investigation of the production and sale of food products made by Mr. O'Connor has created a great deal of discussion in Canada. It is going to create more discussion. It is one of those things which will not down unless it is settled properly. Mr. O'Connor has made a report upon what my hon. friend says was insufficient evidence, and if that be true, I for one will feel that it is a great injustice that any firm should suffer on account of it. On the other hand the William Davies company have submitted a statement. And, by the way, it is costing an enormous amount of money to get it placed before the people of Canada because it has appeared in pretty nearly every daily newspaper in the country and they have to pay for that, because you can depend upon it the newspapers are not doing it for love. In this statement they entirely refute conclusions as well as facts set forth by Mr. O'Connor. I think it is very much in the interest of the country, of the public, of

the consumer, of the William Davies company, of Mr. O'Connor and everybody else, that the real facts should be arrived at. There is a phase of this matter to which I might call the attention of the Prime Minister. In their lengthv statement the William Davies company particularly have referred to the fact that somewhere between two and three cents a pound, or nearly three cents a pound, should have been added to the cost of the product for inland and ocean navigation, commission to agents, selling expenses and all that sort of thing. But there is a large amount of that same quantity of goods which was sold in Canada and which did not cost any two or three cents a pound to deliver in Canada. The remainder, as my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) suggests, was sold to the Imperial Government. I point this out to show that in any investigation of this matter the absolute facts should be arrived at. I do not want, in my public position as a member of this House, to make a statement about any person that might be considered unfail; but from my extended relationship with the chairman of this commission, in another investigation about a year ago, I should feel that possibly that gentleman might be there as much to prevent the truth from coming out as to elicit the truth. Therefore my suggestion is, very largely on account of the chairman that the Government has appointed, that counsel should be' appointed to represent the people. Somebody can be found in Canada who will represent the people. I think he ought to be appointed by some tribunal other than the Government. If that is done and if the facts are brought out and an honest report is made, I believe the people will be satisfied and that justice will be done. But I am very much afraid, from the experience I went through during a somewhat troubled investigation a little over a year ago, that if there is not some counsel to watch things, you will get everything else but truth and honesty in the report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that Mr. O'Connor was appointed a year or so ago to carry on several investigations in connection with different matters. I am told that he is a gentleman of ability, well known to the right hon. Prime Minister and that he was his own appointee in the Justice Department. Mr. O'Connor was called upon to make an investigation into the cold storage business after the public had been roused by the soaring prices of commodities which were sold by these con-

cerns. It is stated that he associates himself with experts, that he goes from one concern to another and finally publishes a lengthy report. In my judgment he seems to reach final conclusion in that report. He speaks of the patriots who live on the earnings of the people, and treats them in a very high-handed way. Mr. O'Connor must be pretty sure of his findings and conclusions to assail, as he does in his report, the gentlemen who control the cold storage establishments in Canada. Mr. O'Connor has made that report. It is before the country, it is printed and distributed; and immediately we see in the press the counterpart of that report in the publication of the defence of the other party.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: A paid advertisement too.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course. And the Government appoint a commission to revise the work of their own commission. In all candour, I say to the right hon. gentleman that I do not understand those proceedings, nor will the people of the country understand them. The people have confidence in Mr. O'Connor's integrity and in the work he has performed for the Government. So I submit, that the suggestion of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) should be heeded by the country. The people, the consumers, ought to be specifically represented before that commission, or they will not have any confidence in the report which will be made on the report of Mr. O'Connor. The people ought to be represented by the best legal talent, because this is a very serious question. There have been more rumblings in the public since the publication of the O'Connor report than I have heard on all questions that have arisen since the beginning of the war. It seems to me that under those circumstances it is the duty of the Government, in connection with the work of the commission investigating the Government's own commission, to see that every safeguard is provided for the people of the country, the consumers, who are paying such huge profits to cold storage companies, and who are not in a mood to be laughed at. It will not do if this commission is appointed only to whitewash the gentlemen who in this report of Mr. O'Connor have been branded before the public.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have nothing to say against Mr. Henderson or any other lawyer, hut this is purely an auditing commission; it is an audit of the statement of these men
who differ with Mr. O'Connor. You could not get any more capable men to audit it than Price, Waterhouse & Co., or the Clarkson people. What they want of any one to guide them is more than the business people of the country can understand. No business man would choose a lawyer to be at the head of a commission that is an auditing commission. No one can tell Price, Waterhouse & Co., or Clarkson & Co. their business in auditing, 'and why Mr. Henderson or any other lawyer should be appointed on a commission' to guide such men as that, is more than I can comprehend. It only spoils the result of the commission, whatever that may be. .


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. /friend need be under an apprehension that it will spoil the result of the commission. Mr. Henderson is a practising lawer in the city of Ottawa. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says with regard to him, I understand and thoroughly believe that he has & reputation of the highest character as a member of the Bar, and that his work for many years past as drainage referee in Onr tario has been most satisfactory in every way. He has conducted the proceedings before him in such a way as to indicate that he has judicial temperament and he has undertaken


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the right hon. gentleman say, a judicial mind?


Robert Laird Borden: I said judicial
temperament. 1 suppose that men who afterwards ascend the Bench and are distinguished by their judicial temperament are not so /apt Ito show it when engaged as counsel on one side or the other in a case. That, is hardly to be expected. My hon. friend 'would undoubtedly /show a very fine judicial temperament 'if he were on the Bench, but still, when engaged on a case at the Bar, that quality would not be so manifest /as it might be afterwards when he had ascended the Bench.
Mr. /CARVELL:	I would remind my
ri^ht hon. friend that there are limits to the lapses to- which a counsel may descend.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not lcnoiw anything of the 'incidents to which my hon. friend alludes. We consulted the food controller and it was thought desirable that there should be a chairman of the commission, either a judge or .some one having judicial experience. It was teamed upon inquiry of Mr. Henderson that he would undertake the work and do so in a purely



honorary capacity. I have no doubt be will discharge hi-s duties with fairness, impartiality, 'and thoroughness. So far as the accountants are concerned, they are men, as I understand, of the highest standing in their profession, and men whose report with regard to some matters that are not dealt with fully .in the report of Mr. O'Connor, must be accepted with every assurance that it is fair and correct.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have nothing to say against Mr. Henderson; I have only to say that he is not an auditor, he is not a bookkeeper, and he would be no use in the world in guiding these two men, who are perfectly capable of auditing any accounts.


Mr. KYTE:: This Government have established several new records since they came into office, but I think that in the matter of investigating investigators they have established a record which probably will retain for them the laurels for many years. In the past, when the public interest required that an investigation he held, a public functionary was charged with the duty, and he would not be so charged unless he had the ability to discharge the functions of his position. When he made his report that was the end of it so far as the general public was concerned. This is not the first time that a royal commission has been appointed for the purpose of making inquiries in the public interest, but this Government, finding that the report was not satisfactory to themselves or their friends, have gone further and appointed another inquirer to investigate the conduct of the investigator. This is the second time within the last few months that the Government has taken that course. When Mr. O'Connor was appointed to inquire into the conditions with regard to the proprietors of cold storage warehouses and their relation to the cost of food products, I think the people generally were satisfied that he would make a thorough investigation and a perfectly honest report. He has made his report. Friends of the Government are hurt; they complain, and the Government good-naturedly appoints a court of appeal for their friends who feel aggrieved. This court of appeal is going to sit on the findings of a Commission appointed by the Government and paid out of the public treasury.
That the public have some interest in cold storage plants would be obvious from the fact that large subsidies have been paid from time to time by this Government to assist in erecting these cold storage warehouses. The Government are co-partners 
with the proprietors in respect of these institutions, and if ever there was a subject that properly and fairly called for public inquiry it is the conduct of the proprietors of these cold storage warehouses.
Mr. O'Connor made his report. I have no doubt the public had every confidence in the correctness of the conclusions at which he arrived, but the friends of .the Government, [DOT]who feel aggrieved, have secured the consent of this Government to the appointment of another commission. So that by the time this inquiry is concluded the friends of the Government will have such a report as will suit them, and such as they seek to have, all of which is to be at the .expense of the public. With reference to Mr. Henderson, whose name was mentioned here as .the chairman of this commission, he is the gentleman who a year ago, appeared for Colonel J. Wesley Allison before the Royal 'Commission to inquire into certain allegations arising out of the expenditure of public moneys by the Militia Department. No person had any objection to Colonel J. Wesley Allison securing the services of Mr. Henderson. He discharged his duties faithfully to his client, I have no doubt. But he was selected by Colonel Allison because he was a friend of the Government. Mr. Henderson is very close to the 'Government, and as 'Colonel Allison was very close to the Government at that time, or, at all events, pretty close to certain members of the Government, it seemed desirable that he should be entrusted w'ith Colonel Allison's defence before that commission. I think I heard .the right hon_ Premier state that Mr. Henderson's position was purely an honorary one, and I assume, from that, that he is not to be paid for his services by the Government. Is that correct?


Robert Laird Borden: It is correct.


George William Kyte: Mr. Henderson had a good client a year ago; if I mistake not he had two good clients, because, while he was retained by Colonel Allison, I rather suspect that his services were paid for by the Government. There was a large array of counsel who took part in the proceedings, and it would be rather odd if Mr. Henderson were not paid by the Government, if he rendered a 'bill for his services to the Department of Justice. I say, then, that if Mr. Henderson, undertakes to discharge these duties which have been assigned to him without compensation it is perhaps because he was so well remunerated for the services he performed

for Colonel Allison and the ring which surrounded Colonel Allison a year ago, that he can afford to discharge these duties free. It seems to- me rather extraordinary that Mr. Henderson should have been selected. Mr. Henderson appeared for Colonel Allison before the Royal Commission. The charges and allegations made against Colonel Allison, which the Royal Commission was appointed to investigate, arose out of certain transactions of the Munitions Board in respect to the letting of contracts. The Munitions Board, as constituted at that time, gave a certain contract for the manufacture of fuses to a company through Colonel Allison, from which contract he and his friend Lignanti succeeded in putting a large sum of money into their pockets. It so happens that the head of the Imperial Munitions Board is Sir Joseph Flavelle, president of the William Davies Company. I wonder if the people cannot draw their own conclusions as to why Mr. Henderson has been selected, without pay or remuneration, to guide the deliberations of this commission in the course of the appeal from Mr. O'Connor's report. It was pointed out by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that a lawyer or a professional man had no proper place in this commission. It is a matter entirely for accountants, and it will strik-e the general public as being strange that Mr. Henderson is the man of all others in Canada who should have been selected as chairman of that -commission for the purpose of guiding its deliberations. The chain of events and the chain of logic are perfectly plain and obvious, and it will be obvious to the general public. If the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) desired to get a report in which the public would have absolute confidence, inasmuch as he does not appear to have confidence in the report of Mr. O'Connor, he would have done well to go outside of the selection which he has made when he took Mr. Henderson for chairman of that commission.
I will summarize the facts again. Mr. Henderson was counsel for Colonel Allison a year ago when Allison's conduct in connection with contracts obtained from the Munitions Board was under investigation by the Royal Commission, Sir Joseph Flavelle, the head of the Imperial Munitions Board, is the head of the William Davies Company, the company that is most sorely hit by Mr. O'Connor's report; and we have Mr. Henderson again sitting in that commission, as the right hon. Premier said, in a sort of advisory capacity,
238J
so that he may steer the investigation, to>
the end that the William Davies company be hurt as little as possible as the result of the inquiry.


Robert Laird Borden: In the first place, my hon. friend's assertion that Mr. Henderson's services were paid for by the Government is absolutely destitute of the slightest foundation-


George William Kyte: I did not state absolutely that they were paid for by the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman endeavoured to insinuate and create the impression that they were paid for by the Government. I want to tell the hon. gentleman and the committee that there is absolutely not one shadow of foundation for any such statement. The hon. gentleman should not have made the statement, unless he had some warrant for it. He knew perfectly well he had not any warrant for it.


George William Kyte: I beg pardon-


Robert Laird Borden: Let me finish. In the second place, if my hon. friend had read the order in council before 'Sipeaking, he would have known that, under the order in council in question, it is provided that when returns are made, and a report upon these returns is submitted to the Government, the Government may, if it deems proper, appoint an examiner to inquire into the matter further, so that the action which has been taken by the Government is precisely in line with the order in council under which Mr. O'Connor made his investigation. It is perfectly true that the gentlemen who have been so appointed have also been given all the powers that could be conferred upon them under the Inquiries Act, in order that, if any power were wanting under the order in council alluded to, they would have that additional power under the Inquiries Act. With reference to the point my hon. friend endeavoured to make with regard to Sir Joseph Flavelle, the chairman of the Munitions Board, I would like to. inform the committee that he was not consulted as to the personnel of the commission, nor as to any one of them. All the members of the commission were recommended to us by the food controller. He thought it desirable that there should be a lawyer on the board with these two accountants. He thought that would tend to make the inquiry more thorough, for the reason that a board appointed in this way has the power to examine witnesses under oath and therefore must determine what is evidence and what is not

-evidence, so that the presence of a lawyer with these two accountants was thought to he a desirable thing. As far as the controversy of last year is concerned, to which my hon. friend last called attention, the contracts in question were not given by Sir Joseph Flavelle, of the Imperial Munitions Board; they were given to the persons whom the hon. gentleman mentioned, long before Sir Joseph Flavelle had anything whatever to do with the giving of contracts for munitions.


George William Kyte: What does the hon. gentleman think of the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman from Carleton, that some person be permitted to appear before this commission on behalf of the public?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already said to my hon. friend that we will take that suggestion into consideration.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I may perhaps
be a little out of order in referring to_ this question. But inasmuch as the question of cold storage is before the committee, and inasmuch as Mr. O'Connor's findings have been under consideration, I want to state what the public opinion of my province is with regard to this question generally. It is this: A food controller has been appointed and an extensive department organized for the purpose of food control, especially in connection with cold storage companies and organizations of that kind. Certain revelations have been made regarding the products handled by some of these cold storage companies. Our organization along the line of food control is somewhat similar to that which they have in Great Britain and in the United States. The people think that we ought to have more action from the food controller and less action on the part of commissions. The result of the revelations that have been made ought to be the immediate control of prices where high charges have been made. The people know that Canadian flour made from Canadian wheat, and bread made from that flour are cheaper in England than in Canada, and that the products of Canadian packing firms are sold at a lower price in the Mother Country than they are sold here. The people want to know why such things can be, especially in view of the fact that we now hgve a food controller. Our food controller is engaged in -a good work. A meeting was held in Toronto last night at which the women were addressed by the food controller upon the subject of thrift. The people do not want a food controller who will wait for a long report before he

takes action. He may wish to have an initial report on which to act, -but he ought to be sufficiently competent to investigate for himself; he ought to have at his services officials who will help him to ascertain whether or not, for instance, the statement made in connection with the price of bacon justifies immediate action on his part. If it be proved that the prices are exorbitant, the food controller, by virtue of the powers that the Government have under the War Measures Act, should take such steps that immediate relief should be brought to the Canadian consumer. They are getting results in England through the regulation of prices. We are gradually getting to that ourselves; some of the commissions having to do with the fixing of the price of wheat in the West are getting down to work, and I have no doubt that good results will be brought about. I think that we have a competent food controller, but what we expect is not investigations . by commissions, but the regulation of prices, especially in such cases as are exemplified by the difference between the price of Canadian flour here and the price of the same flour in England. The food controller and his staff ought to be able to show in one week whether the charges for bacon and bread and flour in this country, the ordinary, every-day necessities of life, and all those articles of food that pass through the.hands of the cold storage people, are fair and reasonable. If they are not fair and reasonable, then the people ought to get relief. I do not think that the people are satisfied to pay 52 cents a pound for bacon. I met yesterday a man who receives a fair salary, and I had occasion to ask him what he was taking home to his family on Saturday night. He said: I bought one pound of bacon, and I paid 52 cents for it. I was told on the same day that the price of a hog's carcass on the market was about 22 cents a pound. That is a large price, but there is quite a difference between 22 cents a pound for fresh pork and 52 cents a pound for bacon. I think that sufficient evidence has been sent broadcast over the country to justify quick action in the way of regulating the price of food. The Government would be wise in getting down to the essential issues concerning prices. What we want is not so much an investigation by one commission of the findings of [DOT]another, -as some definite action, as quick as we can get it. As to what has -been disclosed, I do not for one moment reflect upon the packing plants, T am not in a position

to pass judgment upon them. But I say this: if I were the food controller, I would know within a week whether excessive prices had been charged, and under the powers vested in me I would intervene if the prices were found to be too high. That is what the food controller its doing in England every day. Wlbaitisjtrueof 'food is true of coal, gasolene, coal oil, all the necessities of life, which have been .increasing in value since the war began. I called attention the other day to the long discussion that we had in connection with the Bill which was to-day read' the third time in the House. It is not discussion we want; it i.s action, intervention on the part of the food controller where excessive prices have been charged. I believe that our food controller has no lack of assistance, and if his work is properly organized he should be able to give the people that for which they are asking; con tool and regulation of excessive food prices during the period of the war. If we do>
not have action soon, encouragement will be given for other kinds of extortion.
While what I say may not he quite germane to the subject before the House, it is certainly germane to the situation in the country which calls for immediate regulation and for the reduction of the excessive charges made in' connection with ordinary foodstuffs and ordinary necessaries of life.


John Gillanders Turriff: Possibly the cold storage plants that have been reported on more particularly by Mr. O'Connor may not be included amongst those that the Government have assisted, but the Government for years back have been advancing large sums of money for the purpose of securing the erection of cold storage plants with the idea that they would enable food products to be carried over from one season to another to the advantage of the consumer. According to Mr. O'Connor's report, however, these cold storage plants are being used for the purpose, not of helping the farmer or the consumer, but of buying the product at a low price and storing it and later on making the consumer pay an enhanced price for it. Somewhat the same thing existed in connection with the terminal elevators in the West, and it was found necessary for the Government to intervene and to take over the control of the terminal elevators. Has any action been taken by the Government to look into this matter in order to find out if it is in the interest of the consuming public that these cold storage plants should be placed under
the absolute control of whatever department looks after that particular class of work? I presume it would be the Department of Agriculture. If no action has been taken, it is time something was done along that line. Will the investigation that is going to take place under this new commission that has been appointed to investigate Mr. O'Connor's report ascertain the amount of profit that the William Davies company made during the past year, and will it ascertain if the amount this company paid in under the excess profits tax is the correct amount or not? The O'Connor report shows that this firm sold 120,000,000 or 130,000,000 pounds of bacon, and that there was a difference of five cents per pound between the cost of the bacon delivered at their warehouse and the selling price. The company did not give Mr. O'Connor the cost of storage and of delivering, but Mr. O'Connor got those costs from other storage plants, so that his figures cannot be very far wrong. According to his figures, there is a profit on what was sold to the War Department of between four and five million dollars. There is, of course, to be deducted from that the amount chargeable for storage and delivery, hut there is to be added to that, the profit on all the bacon sold 10 p.m. by this company to the people of Canada at a very high price. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could say whether his department is making any investigation, in view of the facts that have come to light by the O'Connor report, as to whether the amount turned in as this company's share of excess profits-I think it was $107,000-is the proportion they should pay, or whether their true profits have been hidden, as I understand it is customary for companies to make profits show as low as possible during the years in which they have to pay taxes to the Government. If the report of this new commission is unsatisfactory, a third commission will have to be appointed to investigate the report of the one now being appointed. Unless this commission makes a thorough investigation from beginning to end, the people of this country will be very much dissatisfied, and at the present time they are very much exercised over what has come to light. If some of the members of that commission are appointed for the purpose, not of bringing out evidence, but of keeping evidence from coming out, the commission will be most unsatisfactory, and it will not clear up anything and the people will be still more dissatisfied than they are at present.


Mr. CURRIE:: In regard to this cold storage controversy, a great deal of misrepresentation has been made to the public, and the case has not been fairly stated. The facts of the case as shown in the documents are these: Mr. O'Connor asked for statements not only from those who deal in food, but from those who deal in anthracite coal, sugar and other articles. The public impression was that the price of sugar was far too high. The sugar companies-we all know they are called trusts-were investigated, and the commissioner found that, as a matter of fact, they were not making what would be considered a fair profit. He then came to the cold storage question, tod he asked the cold storage companies to submit their figures. All of the cold storage companies, with the exception of one or two, gave their figures for everything as accurately as they had them themselves. I understand very few of the companies are so organized that they can give a statement of costs, because unfortunately in this country most of the manufacturing concerns have not gone thoroughly into the question of factory costs and accounting, and they cannot tell where they stand only once every six months or every year. A proper business organization should be able to give a statement of its cost each day. The William Davies company, which is under investigation-and I am now speaking from the report-were asked to give the cost of the raw material, the cost of manufacture, the overhead cost and the selling price. Nowadays, every one in the manufacturing business is pestered every other day by some investigator coming in and wanting 4o know the cost of this and that. In Ontario, within the last year or two investigations have been made in connection with various matters, for instance the Workman's ' *Compensation Act, and as the result of these investigations for no reason, an advance of something like 700 per cent was made in the rates last year. Everybody wants to know how much money is being made, so they can get some of the profit. The William Davies company did not give the cost of the manufacture and the overhead cost, the result being that the report made by Mr. O'Connor, which was made in good faith, gave the selling price and the cost of raw material, and said the difference was gross profit.
In other words, Mr. O'Connor gave the gross profits not the net profits of the Davies company. That was all right, because they would not give him the figures, so he states in his report. The public, however, at once
I Mr. Turriff.]
jumped to the conclusion that it was the net profit, and imagined that the company were making enormous earnings. Everybody in the manufacturing business knows that a great many items have to be taken out of the gross profit before you can get the net profit. Overhead charges alone run to about twenty per cent in the manufacturing business. The Davies company rightly complained. They said to the Government: Your commissioner has not done us justice; he has misstated the facts. And they asked for justice and further investigation. It seems to me very strange that when the Government steps in and tries to put an end to profiteering they should be subject to criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite. As the Davies company demanded justice, the Government could not very well leave the matter to Mr. O'Connor, so they appointed two firms of accountants who are thoroughly equipped to go into the whole question of the net profits, which the William Davies company say in their advertisements amount to less than one cent a pound.
The Government are next criticized for having appointed a lawyer on that commission. Bear in mind that it is the Government that is being attacked through their commissioner. Hon. gentlemen opposite assume that the Government is trying to let the William Davies company out of it. But it is just the opposite. The William Davies company say that a false report hias been given to the public by the Government. The Government must therefore have a capable counsel to support their commissioners, and I have no doubt the Government have appointed a capable man. What is the use of saying the question is one of accountancy pure and simple, as was stated by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) a moment ago. At first glance it would look as if it were so; but bear in mind that these companies that are being investigated might refuse to give certain information. They refused certain information to the commissioner in the first instance, and in the second investigation they may not let the commission have access to certain books. I am not very fond of appointing lawyers to all these commissions, hut it seems to me-and I appeal to all the lawyers in this House-that it is necessary to have a lawyer on the commission because questions of that kind might arise from time to time, and when they do occur what person is better fitted to deal with them than the gentleman who has been appointed? He could set the legal

machinery in motion to compel the companies to disclose the information.
I do not think this discussion is particularly pertinent to the item under consideration, and as this subject, the Flavelle report, is to be brought before the House in another form, I do not see any necessity for continuing this debate to-night, especially as the matter is now under judicial investigation. Whenever the Government take any step that is in the interest of the public, hon. gentlemen opposite always get up and criticise it, or else their papers give them the credit. That is one of the beauties of a strong opposition. But as I have pointed out, this subject is really not pertinent to the item, and as it will come before the House later on in another form, I do not see why we should continue this debate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are all very much obliged to my hon. friend from North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) for the lecture which he has just delivered to us on what we ought and ought not to do on this side of the House. As a member of this House, I suppose he has the right to lecture us if he want3 to, but so far as a few of us here are concerned at all events, notwithstanding his lecture, we are going to carry out what we consider to be our duty to the public, and we are not very much interested whether we should discuss this subject upon this item or not. I made no attack on the Government- or on the William Davies company. I tried to state the case as fairly as it could be stated. I stated that Mr. O'Connor had made one report, and that the William Davies company were spending an enormous sum of money in placing another report before the public. If the statements contained in the advertisements of the Davies company are correct, they are making a profit of a little less than one cent a pound. As a business man, I say that that is not at all an unreasonable profit. It may amount to a large sum of money in the case of that firm, because they are doing a very big business. But if they are making five cents a pound on a food necessity of the people, I say that that is an unreasonable profit, and I would like to see the matter settled once for ,all, so that the public will know the truth. I object to the chairman of the commission, because I do not think the people will get justice. I hope my position is so plain that even the hon. member for North Simcoe will understand it.
Mr. -CURRIE: My hon. friend changes his position so often that it is hard to follow him.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Whether it is proper to discuss this subject on this item or not, we have been discussing it, and notwithstanding the injunction of my hon. friend from
North Simcoe	I	think we	: might	aswell go on	with	it. We	very often	depart from	the	proper	rules	ofprocedure in	this	i House	until	thehon. member	for	Simcoe	corrects	us,and then our	sins,	of course,	, are on	ourown hands because he points out the exact line of procedure, the evidence and the whole business. He is at once the judge, the jury, the evidence and the court of appeal. I am very glad that, although the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is not here, and not many members of the Government, we still have the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) with us. He is a lawyer and has a great deal of knowledge as to how matters of this kind should be conducted. I wish to keep closely to (this O'Connor report, because it is important to the people I represent. I represent thousands of people who are non-producers -able, capable workingmen, who must feed their families, -and feed them well if they can, and it is important to them to know whether the O'Connor report is correct or not. If the report is correct, then some steps should be taken to implement it in such a way as to benefit the people who have to buy the goods which these companies are selling at such exorbitant prices. I come from the same province as Mr. O'Connor. He has been a lawyer of standing in the province of Nova Scotia for the last twenty-five years. He is well known to the Premier, and by reason of the knowledge the right hon. gentleman had of him, Mr. O'Connor has been brought here and given a position of prominence and responsibility under the Government. He was appointed to make a certain investigation. I did not see the terms of reference, but T take it for granted that if the business of the Government is done in a businesslike way the matters which Mr. O'Connor had to investigate were properly tabulated and submitted to him. The Government would .say to him:	"Here are certain matters to
be investigated; get the evidence and report upon it." I should be surprised indeed if Mr. O'Connor weTe given carte blanche to investigate anything that happened to occur to his mind, for if that is the way the Government does business, surely there will never be an end ,to the reports they receive. I take it for granted, however, that certain questions Hvere submitted to Mr. O'Connor, and that upon


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the Minister of
Finance lay on the Table the order in council appointing this last commission?


William Thomas White: I think it was
laid on. the Table to-day.
Arts and Agriculture-For the administration and carrying out of the provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act, $25,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it the Agricultural
Instruction Act which provides that certain moneys shall be handed over to the provinces amounting to $.10,000,000?


John Dowsley Reid: The details of the whole sum are set forth below.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What becomes of the
$25,000?


Martin Burrell: The $25,000 is to. cover the cost of the administration of the Act. We have four or five officers in connection with the general inspection work. It also covers publication and a part of the cost of the publication of the Agricultural Gazette, which publishes -the record of the work that the provinces do under the $10,000,000 grant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What inspection is there?


Martin Burrell: The vote as it stands
this year will be $1,100,000. The officers work in collaboration with the provinces.
' There is correspondence and there are consultations and inspections from one cause or another. We have a commissioner, an officer in Quebec who thoroughly understands the French language, an officer and a stenographer in the office and an additional inspector for keeping in closer touch with the provinces in order to co-operate more fully with them in all lines of work.
.Mr. OARVELL:	Does the minister exercise any supervision over the provinces as to the manner in which they shall invest their portion of the fund? Up to the last three or four months the $45,000 or $50,000 which was handed over to my province was entirely eaten up by salaries. When I saw this $25,000 item, I wondered if it was just a continuation of the same old story, because, so far as education in New Brunswick was concerned, it was practically nil, but so far as the multiplication of offices was concerned, it "was a wonderful success.


Martin Burrell: 1 am sure my hon.
friend can hardly expect me to agree en-* tirely with that version of the stoTy. An agreement is entered into with each provincial government, conforming to the general principles of the Act. As a rule the suggestions of the provinces are followed.
but if we think that certain proposed expenditures do not conform to the general provisions of this Act we have negotiations with the province and possibly some alteration is made. The appropriation of the money for the current year, 1917-18, for New Brunswick includes, under the head of agricultural schools, capital account, construction and equipment, furnishing, agricultural and dairy schools, $1,000; salaries and maintenance, $3,000. Under the head of instruction and demonstration, it includes district representatives, $8,000; bee-keeping demonstration and instruction work, $500; soil and drainage instruction work, $4,000; horticulture, demonstration work, $5,500; short courses, $3,500; for live stock educational work, $7,000; dairying, $4,000; poultry, $1,600; fertilizer educational and demonstration work, $3,000; for entomology, $1,000; young people's clubs, $2,000; agricultural societies, $4,000; women's institutes, $4,500; educational instruction in public, high and normal schools, household science, training teachers, grants, $9,785; school fairs, educational work, $1,725. This makes a total of $64,110. Although it may be true that a good deal of this seems to go in salaries, I need hardly point out that it is along the lines of the best work done in all progressive countries that is strengthening the educational side of agricultural work. That is what brought Belgium and Germany to the state of efficiency which they had attained "shortly before the war.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate that, and I am glad to get this list of the distribution of the moneys. I quite understand that a large amount of that money, if properly expended, ought to produce valuable results. I do not know whether there will he any change or not; I sincerely hope there will. I noticed among the items read by the minister, $4,000 for drainage and soil. That is one of the greatest scandals we ever had in New Brunswick. They simply hired half a dozen fellows who did not know anything about running the business. They would work for a few hours wherever they wanted to. It was a machine, but it was a political machine. My friends are in power in New Brunswick now, and if they carry on this thing in the same way that the others did, I hope my hon. friend will withdraw the grant and exercise some sort of a supervision over it himself. I hope we shall have a better condition of affairs. Then there is a poultry expert at $1,600. The poultry expert was simply the brother of one of the members for the county of
COMMON?
Kings, a barber who kept a few hens. He was out of a job, and so they made him a poultry expert.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: His own hens?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, his own hens, a few in the back yard. If my friends in Now Brunswick are doing no better than their predecessors were, I hope my hon. friend will withdraw the grant, because a very large amount of this money was not properly expended, and did not go to the education of the people. If he will carry out this policy on the lines laid down there, and if this money is used for educative purposes, it will be all right, and .1 wish we had twice as much, but I hope there will be some supervision.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is aware that I cannot have a personal knowledge of all these expenditures. I agree that if there are any grievances of this kind they should be remedied, and I shall be glad to do all I can to remedy them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does an official go from the minister's department to the different provinces to inspect the work?


Martin Burrell: Yes.
Quarantine-.Salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $225,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I bring to the notice of the minister some complaints in connection with the quarantine station at Halifax? I understand ,the minister has more than one doctor at that place. I am told there is an old official who was appointed nearly twenty years ago. Dr. Mackay, and then there are two other doctors who are assistants under him.


Martin Burrell: One, I think.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think there are two. At all events, it was so reported to me. Those assistants get more than double the amount paid to the chief man.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend knows that Dr. Mackay is allowed to carry on private practice as well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will find the others are carrying on private practice as well as Dr. Mackay. The great difficulty is that the assistants were appointed since 1911 and Dr. Mackay was appointed before that. Dr. Mackay is supposed to he a Liberal, and his officials are the nominees of strong supporters of the Government, and they have the old style pull. It is rather scandalous to my mind that a man of the standing of Dr. Mackay, one of the

first practitioners, in Nova Scotia, a surgeon who is the peer of any in Canada, should be getting only $1,000 a year, and young men who are his assistants should he getting somewhere in the vicinity of $2,200 and $2,500.
And that is solely and simply because Dr. Mackay happened to be a Liberal and the others were Tories. I want the minister to explain if there is any other reason. I bring the charge home to him, and tell him that that is what it is for. Whoever his advisors in Halifax are, if the hon. minister looks up Dr. Montizambert's report, he will find that he is a regular watchdog for Toryism since the change of Government in these particular matters; that he does not like Dr. Mackay, because Dr. Mackay was a bigger man in his profession than ever Montizambert was born to be, and Dr. Mackay will not fall down and worship him; and he is to be punished by being kept down to the first salary he got of $1,000 when he was appointed some twenty years ago; and this young man put over his head at double his salary and more. I place these facts before the minister as strongly as I can, and if he will look into the facts he will find it is nothing but partisanship; and I protest against it.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman is extreme in his statements. Dr. McKay was [DOT] appointed by the Liberal Government, and the very salary he is complaining of was given him by that Government, and given under conditions similar to those which exist to-day. With regard to the other man, it was considered absolutely necessary to appoint a man who would give his whole time to the work, a bacteriologist, and it was not easy to secure such a man. There have been changes. One man has gone to the war, and I think I am within the facts in stating that one of the men who occupied the position since that time is not a Conservative at all. However, I shall be glad to bear in mind what the hon. gentleman says, and, although I do not agree with his statements, I shall be glad to post myself thoroughly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it under this vote that there is a tug of some kind-I have forgotten its name-employed in the city of St. John?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I had the [DOT] papers here, but my memory is very good.
I can give the minister the facts pretty nearly as they are. The tug is owned by a man named Elkin. Unfortunately, Elkin

was, and I presume is still, of the wrong stripe politically. Of course, he could not rent the tug to the department. Elkin rented the tug to a Mr. McNeill, and if my hon. friend the Minister hf Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) were here he would be able to tell you exactly who McNeill is. He is a very prominent member of the patronage committee of the Government party in St. John. McNeill pays, I think, $500 a month to Elkin for the tug. He rents it to the minister for $900, and there it goes on, year after year. These things are well known to the people in St. John. Complaints have been made about Mr. McNeill pulling down $400 ^ month for five or seven months out of the year. I give my hon. friend the names and the amounts, because it is common property down there, and it is common knowledge of the minister, but it goes on just the same. We hope the time will come very shortly when there will be a way of stopping these things, but at least for the present we would like to know how long it is to continue. The time will soon arrive when it will commence again. It starts in the autumn, and continues during the winter. The steal is not more than $2,000 a year, but it is an absolute patent steal, known to everybody.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All over the province.


Martin Burrell: If I had known this matter was coming up I should have had the information.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is the Lily M.


Martin Burrell: I think it is.
An hon. AIEAIBER: Not the Minnie M.


Martin Burrell: No, not the Alinnie M., but the Lily M. The deputy and Dr. Monti-zambert looked into the matter, and we came to the conclusion it was a proper and business-like arrangement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For McNeill.


Martin Burrell: No, for the Government. A responsible officer of the Government advised me in the matter. I cannot enter into a discussion, because I do not remember the details, but I know I felt justified in making the arrangement, or I should not have made it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sure I am correct. I might be a few dollars out one way or the other. I know there is a rake-off of $400 a month being made by a member of the Conservative patronage committee in the rent of the tug, and I do not think it is
necessary to hire the tug at all, because it is tied up at the wharf for a long time. The minister could hire all that work to be done by other men there for $500 a year. It is simply a straight steal; that is all there is to it.


Martin Burrell: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am not wrong.


Martin Burrell: If there is not a boat
there in proper condition, and at the service o.f the Government, 'we would get in some strange predicaments.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This boat only goes out to Partridge Island occasionally. I have no doubt my hon. friend is sincere in his statements, because these gentlemen are very shifty in St. John, and they can put up as smooth a story as any man in any part of Canada, and no doubt they did put it up, but there is nothing in it but graft.
Public Works Health Act, $12,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is any portion of this
devoted to the hospital up on the Hill, near the new Parliament buildings now under construction?


Martin Burrell: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From what vote is that provided for?


John Dowsley Reid: Public Works.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That private hospital on the Hill is one of the funniest institutions in Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a number of patients there.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Wednesday, July 25. 1917.