1918-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Bill No, 43, an Act to incorporate The Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill No. 44, an Act respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 45, an Act respecting The Nipis-sing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 46, an Act respecting United Grain Growers, Limited, formerly The Grain Growers' iGrain Company, Limited.-Mb. Buchanan.
Bill No. 47. an Act to confirm an agreement made between Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and Northern Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Crowe.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the electoral district of Lanark by the decease of Adelbert E. Hanna, Esquire. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSAL BY Mr. SPEAKER TOWARDS EFFECTING ECONOMY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In view of the extremely severe financial pressure due to the present war, I have thought it proper to endeavour to effect such economies in con-

nection with the management of the business of the House as may be secured without injuriously affecting its prompt and efficient conduct. To this end I appointed a committee of three of the senior officers of the House to look into the question of the parliamentary printing. This committee has made a report recommending that the Votes and Proceedings and the. Journals should toe consolidated* The committee believes that in this way, while a full and proper record of the proceedings of the House would be preserved, that a very large saving would result. I beg to suggest, therefore, that the House appoint a small committee of three experienced members to consider whether this proposal should be adopted. It is not intended to make any change this session, but during the coming recess to work out the details of the scheme, and to begin the new arrangement next session.
I may also, inform the House that I purpose, myself, to immediately make a very full inquiry into the duties and organization of the staff of the House, the result of which I shall communicate to the House in due course.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In accordance
with the proposal which has just been made by Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by Sir George Foster, that a committee composed of Messrs. Pardee, Niokle, and Lemieux, be appointed to consider and report upon the question of consolidating the Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURJER:: The committee as proposed is quite acceptable, hut I would suggest that the name of Mr. Cuj-rie, of Simcoe, be added. That hon. gentleman presented a very valuable report upon a similar question last session, which perhaps did not receive the consideration it merited. Doubtless the new committee will find a good deal of information in the report referred to.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall be very
glad to add M*r. Currie's name.
Moltion as amended agreed to



MILITIA COUNCIL REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence):	I lay on the table
of the House the report of the militia council for the year ended 31st March, 1917. Also a memorandum prepared by the Department of Militia and Defence covering the year 1916. I ascertained that this memorandum was not brought down last year, and while it contains the same information
with respect to the establishment and organization of the department that would be available now, an additional memorandum has been prepared which is not yet printed, but which will be distributed as soon as completed.

Robert Laird Borden: It has been suggested that the second reading of the Bill respecting Bankruptcy should be taken pro forma in order that it may he referred to a special committee for the purpose of studying it. The second reading of the Bill under such conditions will not commit the House to the principle of the measure, or to any particular provision of it, hut will afford an opportunity for the special committee to study the Bill and make their report with regard to it, and for the House to consider that report during the present session should time permit.


Mr S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):: I beg to move second reading
of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I move, seconded by Sir George Foster, that Bill No. 25 respecting bankruptcy be referred to a special committee to be composed of Messrs. Guthrie, Nesbitt, Coekstoutt, Redman, Morwat, Henders, Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Niokle, Green, Jacobs, MoMaster, Ross, Lapointe (Kamouraska). Leduc and Sinclair (Antigonish and Guysboro) with power to report from time to time, and that the said committee have leave to sit during the time that the House in in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the House do now return to Motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the House do now proceed to Notices of Motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: Order No. 13 has been on the Order Paper- for some time, and embodies a proposal which I think it would be very well for the House to adopt. In the absence of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niekle), I beg to move on his behalf that the motion be passed in the

following terms, leaving out some unnecessary words in order to make it effective:
That a Special Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Pension Board, the Pension Regulations and the sufficiency or otherwise of the relief afforded thereunder, the Pension lists in force in Canada for disabled and other soldiers and the dependents of those killed while on active service, and any other matters relating thereto or connected therewith, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the House do now return to Motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 48, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: Explain.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS:: The proposed amendment will not affect the principle of the Act at all, but it has been found, in administering the Act, that it might be made materially more useful if some amendment were made touching the procedure under it. There are quite a humber of such changes, and I do not suppose the House desires me at this stage to go into all the details.


Charles Murphy: Will they call for an increased staff?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.


Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	What is the total number of "draftees" under the "Military Service Act," up to 1st February, 1918?
2.	How many were exempted for farm work?
3.	How many were declared "medically unfit?"
4.	What disposition has been .made of the "medically unfit?"


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman to define his question a little more clearly. It is difficult to determine what he contemplates by " draftees." Does he contemplate men eligible for service and ordered to report, or men who

have been actually enrolled? It makes a difference not only as to the first question, but as to what is apparently contemplated by the other questions. I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would let me know exactly what he wants.



LEASES OF PROPERTY AT QUEBEC.

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Department of Justice leased any property in Quebec for the purposes of the Military Service Act since the first of July, 1917?
2.	If so, what rental is being paid, from whom was such property leased, and on whose recommendation?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	209 John street, from Berlinquette Estate, on rental of $115 per month; lease expires 1st May prox. 217 John street, from Joseph Vincent of the Cummings Estate; leased by the late District Military Representative and taken over by the Deputy Registrar at Quebec and used as Police Headquarters: rental $50 per month; lease expires 1st May prox. The Auditorium, leased from the Auditorium Company, Limited, at a rental of $375 per month, from the 1st February, 1918: lease terminated 30th ultimo, as the premises were gutted by fire started by rioters and are wholly uninhabitable. Early in January it was found that the John street properties were wholly inadequate for the working requirements and the proper housing of the staff, and it was then arranged to move into larger quarters in the Auditorium building. On Tuesday, the 2nd April, temporary quarters were secured from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the new wing of the Chateau Frontenac on the seventh and eighth floors, at a rental of $1,000 per month. The John street properties were leased by the Deputy Registrar at Quebec, Mr. A. Gobeil, K.C.; the Auditorium on the authority of the Military Service Council and the Chateau Frontenac on the recommendation of the Director of the Military Service Branch.



MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. LESAGE:: 1.	Has the Military Service Act, respecting medical examinations, been amended by Order in Council?
2.	If not, is the medical examination sworn to and made by the family physician, still given the same consideration under the Act, as if said examination were made by a military medical officer?
3.	Is the Government aware that, in many cases, no consideration is given to the medical certificate of a family physician, and that in

most all cases said certificates are given only a minor consideration by the Military Medical Boards?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to check such abuses, and concede the consideration which a responsible medical profession deserves?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Where difference arises between report of Military Medical Board and other physicians, the Exemption Tribunals may refer the case to a Board of Revision composed of civilian and military physicians.
3.	No.
4.	The Government is not aware that any abuse exists.



PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF EXEMPTION TRIBUNALS.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: ' 1. What is causing delay in the payment of amounts due members of local Exemption Tribunals?
2.	What amount is paid citizens who filled such offices, and on what basis?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Their large number and the numerous cases where unjustified charges are made, necessitating careful checking and delay in adjustment.
2.	Five dollars a day each day's sitting up to 7th day of January, where remuneration is asked for, plus reasonable expense.



BRITISH EMBARGO ON CANADIAN CATTLE.

Mr. SMITH:: Is it the intention of the Government to urge the repeal of the Act of 1896 so that Canadian cattle will be allowed into Great Britain?


Robert Laird Borden: The information called for by this question is set forth in the following extract from a discussion on the subject which took place at the Imperial War Conference on the 26th day of April, 1917. This discussion' was embodied in a return laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom in September last, and also laid before the Parliament of Canada at the last session, and which reads:
Imperial War Conference, 1917.
Extracts from Discussions at the Imperial War
Conference on the Admission of Canadian
Cattle into the United Kingdom.
Note.-The discussion took place on the Fourteenth Day, Thursday, 26th April 1917. (See p. 113 of Minutes of Proceedings in [Cd 8566.].)
Mr. Rogers :	Mr. Chairman, yesterday, when
the Resolution presented by Sir Albert Stanley from the Board of Trade came before this Conference, a Resolution which was, in my judgment, very proper and very desirable from
all points of view, he was able to make no mention of beef imported from the Dominion of Canada, and my purpose in bringing the matter up is to draw attention to the fact that this was entirely due to the action on the part of the Board of Agriculture in placing an embargo-as against Canadian cattle because of alleged pleuro-pneumonia in a shipment of Canadian cattle to England in the year 1892. Now, as I understand, it was shown conclusively that the allegation was erroneous, and that it was irregular to create the embargo and to put it in force; but later it was made statutory. Since that date I may say, for the information of the Conference, that over 3,000,000 head of cattle have been shipped from Canada and slaughtered on arrival in Great Britain, and no single case of disease has been discovered. Now you can understand that this is a condition which we complain of very seriously, and we have made several appeals with respect to it. Later on we got an answer -through his Excellency the Governor General of that day, Lord Grey, giving us a copy of a letter from the Board of Agriculture, in which it was stated that the experience of foreign countries had shown how suddenly and unexpectedly foot-and-mouth disease made its appearance, irrespective of an efficient veterinary organisation.* That goes to show that the Board of Agriculture were not able to support the ground upon which they placed an embargo against all Canadian cattle originally, and shifted their ground in making this statement that in foreign countries experience went to show that very suddenly and unexpectedly foot-and-mouth disease could develop. This has had a very detrimental effect in Canada. This, of course, intensifies the feeling that a great injustice has been done by the Board of Agriculture as against the Dominion of Canada in respect of the cattle industry, and when this Resolution was presented by Sir Albert Stanley, we felt that it was an opportune moment to bring this matter to the attention of the Conference, in order to see if it would be possible for us to have redress. I may say that our Minister of Agriculture, in a letter on the question, states that our cattle are as healthy as any cattle in the world, and during the three outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United ^States, which have occurred since the embargo was placed, Canada has been able to maintain her herds absolutely free from infection. From the point of view of disease, therefore, I feel very strongly that there is every justification for the removal of this embargo. Of course, we naturally argue that this embargo has been placed as a matter of policy by the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of the development of the British live cattle industry. If the Board of Agriculture conceive it to be their duty and to be in the public interest of Great Britain to have a policy of protection of their live cattle industry, then we would have no complaint and offer no objection; but we do seriously complain in that an embargo is placed against our cattle which supplies this protection and carries with it the stigma that they are liable to have pleuro-pneumonia, and, therefore we suffer not only in this market but more or less in the markets of the United States. I think it is due to Canada-and I think this is the proper time when we should ask this Conference-to take some definite action in order that this wrong may be remedied, so that our Canadian cattle shall have the same consideration and be received in Great Britain without having to go through the embargo that has been placed upon them by the action of the Board of Agriculture.

You, Mr. Long, were good enough to suggest that you would like to see present here a representative of the Board of Agriculture when the matter came up, and the discussion on the point was adjourned from yesterday for that purpose.
I am glad that the representatives of that Department are here to-day, and if they have any explanation to offer, or any reason why this embargo should be continued in the future, then of course we would like to [DOT]know it and to understand it in order that we may be able to explain it, at all events, when we go back to Canada, because it is a very very very live question and one in which our people take the very deepest interest. Probably you will remember, Mr. Long, that I *had this matter up with you some days ago, and you sent me a letter to say "Mr. Prothero suggests, therefore, that further discussion on the matter should be deferred until after the War, when the representations of the Canadian Government can be brought forward for reconsideration." But we do not like to feel that we are misunderstood or that our cattle industry is suffering from a reputation that never did exist, and a stigma which never ought to have been attached. Therefore, if there is any explanation to be given on the part of the Board of Agriculture, we shall be very glad indeed to hear it.
Mr. Prothero: Of course you know in this country we are very panicky about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, and you quite correctly state that the case on which the policy was founded dates right back to 1892. I had up the papers which relate to the alleged outbreak in 1892, and as far as I could see it was not a case of pleuro-pneumonia at all. The case upon which this embargo was founded1-it is not quite correctly stated as an embargo, because cattle are allowed to be landed provided they are slaughtered at the landing-dates right back to 1892. As I say, I had the papers up before me this morning, and I think the papers show that the alleged case on which the embargo was founded is extremely doubtful as to its being pleuro-pneumonia. I also believe that at the present moment and for many years past, as far as I can make out, Canada has been free from the disease, and on those grounds therefore we should receive the present suggestion for the removal of the embargo very sympathetically. As far as I personally am concerned, and so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, after the War is over, of course, because it is not an economical mode of bringing meat to this country during the War to bring over live animals, we should, I consider, be wise to remove the embargo, and I think for this reason in the main:	The home
demand for store cattle in the eastern counties has been rather imperfectly met for many years past. On the other hand, there has been a considerable increase in breeding in this country; but if we have, what I think we shall have, a large extension of the arable farming in this country, we shall want to increase our reservoir for store cattle. Of course, your Canadian cattle will co;ne over as what we call "stores/' that is to say, they are to ;be fed and fattened here in England. We shall want a great many more store cattle if we have this great extension of arable farming; we shall want more animals to trample the straw and eat the root crops. At the same time there are signs that we shall not get the same number of store cattle from Ireland as heretofore. fSir Robert Borden.]
You will understand-I do not know whether there is a representative of the Irish Department here-that the main opposition, at least one strong line of opposition, to the introduction of Canadian stores is that the Irishman is afraid that it is going to cut into his trade in store cattle with this country. Well, Ireland is advancing most rapidly 'in its agricultural development. If we get cattle from Ireland they will increasingly come over here in the form of finished, fully fed cattle. Therefore the supply of Irish store cattle is likely to diminish, and in that case again the fact that we can turn to Canada for store cattle will be of great advantage to us, and I can assure you that so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, we are in favour of the removal of the embargo. We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a good many years past, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease. I do not know-I am afraid you know a great deal better than I do-but any statistics I have seen as to disease in Canada show me that you have been remarkably free from it. That is so, is it not?
Sir Robert Borden:	That is absolutely so.
Mr. Prothero: Therefore, that is the answer that I would like to make you. I am afraid I ought to consult the Irish Department, because they may make difficulties, but I do not think they will, because, as I say, the whole development of Irish farming is in favour of the breaking up of these great grass ranches on which the store cattle were grazed, and from which they were sent over. Instead of that they are adopting the finishing system, upon which, of course, there is very much more money to be made and much more profit agriculturally in other ways to the farmer.
Sir Robert Borden : Mr. Prothero, may I ask a question purely for information:	Is the
'statute or the regulation which constitutes the so-called embargo applicable to all countries or is it only applicable to certain countries?
Mr. Prothero: It is applicable to all countries. I believe it was passed by Mr. Walter Long in 1896.
Chairman: It was.
Mr. Rogers:	Are you quite sure, Mr. Prothero, that it applies to all countries?
Mr. Prothero: It does. I mean that it is a broad general principle, but we can admit animals in exceptional cases from time to time. I think that is the case.
Sir Robert Borden: We appreciate very much your sympathetic attitude with regard to the matter, Mr. Prothero. As to postponing it until after the end of the War, I am not so much impressed by the consideration put forward, because, assuming the absence of tonnage, nothing would come forward in any case until that shortage is relieved. As far as Canada is concerned, I do not want it understood that we desire to interfere in any way with the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom. 'If it is thought desirable here that the cattle industry should be protected, whether in Ireland, or England, or Scotland, or Wales, that is a matter of domestic concern for the United Kingdom, about which we do not desire to make any suggestion; but what has been felt in Canada, whether rightly or wrongly, is this, that under the guise of a sanitary regulation you have succeeded in carrying out a fiscal policy-	,
Chairman ; It was said just now that I was responsible for this policy, for advising the

Government. It certainly was not that at all, nor did we accept the view (which my friend Mr. Prothero has said obtained twenty years afterwards) that we had not abundant evidence. There was a difference of opinion between your scientific people and ours. Our people held a strong view about it. There was a great agitation in this country about disease, particularly pleuro-pneumonia, and our scientific people differed from yours.
Mr. Rogers:	A Commission was appointed
to go into the facts of the whole case, and they decided that there was no ground for the action which was taken.
Chairman: Your people held one view and ours the other.
Sir Robert Borden:	I think Mr. Prothero
has put it very moderately when he says that it was at least a doubtful case. I should say there was not any substantial evidence at all of disease in Canada. There was only one instance adduced, and the experts were divided upon that. We sought an independent investigation outside Canada, and that investigation convinced us that there was absolutely nothing in it, and from that time up to the present not a single case has developed in Canada so far as I am aware, whereas numerous instances of disease have developed in the United Kingdom during that time. As far as sanitary regulations are concerned, there would be far more reason for us to put an embargo against British cattle coming to Canada than there would for Great Britain to impose an embargo upon Canadian cattle coming here. Whether rightly or wrongly, the impression does exist in Canada, that it was more the carrying out of a fiscal policy than the enforcement of a sanitary regulation. I know that view impressed itself upon the members of the late Administration, and we are not free from it ourselves.
Chairman:	Sir Charles Tupper held that
view.
Sir Robert Borden:	Yes, and the members
of the late Administration held that view; the Canadian (Minister of Agriculture I am quite sure held that view. If it is desired to protect the cattle industry in the United Kingdom, let it be done; that is a matter of domestic concern; but do not accomplish it by the enforcement of a regulation which casts an undeserved slur upon conditions in Canada.
I am sure we are all very much obliged to Mr. Prothero for the sympathetic consideration he has given to the subject, and, as it is a matter of sentiment with us as well as a matter of material consideration, I hope it may be possible for him to reach the conclusion that it is not necessary to await the termination of hostilities before taking action for this purpose; but that, of course, is for him to decide. I only offer a strong suggestion along that line.
Chairman : Of course you could get publicity given to the thing by having a question asked in the House of Commons, without passing any statute. As far as I am concerned, as my name has been brought into it I can only say that I entirely agree with Mr. Prothero's policy. I think the time that has elapsed has shown that Canada has had a complete and dean bill of health during that time. I am not concerned to defend my share of the policy, though I was personally responsible as Minister, but it is fair to my advisers at that time-I am sorry to say I am afraid they are no longer alive even-to say that they disagreed with the advisers of the Canadian Government. Sir
Charles Tupper was Minister for Agriculture,
I think.
Mr. Rogers: No, he was the High Commissioner.
Chairman: Perhaps I mean his son.
Mr. Rogers: He was never Minister of Agriculture. It was Sir Charles Tupper, the High Commissioner, who took the matter up and took a deep interest in it.
Chairman: That is our old friend who died the other day.
~Mr. Rogers : Yes.
Chairman: No, I mean another Tupper, one of the sons. I thought he was Minister for Agriculture. He came over here, saw Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary for the Colonies, and then came to see me. There was a difference between the technical experts on both sides. In Canada they held that there was no justification; whereas our experts took the opposite view, and they held further that as it was possible for cattle to pass from the United States of America into Canada and they frequently did pass, and as in the United States there was risk of disease, they ought to be fortified here. That was the view that prevailed, and it was really a case for the experts, who were not fiscal reformers at all; they differed, and we followed our experts. I think, however, subsequent experience has shown that Canada has an absolutely clean bill of health.
Mr. Rogers: Yes, and we had it even in that case. They slaughter them now at the dock immediately they arrive.
Mr. Prothero: There is one point I might mention. I think, if I might use a slang phrase, we were rather "jumpy" at that time about cattle plague, because just before 1896, when this new legislation was made, we had been bringing in cattle from Argentina, and on the voyage a whole shipload of cattle were discovered to be actually suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. That was no doubt one of the reasons why we made this more drastic alteration, but we could, not by legislation but merely by an order of the Board of Agriculture, put Canada into the free list to-day.
Mr. Rogers: Then' for Heaven's sake why do not they do it?
Chairman: I think that is not so. I have not looked into this thing for twenty years, and I think that that was exactly the sin I committed from the point of view of Canada. I think before the passing of the Act of 1896, to which we are now referring, you could do this by Order in Council. At that time, as Mr. Prothero has said, there was the gravest apprehension here with regard to our cattle industry. It was extremely important to our English cattle-breeders to increase the number of cattle in the country. We had from the year 1865 or 1866, right away down to the nineties, a succession of outbreaks of various diseases, foot-and-mouth and pleuro-pneumonia, and the demand of the cattle-breeders in this country was that they should be protected against disease, however slight the risk might be. That was a demand which was backed by experts. That was the real history of it. I think that removed from the Board of Agriculture the power to put countries on the free list. I think you will find that you will have to repeal the Act of Parliament, but I speak subject to correction.
Mr. Prothero: I am afraid I have not looked at the Act on this specific point. I was not quite sure what point I was supposed to

address myself to, but I will look into it, and if we do take any action I do not see why it should not be taken at once, especially if we cannot put it into operation until after the war is over.
Mr. Rogers: How do you mean, you cannot put it into operation?
Mr. Prothero: Because there are no ships.
Mr. Rogers: We do not object to that, but remove the stigma against us from which we are suffering.
Chairman: Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed, and the Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose, but upon the understanding that, there being no tonnage, there cannot be any arrivals.
Mr. Rogers: I do not want to have any understanding about it. If there is no tonnage, that follows.
Chairman: No, I do not want it to be a misunderstanding.
Sir Robert Borden: It cannot become effective because there is no tonnage.
Chairman: We cannot do it; I am quite sure that the Shipping Controller would stop it at once, and he would say, 'We cannot let live cattle come because they take up too much room."
Sir Robert Borden: We perfectly understand that.	[DOT]
Mr. Rogers: Yes, but still, we do not want to be placed in a false position. This is an old sore and an old grievance, and now is the proper time to have it cured, because the facts are all in our favour.
Chairman: The Minister of Agriculture has undertaken to do it.
Mr. Rogers: Do not you think we should have a Resolution about it?
Chairman: You do not want a Resolution, do you-or if you like you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
Mr. Rogers: I beg to move that.
Chairman: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it.
Mr. Hazen: I think as we have a statement from the President of the Board of Agriculture that this restriction will be removed, and that he does not see why it should not be done at once, we might leave it there.
Mr. Massey: Does this embargo apply to Canada only, or to all overseas countries?
Chairman: All overseas countries.
Mr. Hazen: You do not ship cattle from New Zealand; it is too far.
Mr. Massey: They did ship cattle from Australia, but we never ship them from New Zealand.
MATTAWrN RIVER DREDGING.


Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	What is the cost of the dredging operations in the Mattawin River at St. Michel des Saints, in the county of Berthier?
2.	What is the cost of the wharves or icebreakers constructed by the Government on the Cypres River opposite the public highway at St. Michel des Saints?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	No dredging done by the Department of Public Works.
2.	$1,501.83.

Mr. GERALD DILLON.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is there an employee of the Justice Department named Gerald Dillon? If so, what is his position and salary?
2.	Does he draw a salary from any other Department? If so, how much and under what right?
3.	Is he in any way connected with the Militia Department?
4.	What was the total amount drawn by this gentleman during the calendar year 1917?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes. Purchasing agent, present salary $3,300 per annum. He is also supply officer of internment operations and for his services as such he receives the pay attached to his rank of captain in the Canadian militia.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	From penitentiaries vote, salary as purchasing agent, $3,175; salary and allowances equivalent to the pay of captain, under authority of a special Order in Council, $1,881.75.



CANAD EMPLOYEES AT FARRAN'S POINT.

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Has the Government employed Albert Hod-gins, Richard Brown, Henry Alexander, Joseph Donnelly, Edward Markell, A. Anderson and
, William Daley, on the canal at or near Farran's Point?
2.	If so, Is the Government aware that the usual occupation of the said employees is that of farming?
3.	Will the Government insist that the said employees engage in farming during the continuance of the war?
4.	If so, are the positions heretofore held by the said' employees to be given to returned soldiers?


Hon. J. D. REID:: The following is the information in so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned:
1.	Yes; Albert Hodgins, Richard Brown, Henry Alexander, Joseph Donnelly, Edward Markell and William Daley. A. Anderson is not known to canal officials and has not been employed on the canal.
2.	Albert Hodgins, employed since July 16, 1917, as lockmaster. Upon inquiry owns farm rented, hut no work done by him.
Richard1 Brown, lock labourer, has a rented farm worked entirely by his family.
Henry Alexander, lockman, owns a farm which is leased to a farmer.
Joseph Donnelly, lock labourer, has a rented farm worked entirely by his family.
Edward Markell, lockman, is a labourer, who is not known to own any property.

William Daley, lock man, is a labourer, who owns a house in the village.
3.	Will insist on their doing the work for which they are employed so long as in the Government employ.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



PROTECTION DYKE ST. BARTHELEMI ROAD.

Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	What is the nature of the works performed by the Government in the road leading to the St. Lawrence River, and with which is connected the Concession of le Grand Nord, in the parish of St. Barthelemi, in the county of Berthier?
2.	What is the cost of said work?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Material was supplied by the Government to build a protection dyke, and the labour was supplied and paid for by the municipality.
2.	$1,668.15.



NAVAL PATROL BOATS AND MINE SWEEPERS.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many naval patrol boats and mine sweepers of all classes were ordered on Government account in 1916 and 1917?
2.	How many have been delivered to date?
3.	What is the speed of these boats? If various, specify?
4.	Are they constructed of wood or steel?
5.	What service are they intended for?
6.	WThat has been the total expenditure to date?
7.	How many officers and men are employed in this branch of the service?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. As the information asked by these questions is of a confidential nature it is not considered advisable in the public interest, to publish it.



DETENTION OF FREIGHT CARS IN UNITED STATES.

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the fact that a number of cars belonging to the different railways in Canada are being detained by the American authorities ?
2.	Has the Government any statement of the number of said cars so detained, and the length of time they have been held?
3.	Has the Government taken any steps in order to obtain from the American authorities release of the said cars? If so, when, and1 how many cars have been thus returned to Canada?
4.	Is the Government to take any further steps for the immediate return of the remainder of said cars in the United States?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. The Government is aware of the fact that a number of Canadian owned cars have been detained for a considerable length of time in the United States.
2.	The Government has not got any inform mation showing how long each car has been in the United States and it would be a very heavy matter to have each Canadian railroad prepare such information, but it does know that some of the ears have been detained in the United States for a considerable length of time.
On March 15, 1918, stood as follows:
Due	Due
Canadian Rys. U.S. Rys.
Box cars	 18,146
Auto, refrigerator, flat
and stock cars		5,531
Open top cars	 9,407
Approximately 4,500 of the open top cars cannot he used for loading, as they came in with coal under an arrangement that they would be returned to the United States just as soon as made empty.
3.	The Minister of Railways and Canals has had the matter up on several occasions with the Director General of the United States railways; the Canadian Railway Association for National Defence has also had the matter up on several occasions with the Regional Director of the United States railways as well as with the Car Service Section of the United States railways. The secretary of the Canadian Railway Association for National Defence interviewed the Regional Director of the United States railways in New York on Friday last and was promised that a movement of empty cars to Canada would be immediately arranged. For some considerable time there has not been much change in the standing of the interchange balance.
4.	The matter will not be allowed to drop and every means taken to obtain the desired end.



QUEBEC MILITARY SERVICE OFFICIALS.

*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who represented the Federal authorities in the City and District of Quebec since the Federal Government began their search for draftees under the Military Service Act, 1917.
2.	What is the name of each and every officer employed by the Federal Government in the City and District of Quebec for this purpose?
3.	What position did these men formerly occupy?
4.	What was the fee, if any, paid to said officers for each draftee arrested?
Major-General MEWBURN: In so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is - concerned, there is no officer specially employed in connection with the Military Service Act.


Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What are the officers' names in the County of Levis who are employed by the military authorities to enlist, search for, and inform against, or apprehend, men under the provisions of the Military Service Act?
2.	Have said officers employed any other person or persons to assist them in the County of Levis in so doing? If so, what is the name of each of said persons?
3.	What remuneration does each of said officers and assistants receive per month or per day, or for each conscripted man so informed against or apprehended?
Major-General MEWBURN:	So far as
the Department- of Militia and Defence is concerned, no officer is specially employed in connection, with the Military Service Act. It is, however, part of the duties of the Acting Provost Marshal and his military police to assist in the apprehension of defaulters under the Act.



ROYALTIES ON COAL.

*Mr. CASGRAIN:: Is it the intention of the Government to remove the royalties on coal mines in the Dominion of Canada, other than those removed from the Yukon coal mines by Order in Council of the 17th day of March, 1918?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: The Government
has no proposal for the removal of the royalties on 'Coal. The Order in Council of March 17 provided merely for the continuance of a practice that has been in force for five years.



PRIVATE SECRETARY.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is Mr. Main Johnson employed in the Privy Council Office, or in some other Government Department?
2.	If so, was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission after competitive examination?
3.	What was the date of his appointment, what are his duties, and what salary does he receive?
4.	What were his occupation, duties and salary immediately prior to his appointment in the service of the Dominion Government?
Hon, Mr. ROWELL:
1.	Yes. In the Privy Council office as Priviaite Secretary to the President of the Council.
2.	Is graduate of the University of Toronto and his appointment was made in. accordance with the Civil Service Act.
3.	October 12, 1917; $2,800, plus $600 private secretary's allowance.
4.	Private secretary to Mr. N. W. Rowell,
K.C.; $3,500.
[Major-General Mewburn. ]



CANADIAN FREIGHT CARS IN U.S.

*Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Has the Government, by itself or through the agency of a Commission or some party, taken steps for the return to Canada of freight' cars in the United States at the present time, belonging to Canadian railways? If so, what steps have been taken?
2.	Through whom, and to whom, have representations been made?
3.	What has been the result?
4.	Has the (Government provided that in future the freight cars owned by Canadian railways shall not be unduly detained in the United States to be used in the operation of railways in that country?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes. The matter has been taken up by the Minister of Railways with the Hon. Mr. McAdoo, Director Deniera! of the United States Railways; the Regional Director of the United States Railways and the Car Service Section of the United States Railways; with the Canadian War Board at Washington, the Canadian Railway National Defence Association, and the railways have been doing all they could of their own initiative.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	We have not yet secured the return of sufficient Canadian ears or of the delivery of enough United States equipment to offset the Canadian cars.
4.	There is no way toy which the Government can exercise any jurisdiction over Canadian cars when they are in. the United States. In. order to prevent any further numlber getting away from Canada, some time ago all Canadian railways refused to allow their cars to toe loaded for United States points, except in case of great emergency.



CANADIAN NORTHERN PHYSICAL ASSETS.

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has any inventory been made of the physical assets of the Canadian Northern, railway of Canada since the month of September, 1917, or within a year prior thereto?
2.	If so, who made the inventory and when was it made ?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to have one made in the near future? If not, why?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	An inventory was made of the physical assets of Canadian Northern railway by Professor [Swain. andJ is dated March 10, 1917. Full copy of report is included in Report of Royal Commission to Inquire into Railways and Transportation, and' which was laid on the Table of the House.
2.	Answered toy No. 1.

3.	An announcement will be made in due course after report of Arbitration Board has been received.
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.	.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	How many buildings have been rented by the Government in the City of Ottawa since ^February 1, 1915?
2.	Who are the owners of the said buildings?
3.	Where are said buildings situated?
4.	What rent per annum is paid for each building or part of building?
5.	For what time or term are said buildings rented?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. LEMIEUX:: For a copy of all correspondence and other papers concerning the merger of the Bank of British North America with the Bank of Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence concerning the resignation of W. F. O'Connor, K.C., as Cost of Diving Commissioner.



WAR GRANT, $500,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38 for granting to His Majesty aid for military and naval defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I proposed the second reading of a Bill very much the same as this in February, 1917, and I had then great hope that it would never be necessary tjo propose in this House a vote for war purposes of so large an amount. Unfortunately, the duration of the war has greatly exceeded the anticipations we had at that time, and the present is a moment v hen the greatest effort of the nation seems to be required.
It is not necessary, I hope, for me to say anything in support of the principle which this Bill embodies. It is, however, most desirable-indeed, absolutely necessary- that full information as to expenditure during the past year and estimates, for the coming year should be afforded to the House in order that they may consider whether or not the Bill in its present form should be approved. It is precisely in the same form as the Bill which passed this House last year. I propose, therefore, if it meets the view of hion. gentlemen opposite and of the House in general, that the House go into committee on the Bill, whereupon I shall give such information as is available with regard to the expenditure
of the past and the estimate for the future.
I shall endeavour to have that information placed upon Hansard in a form which will be quite intelligible. After I have discharged that duty, the Minister of Militia and Defence will give a statement to the committee setting forth information more especially upon the military side of the questions that are involved. We shall then be very glad to have suggestions from hon. gentlemen as to any further information that may be desired. I would then propose that the committee should rise and report progress, in order that the information thus spread upon the pages of Hansard may be taken into account with a view to further consideration of the Bill in committee on another day.
Wilfrid Laurier: The suggestion of the Prime Minister, in so far as the method of giving information to the House is concerned, is quite acceptable. In older to facilitate business, the information which is usually conveyed to the House in a reso- -lution was postponed until the second reading of the Bill. We on this side of the House shall reserve our right to criticise the main features of the Bill, after the information promised has been received, when the Bill comes up again for discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
On Section I-short title:
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Bill is_ considered section by section, it is desirable that I shall set forth, so far as it is available, the information to which I alluded in speaking upon the motion for the second reading. It is important that the committee should be informed of the war expenditures from the commencement so far as the returns have been received. Hon. gentlemen will, of course, realize that full particulars and details as to expenditures overseas are not available for some months 'after the expenditure has taken place.
The expenditure overseas has, naturally and necessarily, been under the direct supervision of the Auditor General. I think about two years ago we conferred with the Auditor General as to the desirability of his having special officers on the spot in England to audit the expenditures over there. We gave him an absolutely free hand. We told him to appoint for that purpose officers who should be resident overseas, and, if necessary, to establish a branch of his office in

It should he borne in mind, however, that it is only possible to give for the present year the totals of the items which have passed through the books of the Department of Finance up to date. Very large items chargeable to the past fiscal year, especially with regard to the overseas forces, may be expected to come in for a considerable time, yet, even as late as the end of June.


Charles Murphy: Will the details of the expenditure for the year 1917-18 be available to the committee?


Robert Laird Borden: We will make
them available as far as we can. Of course, my hon. friend understands that the Auditor General's Report has not yet been prepared. We will give all information that is presently available. .


Charles Murphy: Will it be possible to
supplement that toy a statement, such as was afforded us last year and the year before, of the expenditure in addition to the information contained in the Auditor-General's Report?


Robert Laird Borden: We did give
some such statement as that to which my hon. .friend alludes. I have some of that information now in connection with the estimates for the coming year. A very careful estimate has been made which I shall give to the committee in a few moments and that contains pretty full information as to the character of the expenditure which has been incurred during the past and previous years and which 'will have to be incurred during the year upon which we have just entered. I am just reminded toy the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence that the report of the Militia Council, which has just been laid on the Table, and which will be distributed at once, contains information up to the 31st of March, 1917. As far as it is possible to supplement that in regard to the expenditure during the past fiscal year we shall give the information, of course.
Now, with respect to the character of the expenditure of the various departments during the past fiscal year and the estimated expenditure .for the fiscal year upon which we have entered, it will .be possible for me to make a statement in tabulated form. I hope hon. gentlemen will bear in mind that with respect to the expenditure during the past year there may be some discrepancy between the report which is given to me from the several departments and the report which I have just read from the Department of Finance because some of the
items which have been paid may not yet have gone through the books of the Finance Department. The report from the Department of Agriculture is as follows:



EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

[Stage Direction]
1917-18	1918-19
Expenditure		$63,001 10
Estimated Expenditure	 $317,000 00
The items of the expenditure of $63,001.10, as presented to me by the Department of Agriculture are as follows:
Exemption representatives,
expenditure	$11,155	38Unpaid accounts	3,260	00Total	
Bacon-hog Campaign,
expenditure	
23,763	60Unpaid accounts	2,135	35Total	
Salaries of substitutes,
expenditure	
Representatives at Leave-of-Absence Boards, expenditure	 542 45
Unpaid accounts		5,500 00
Total
[Stage Direction]
Grand total	 $63,001 10
The estimated amount required by the Department of Agriculture for 1919 shows an increase of $280,000, consisting of allowance for substitutes, $17,000; representatives at leave of absence board, $20,000, or a total of $317,000.
The next item is Canada registration board. The estimate for the expenditure of that hoard is $1,000,000. The minister in charge, Hon. G. D. Robertson, informs me that voluntary service may reduce this amount by one-third, and he hopes it will be so reduced.
The next item is- Gustoms. The expenditure during the past year was $10,000; the estimate for the coming year is $10,000, and it comprises salaries and expenses of certain officers employed to enforce the prohibiting orders respecting exports and imports under the War Measures Act.
The next item is for the Department of External Affairs. The expenditure for the past year, as reported to me, is $19,914.46. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $35,000, and the increase is due to the transfer of the Prime Minister's office from the Privy 'Council to External Affairs.
The Department of Finance is next. The expenditure during the past year reported to me is $38,847. The estimate for the coming year is $60,000, and the increase i3 largely attributable to the newsprint commission.
The next item is with regard to immigration and colonization. The expenditure during the past fiscal year is, rofighly speaking, $30,000. The estimate for the present fiscal
[Stage Direction]
year is $35,470. The actual expenditure from May 24 to February 28 last
4 p.m. was $22,228.64. The increased expenditure has been occasioned by closer inspection at the American border, under Order in 'Council number 1433, to prevent men eligible for military duty from leaving the country.
Department of the Interior. The expenditure during the past fiscal year was $96,670, and the estimate for the present fiscal year is $100,000, or about the same amount. The expenditure is altogether, or nearly altogether, in the payment of substitutes for men who would have enlisted and gone-overseas.
Wilfrid Laurier: Can the hon. gentleman tell me what is meant by " substitutes?" I have a statement of expenditure before me, and the figures do not correspond. I see .an item, "Interior, salaries for substitutes," $1,100,000 for this year and for the past year the estimate is larger. I have before me the paper the right hon. gentleman sent to me.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly I may have been reading the wrong column. The figures are a little out of line. I see, on looking at the items, that the right hon. leader of tihe Opposition is reading the wrong column. With reference to his question, I may say that when men applied for leave of absence to. enlist and go overseas it was necessary to provide temporary 'substitutes to do their work in a great many cases, and this amount in connection with the Department of the Interior is for that purpose, because a very large number of men, from both the inside and outside service went over.
The Department of Justice. The expenditure for the past year was $1,470,000 and the estimate for the present fiscal year is $1,100,000. The cost of internment operations has been reduced from an annual Charge of $1,230,000 to about $600,000. There are a few increases in other items of that department, but on the whole there is a net estimated decrease of $370,000.
Department of Labour. The expenditure during the past year is $39,480.22. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $75,000. The increase is due to the increased staff required for investigations.
Department of Marine and Fisheries. The expenditure during the past year was $569,297.98. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $34,735,470. The increase is due altogether .to the shipbuilding programme, which is being paid for out of the war appropriation.
[Sir Robert Borden.l
Department of Naval Service. The expenditure during the past year was $10,662,981.91. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $19,000,000, and the increase is due to a large, increase in all directions of naval activities which have been considered absolutely necessary, after a very careful study, and very many conferences with the British Admiralty and very high naval authorities, who have been sent to this country for the purpose of such conference.
Post Office Department. The expenditure during the past year was $900,000. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $600,000. The explanation, of that decrease is that an amount of $300,000, which was asked for to cover salaries of substitutes for men who might enlist, will not be required, as no salaries have been paid to men who have enlisted or been drafted since the Military Service Act was passed.
Privy Council. The expenditure during the past year was roughly speaking $30,000. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $15,000, and the reduction is due to the transfer of the Prime Minister's staff from the Privy Council to External Affairs.
Department of Public Works. The expenditure during the past year was $217,500. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $3,664,000. This is due almost altogether to the necessity of further buildings for military hospital accommodation. Those buildings are being constructed by the Department of Public Works. It it also due, to some extent, to the repairs to 'Government property, damaged or destroyed by the explosion at Halifax.
Department of Railways and Canals. The expenditure during the past fiscal year was $1,150,000, and the estimate for the present fiscal year is $700,000. The difference is accounted for by the fact that an item of $450,000 had to be appropriated to make good the damage to the railway by the Halifax explosion. That item will not be necessary for the present fiscal year.
Department of the Secretary of State. The expenditure during the past fiscal year was $82,106.0?. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $60,000. There is a decrease of about $29,000 in printing and stationery, and some slight increases in other items, which together account for the difference.
Department of the Archives. The expenditure daring the past fiscal year was $13,435, and the estimate for the fiscal year is $10,000. The expenditure is in relation to the War Archives Survey Commission and the War Trophy Exhibitions.

Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. The expenditure during the past year in respect of matters that are now under the direction and control of that department was $9,303,294.80. The estimate for the present fiscal year is $12,000,000. A note which has been placed before me states that the expenditure of the military hospitals commission for eleven months ended February 28 was the amount that I have mentioned, $9,303,294.80. Of this amount $5,678,749 will not recur owing to the transfer, under Order in Council No. 433 passed on February 21 last, of certain branches of the Military Hospitals Commission, to the Departments of Militia and Defence and Public Works. The note further states that the expenditure for the coming year is difficult to estimate as a great deal depends upon casualties overseas, the rate of return of wounded and invalided soldiers until final discharge, and the number of men who may require re-education. However, the very best estimate that has been made is $1,000,000 a month, or $12,000,000 altogether.
Department of Trade and Commerce. The expenditure last year was $121,861.77, and the estimated expenditure for the present year is $286,864.29. The increased expenditure thus estimated is due to the establishment of the war trade board and the performance of the duties which it has undertaken, and also to larger expenditure by the fuel controller in the present fiscal year.



WAR ESTIMATES 191S-1919.

[Stage Direction]
Canada and Overseas.
Pay of 110,000 troops in Canada and 290,000 in
England and Prance	
Less Assigned Pay paid in
Canada	 $54,000,00'0 j
Less estimated increase. Deferred Pay	 8,000,dOOf]
Assigned Pay, Overseas troops	
Separation Allowance	
Rations, etc., 110,000 troops in Canada at 50 cents each per day and 150,000 in England at
38i cents	
Clothing and Necessaries:-
First issue to 100,000 men at
$64,00 each	$6,400,000
Half-yearly to 100,000 men at
$29.00 each	 2,900.000
Accoutrements to 100,(ino men at
$5.00 each	 500,000
(haversack, waist-belt and water bottle). "Upkeep of clothing 160,000 men in Canada and
England at $58 each $9,280,000	
Outfit Allowances to officers, nursing sisters and
warrant officers	
Equipment-including harness and saddlery, vehicles of all kinds, tents, blankets and all equipments, except rifles, machine guns, small
arms ammunition and clothing	
Ordnance Services-including all expenses in connection with Ordnance Stores	
I come to the principal item, the expenditure by the Department of Militia and Defence, and I shall give to the Committee such information as I have available with regard to the expenditures both in this country and overseas in connection with the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: I understand that the Hospitals Commission is henceforward to be under the Militia Department?


Robert Laird Borden: What has
been accomplished is this: The care and treatment of returned soldiers up to the time of their discharge, whether in hospital or otherwise, is now undertaken by the Department of Militia and Defence; but the care and treatment after their discharge, and many of them require care and treatment after discharge, is undertaken by the Invalided Soldiers' 'Commission, which is under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. The estimates that have been placed before me divide the proposed expenditure into that which will be incurred in Canada, and that which will be incurred overseas. In making this estimate the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence
has looked to the enrolment during the year of one hundred. thousand men in Canada for the purpose of supplying reinforcements to the forces at the front. The estimate which has been placed in my hands, and which I have discussed with him, is as follows:			
Estimated Expenditure in Canada.	Estimated Expenditure Overseas.	Estimated Total Expenditure.$ 50,187,500	$132,312,500	$182,500,00062.000,000	62,000,00070,312,500	120,500,00054,(M)0,000 21,750,000	6,000,000	54,000,000 27,750,00020.075,000	21,000,000	41,075,00019,080,000	19,080,0001,000,000	700,000	1,700,00020,000,000	20,000,0001,800.000	1,800,000



WAR ESTIMATES 1918-1919.

[Stage Direction]
Canada and Overseas.
Medical Services-including medical equipment,
drugs, etc and special diets	
Ammunition-Dominion and Lindsay Arsenals
and Dominion Cartridge Co	
Machine Guns	'	
Ocean Transport	
Railway Transport	
Forage	
Veterinary Services-including purchase of re- mounts, cost of forage etc	
Engineer Works, housing of troops etc	
Civilian Employees	
Sundry-including recruiting expenses, telegrams, printing and stationery, pay of censors, customs dues, funeral expenses, drugs,
etc (in Canada)	
Printing and Stationery (Overseas)	
General Expenses (Overseas) including all miscellaneous expenditure not chargeable elsewhere, expenses in connection with Mechanical Transport, horse transport. Engineer Services (other than new buildings) damage claims,
cost of funerals, exchange etc	
Maintenance of troops in France at 9/4 -each per day	
It might be well to place before the committee, so that hon. gentlemen may have the opportunity of studying it, the explanatory note upon the estimate -which I have just read. .
The estimates of 1918-19 are based on the assumption that the operation of the Military Service Act will increase the number of troops-raised in Canada to a total of 500,000, accounted for as -follows:
First Draft, Military	Service Act_____	100,000
Home Defence Force	 10,000
In England	 150,000
In France	 140,000
Discharged after service at the front
Killed, died of wounds,	&c	 100,000
500,000
The estimate of 150,000 troops in. Great Britain -might, perhaps, be misunderstood, if I did not explain the view set forth to me by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence. It must be borne in mind that the troops in Great Britain comprise, in the first place, the Forestry Corps, which is carrying on important work in the United Kingdom; there is a considerable-force of that corps doing such work in the United Kingdom. In the second place, it comprises all the wounded men who are in hospitals in various parts of the United Kingdom. In the third place, it also includes the men who, having become convalescent in the hospitals, are sent to the various carnps in the United Kingdom in order that they maybe trained again for service at the front. And, lastly, it includes all the troops that

Estimated Expenditure in Canada.	Estimated Expenditure Overseas.^	Estimated Total Expenditure.
	2,800,000	2,800,000
5.000.	000 2.000.	000 4,612 500 11,062^500 450,000	450,000	5.000.	000 2.000.	0-00 4,612,500 11,512,500 450,0002,750,000 2,920,00'0	3,000,000 1 250,000 750,000	3.000.	000 4.000.	000 3,670,0003,000,000	30-0,000	3,000,000 300,000l.SOO.OOO	1,800,000115,000,00-0,	115,000,000$217,S87,5-00	$225,162,500	$443,050,000
from time to time are sent from this- country to Great Britain in order that they may be available as reinforcements for the front. It includes also a 'considerable number of men who are detained in Great Britain, for the purpose of doing necessary work around the hospitals and the camps and for various purposes of that character, and so the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence has made his estimate based on these considerations.
The note goes on to say that the proposed expenditure in Canada amounts to $217,887,500, and it is estimated1 that $225,162,500 w-ill be expended overseas, making a total or $443,050,000, which works out to an average of $1,107.62 per man. I recollect that, in. the early days, of the war, the statement-was made to the House that the probable expenditure for keeping each man in the field for a year would be about one thousand dollars. This estimate is slightly in excess, of that, me memorandum, .proceeds: DETAILS.
Pay.-The average cost works out at $1.25 each per day for all ranks; deducting 100,000 for casualties as above, the daily cost for the 400,000 remaining on pay would be $500,000 or a total of $182,500,000 for a year. The increase in the amount of deferred pay for the troops Overseas is estimated at $8,000,000.
As men return in increasing numbers from the front, of course, deferred .pay will become payable to. them in increasing volume, and arrangements are under consideration by the Department of Militia and Defence as to the best manner in -which that payment can be carried out so as to

ensure that the deferred pay thus handed over will (be employed 'by the mien for some useful purpose. The memorandum proceeds :	.
The net amount required for pay would, therefore, be $174,500,000, of which $50,187,500 [DOT]would be paid in Canada, in addition to $54,000,000 assigned pay of troops Overseas, and $70,312,500 would be paid in England.
Separation Allowance.-There are at present about 71,000 dependents in Canada receiving separation allowance. The allowance has been extended to dependent sisters and invalid fathers during the past year, and increased for rank and file from $20.00 to $25.00, making an average of about $26.75 a month for all ranks- This would amount to about $19,000,000 for the year, and allowance is being made in the estimate for possible increase in numbers.
There are also a number of soldiers' dependents in receipt of separation allowance who reside in the British Isles and are paid by the Chief Paymaster, Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force. It is estimated that about $6,000,000 will be paid out by him on that account during 1918-19.
' Rations.-This includes the allowance in lieu of rations and rations in kind. The average cost in Canada is 50 cents per day for each man, the average having increased by 15 cents over last year's estimate. For the troops in England the average cost of rations, billeting etc., is estimated at about 1/7 (38£ cents) per diem each for 150,000 men only, as 140,000 at least will be in France and rationed by the British Government.
Clothing, Necessaries, Accoutrements.-The estimate is for the outfitting of 100,000 troops at $64.00 each for clothing and necessaries, at $5 each for waist belt, water bottle and haversack to be supplied in Canada, and upkeep at $29 each for the first renewal after 6 months; and for the upkeep of clothing for the year of the remaining 160,000 men in Canada and England. Accoutrements, other than the three articles enumerated are supplied in England and in all probability will not be paid for until the end of the war. The upkeep of clothing for the^troops in France is covered by the payment to the British Government of 9/4 a day each for their maintenance.
The arrangement made with the British Government in the autnmn of 1916 was for a considerably less amount than nine shillings four pence each; I mentioned this to the House last year. After that arrangement had been in force some time, however, the British Government desired that it might be reopened, under an understanding which had been made when it was first entered into. The grounds upon which they based their request seemed to be reasonable, and I believe that the request has since been acceded to by the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. The ground was this: at the time the arrangement was made no one had any conception of the tremendous expenditure for ammunition, especially ammunition for the field guns; there was
no adequate conception of the number of shells that would be used in the tremendous battles that have since been waged. They gave us quite satisfactory evidence that some readjustment ought to be made of the amount of six shillings or thereabouts that had been first decided upon. I am not quite sure whether or not we have yet acceded to the proposal. It was thought when I was in England about a year ago that some further inquiry should be made and the most exact information procured before we should give our final assent to any change in an arrangement which had been made after very careful study and consideration. As I say, however, the other dominions have agreed to the change, and unless there is some good reason to the contrary-I know of none at the moment- it would appear desirable and even necessary that this (country should adopt the course which has been adopted in Australia and New Zealand in that regard. When I went over this memorandum with the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, the question occurred to me as to why the cost here is greater than in England. He tells me that the rations of the troops in Canada are issued on a very generous scale, and include some articles that cannot possibly be provided in the United Kingdom. On that account-really on account of the food conditions in the United Kingdom and France-the ration with which the soldier is provided there costs less than the very ample ration which is provided in this country.
The memorandum continues:
It is estimated that $1,000,000 will he required to pay the proportion of the outfit allowance issued in Canada to officers, nursing sisters, and warrant officers, and that a further sum of $700,000 will he paid out by the Chief Paymaster, Overseas.
Equipment,. This includes everything in the way of requirements in the field except what is provided for under other heads. This is based on previous expenditure but may or may not all be expended, depending on whether payment will he required by the British Government for articles supplied in England.	[DOT]
Ordnance Services (Overseas). This is to cover the upkeep of ordnance stores for the C.E.F. and all expenses connected with their purchase and distribution.
Medical Services (Overseas). For the purchase of medical equipment for hospitals and the upkeep of existing hospitals, field ambulances and clearing stations, with all incidental expenses such as bandages, drugs and special diets.
Ammunition. The estimate is for quantities manufactured by the Dominion and Lindsay Arsenals and purchased from the trade, the former being based on estimates from the respective superintendents and the latter on previous expenditure.
[Stage Direction]


Machine Guns. The estimate of $2,000,000 is based on past expenditure.
Transport. The estimate of $15,675,000 is for the railway and ocean transport of 100,000 men eastbound and for 25,000 invalids westbound at $125.40 each. In addition to this sum it is estimated that $450,000 will be required by the Chief Paymaster Overseas for the payment of the travelling expenses of officers, N.C. officers and men on duty in the British Isles.
Railway transport of troops in England and ocean transport from England to the continent is provided by the British Government and will in all probability not be repaid them until the end of the war.
Forage. There are 2429 horses with the C.E. F. in Canada at the present time. Forage for these at the estimated rate of $180 each will cost $437,220 leaving a margin of $12,780 for any addition to the above number which may be made during the year.
Veterinary Services (Overseas). This estimate of $3,000,000 is for the purchase of remounts, cost of forage, and all expenses of a veterinary nature.
Engineer Works and Housing- of troops. This includes the estimate of the M.G.O. for Canada with a slight increase for incidental services and $1,000,000 for rent, water, fuel and light. The estimate of $1,250,000 for Overseas includes $1,000,000 for rent, water, fuel, light, etc., and $250,000 for the erection of any new buildings which may be required for the accommodation of the troops.
Civilian Employees. There are 4,000 civilians, including clerks, paid1 from War Appropriation in Canada. The expenditure overseas under this head in 1916-17 was $473,553.43. The number of employees is now considerably increased, and some further increase may be expected in the coming year.
Sundry (Canada). This is to provide for the pay of censors, recruiting expenses, telegrams, cables, postage, printing and stationery, customs duty, funeral expenses, drugs, and all other expenditure not included1 under other heads.
Printing and Stationery (Overseas). For the purchase of office equipment and stationery and the printing of forms, books, etc.
General Expenses ,(Overseas). For the payment of all miscellaneous expenses not chargeable elsewhere, including expenditure in connection with mechanical transport, horse transport, Engineer services (other than new buildings) damage claims, cost of funerals, exchange, etc.
Maintenance of troops in France. This is to repay the British Government for the maintenance of 140,000 troops in France at the stipulated rate of 9/4 each per day.
I have already explained that the stipulated amount in the first- instance was six shillings per day, but we have been asked to increase it to nine shillings four pence per day, for the reason already mentioned.
That is all the information with which I think I need trouble the committee at the moment. The Minister of Militia and Defence will follow 'me with a statement more directly connected with the military features of the situation, and afterwards we shall be glad indeed to have any inquiries from hon. gentlemen regarding any further available information which they may desire to have placed before the committee.
[Major-General Mewburn.j
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence):	I feed somewhat
diffident, in appearing before the House to give an explanation of the war policy of the Government, because I realize fully the magnitude of the task, and I would, - Therefore, bespeak for myself the usual generous indulgence extended to a new member. This is the fifth-occasion since the war began on which war estimates have been presented to the House. In dealing with the whole situation, I should like, if possible, to transfer the minds and imagination of hon. members to our troops in France. On what is known as the western front there is a Canadian army of not far short of 150,000 men. The existence of that army is the reason for my being here to-day. Its presence there gives us a high status among the nations of the world even at this early date in the history of our young country. It is our business and it is our pride as a nation to maintain that army. I venture'to suggest that, in all our thoughts about our policy, we should keep our army constantly first in mind. Its efficiency should be the standard at which we should aim, and by keeping its wellbeing ever in mind, we shall preserve a sense of proportion in weighing the details of our national effort The .heroic deeds of the Canadian Expeditionary Force are a sacred pride to every true Canadian.
I think I am justified in giving to the committee an outline of our organization in France, and I ask that the committee do not require certain detail which it would not be advisable in the allied interest to give.	>
'The Canadian Army Corps, as it exists in France, as hon. members are all well aware, is under the immediate command of Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Currie. It consists of four divisions, comprising an. establishment of about 78,000 men and corps troops, largely artillery, amounting to about 11,000 more.
Wilfrid Laurier: reserve units are also included men in hospitals; that is3 when a man is evacuated from France as a wounded man, he is immediately taken 'off the strength of the base in France and taken on the strength of his reserve battalion or unit in England. He is shown as either in hospital undergoing treatment, or in a convalescent home, or in one of the reserve units which he may join after his convalescence is over. We have, therefore, those men in the various categories, and at one time what was known as category "A" was down to a very low ebb, particularly after the battle of Passchendaele, when the casualties were very heavy. Our men go from one category to another, and when they work up to category " A," they become available for reinforcement.
We also had the Fifth Division which was at first intact, but which it unfortunately became necessary to break up in order to ensure a steady flow of reinforcements for the other divisions in France.
That was one of the most highly trained divisions we ever had since the commencement of the war. But it was conceded, and it must be conceded, the way recruitment is, that iCanada could not maintain and keep up more than four divisions at .the front. It was 'believed to be far better that we should maintain four divisions up to strength than attempt to maintain five divisions that were only partly up to strength. Therefore, for military reasons, sad and disappointing as it was to the officers, it was conceded to be essential *that the divisions should be (broken up and the men put into the various reserves whilst gradually flowing on to France.
In addition, we have what is known as the administrative units which take in all the business end of the organization in England, training schools, Canadian Army Service Corps, Canadian Army Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Ordnance and Pay Corps, Record, Discharge, General and Command Depots. These various establishments in England aTe most important connecting links between our army in the field and our efforts here. In .addition to that there are the hospitals.
There are several training reports coming in from time to time in connection with the overseas work in France which show what is being done from month to month. There is not much information in these reports that J can give the House as they are purely matters of detail in regard to the training but there are one or two reports which I think may be interesting and if I
[Major-General Mewburn.]
may digress -for a moment I would like to quote them to show, for instance, what is being done by the chaplain services in France, I read:
FRANCE:	The Chaplains of the Canadian
Corps have continued to prosecute their work with unabated loyalty and devotion. An estimate of the service they have set themselves to accomplish may be gained from the programme carried out by the Chaplains of the First Division during a recent offensive.
These officers have had considerable experience at the front and promptly seized the opportunity for service which they realized a sharp engagement made (possible. Knowing the nature of the operations to be carried out by the Division they made preliminary arrangements for the establishments of soup kitchens and coffee stalls in the most strategic places close to the front line in order that they and their helpers might minister to the wounded and also to the weary men going to, and coming from the battle-front. This work was carefully planned to the last detail. One of the Chaplains reporting on the four days activities states:
" We worked hard all day and most of the night serving the wounded and others. We carried hot coffee, tea and soup in petrol tins to the roadside where we distributed it together with biscuits and cigarettes. Infantry men, artillery men, tunnellers, engineers, Royal Flying Corps men, anti-aircraft personnel, stretcher bearers, and others were ministered to in large numbers."
It is estimated by the Chaplain in charge that in the four days twelve thousand were in some way served. Thousands of cigarettes were given away and great quantities of coffee and other refreshments were served out.
Another bright spot in connection with the chaplain work in France is disclosed by a report to the senior chaplain. In a report to the senior chaplain by an officer commanding one of the units of the Third Division, the following comment is made on the work of the chaplain:
In a report to the Senior Chaplain by an officer commanding one of the units of the 3rd Division, the following comment is made on the work of the Chaplain " He was tireless in his efforts to evacuate wounded and bury dead. It was mainly through his efforts that we were able to hand over our quarter of the battlefield cleared of both our own, and enemy dead. Since then his work has been most excellent. During our last tour of the trenches although under continuous observation and shell-fire he has succeeded in obtaining proper burial of 16 British dead as well as a number of the enemy." What is therein stated concerning one Chaplain can be applied with equal truth to the zeal and devotion of most of the Chaplains of the Corps.
I am just reading these extracts to show how that work is carried on by those splendid men at the front.
I now come to 'Canada with which I am more familiar. I can probably speak with a greater degree of certainty of our efforts here to procure mens to equip them and to get them overseas as soon as possible. Within the last nine months we have

thought it wise to give up any attempt to go into any detailed training. Our chief aim and obligation has been to get men over to England as soon as the ships are available and when they get over, their organization and training are completed.
Speaking generally, our efforts in Canada are to procure men, equip them, give them their preliminary organization and such an amount of training as is possible, and despatch them to England as ships are available. The Overseas authorities complete their organization and training and forward them to Prance. Conversely, the Overseas department sends back unfit or superfluous men and the Militia Department to-day are confronted with the large and serious task of evacuating our wounded and sick from England, the treatment and care thereof, and carrying out their discharge from the army; Up to a year ago we were enthused by the large number of recruits coming forward and the task that was undertaken by the citizens as a whole. It was a pleasant task to provide positions for the men going overseas, but we are now confronted with the most serious- aspect of the war, viz., the return of our magnificent men, many maimed and injured for life, broken down in health, and with shattered nerves. In other words, we are to-day confronted with the enormous task of demobilization and all that it means, of which I will speak later.
I would like to speak for a moment of the change in organization here-. What I am about to say is not at all by way of criticism because when wre look back and see the wonderful results that we have accomplished we cannot have any feeling other than that of admiration, but in the very large number of battalions that we have raised, and which were authorized, and which it must have been known could never get to the 'front, we find the reason for the very large number of surplus officers of whom I am going to speak later.
Last year it became necessary to re-organize our method of supplying reinforcements for overseas. Up to the fall of 1916, and in the early spring of 1917, we were still raising complete overseas- units. It was conceded by many of those who were vitally interested in recruiting, that complete units could not all get to the front and in the judgment of many officers, who had devoted a great deal of time and energy, that instead of raising so many C. E. P. Battalions, it might have been better, from the first, had the old militia units, through whom the first, second and third divisions were raised, been able to retain their old
numerical numbers, thereby keeping up the esprit-de-corps of the old Canadian militia units and sending forward reinforcements for the battalions that would have then been at the front. There is, of course, a great deal to be said for the system of raising complete battalions, as it was done voluntarily and it was by this means that the large number of volunteers were obtained. When the policy of sending complete units overseas, ceased, it was then necessary to organize within Canada, Depot Battalions throughout the various military districts, into which recruits were taken, and from these Depot Battalions, organized on the Territorial system and linked up with the Territorial system in vogue in England and the front, our men are forwarded in drafts to England.
The soldier to-day begins his military career in the Depot Battalion in his district in Canada. After he has gone through the preliminary training, medical examination, inoculation and vaccination, he proceeds to England with a draft and is taken on the strength of the same territorial regiment or battalion there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How long after being enlisted?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Just as
quickly as we can get him over. Ordinarily speaking, it would be much more preferable if a man could be trained here for some months before he left. To-day, within two or three weeks after the recruit is enlisted, vaccinated and inoculated, he should proceed overseas, not that it is desirable that he should do -so, but because it is a question of ships. When we can get ships we feel that we should get our men into England as rapidly as possible for the sake of getting them over and getting them trained there.
Eventually the man finds himself in France still in the same regiment which he first joined. This system has replaced the earlier method of raising battalions. For instance, we have the first and second Quebec regiment, and the first and second Ontario regiment, and so on. They are organized terri-torically by provinces, as well as could be done, although it was rather late to do it, and it has not worked out as well as we hoped it would have, because there are many men to-day from all over Canada who are in different regiments at the front. There are men from Manitoba who are in Quebec regiments, men from Ontario in New Brunswick regiments, and -so forth. It could not help but be so. It is simply a case of filling

those really necessary. Thirdly, we have 'depot units for the reception, administration and disposal of returned soldiers who are to return to civil life. These last mentioned units are absolutely essential for the purpose of carrying on demobilization, and every man 'before being discharged must have his documents and records completed and a final medical examination held before final discharge.
This question of training presupposes the procuring of men. The past year has been the introduction of the Military Service Act. I wish to make lit very elear'here that the Military Service Act is administered by the Department of Justice. The task of approaching the civil population and selecting therefrom a proper number of men to be recruits is committed, very properly in my opinion, to a civil department. When the Department of Justice has made tha selection, has decided that it is equitable and advantageous, considering alike the interests of the nation and the circumstances of the individual, that a given man should serve the country, we in the Militia Department receive him, outfit him, train, him and send him overseas.
The business of tribunals and exemptions i6 very largely outside of our sphere, although we naturally have a deep interest in the matter, and our administration touches that of the Military Service Act at numerous points. Our interest in the matter, indeed, is SO' strong that I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion there must he a decided- speeding up of the tribunals. In view of the recent events, the need for men is more apparent than ever. Canada must produce the men; she must bear her part in the great work set before civilization. The Military Service Act has produced, so far, recruits enough to keep our splendid divisions up to strength, but in order to maintain them it must produce more.
As is well known, the Military Service Act provided for the raising oif one hundred thousand reinforcements. I had no part in bringing into operation the Military Service Act. I have felt, and still feel, that we have got to get reinforcements overseas. I realize there are difficulties to he overcome, and in that connection I was much interested in the debate which took place here the other night with respect to the unfortunate occurences in the province of Que- , bee. Nevertheless I have always felt, and I still feel, that the province of Quebec will do its duty.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
[.Major-General Mewburn.]
Major-General MEWBURN: I may be wrong, I hope I am not, and I regret as deeply as one can regret the events that took place in the city of Quebec, but I feel satisfied that that province will yield her quota to keep up the number of Quebec battalions at the front. It must be known to hon. gentlemen that in the forces in France there are several battalions that are known as Quebec battalions, just as there are battalions which are known as Ontario, or Manitoba battalions, as the case may be. One or two first class battalions that went from Quebec were not altogether Englishspeaking battalions. I know of one battalion having representatives of both nationalities in its ranks that had to be broken up because there were not reinforcements.
Beyond1 question the men who are at the front should be supported and supported by soldiers from their own provinces. The city from which I come has sent overseas more than ten thousand men, and we have not got a single representative battalion at the front. That is a cause of soreness, but we do not care so long as we are contributing to the good of the country as a whole. I feel that every province should maintain its own units at the front, and while my hon.. friend, the former Minister of Militia, may not agree with me, I honestly and frankly: say that I believe that had the provinces been authorized in the early stage of the war to raise distinct and complete divisions, such divisions would have been raised and maintained by those provinces. I may be wrong but that is my own conception. As far as the Military Service Act is concerned, I sincerely hope the tribunals will be speeded up, and that we will get our flow of reinforcements to keep the men of our four divisions up to strength.
The Military Service Act is not the only source from which we have been obtaining recruits. We have in the United States what is known as the British-Canadian Recruiting Mission. Before the United States entered the war their Government consented to the Imperial authorities recruiting men within the Union. At first the idea was to get men for the British Expeditionary Force. Afterwards we were asked to join them and endeavour to secure recruits for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. We did so in a very small way, but gradually the movement.grew. The officers we have sent down there were all returned officers who had seen service at the front.
We do not obtain all our recruits from the Military Service Act. Up to ,a short ' time ago, . voluntary recruiting was per-

mitted to continue and a considerable number of men were obtained for technical services. A large number of young men, who had riot attained the age of legal obligation, joined the Royal Flying Corps; youth being [DOT]a great asset in this new and strange way of fighting.
I wish to utter a word of appreciation of the activities of the Royal Flying Corps in the Dominion. As is well known, it is an Imperial organization. Canada having followed the policy of assisting in every way possible - this organization, everything has been done by the Government, and by my department in particular, to assist the officers of the Royal Flying Corps in their arduous undertaking. Some five thousand Canadians, the flower of our youth, have joined this corps. Much glory has come to Canada through its contribution. On the other hand, the officers of the Royal Flying Corps have maintained correct and congenial relation with the Canadian military authorities. It is thought by some Canadians that we should have started, and should start even now, a flying corps of our owm but in my opinion that would be a mistake for more reasons than one. Some gentlemen also think that Canada should contribute certain squadrons to the Royal Flying Corps. Whether or not such a thing is advisable is a question to be considered. It is known that the Imperial Government have established throughout Canada a tremendous organization, and, as I have already stated, some five thousand of our young men have joined the Royal Flying Corps, and we all know what a name they have made for themselves. In one of our camps, Camp Borden, the work that was accomplished by that Flying Corps last year was wonderful. Camp Borden is recognized [DOT]as one of the best Flying Corps camps in the world. The young Canadians who received their initial training there and passed through the various courses of instruction, were considered] fit to go to the front, I am advised, as technically qualified 'Flying Corps officers after a very short period1 of further training in England. They have done so, and have made a name for themselves.
The British Canadian Recruiting Mission, as I have already said, assisted in obtaining recruits for the Imperial and Canadian Expeditionary Forces and the Royal Flying [DOT]Corps. That Mission is in charge of Brigadier-General White, an Imperial officer. His second in command is Colonel J. S. Dennis, a well known Canadian, who for months has worked untiringly throughout
the United States, and who has given his services gratis to the Canadian Government. For this mission we have furnished a considerable number of officers and n. c. o's., who have been returned from the front, wounded and unfit for further service overseas. They have done wonderful work in the United States. Through their efforts we have succeeded in obtaining, up to and 'including the 30th March, 1918,	17,553
British subjects residing in the United 'States for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. In adition to these, a large number of men have been obtained for the British Expeditionary Force as well as for the Royal Flying Corps.


Charles Murphy: Has Col. Dennis seen active service? _
Major-General MEWBURN: Not in this war. Colonel Dennis is beyond the age limit; I am afraid he is nearer sixty than fifty. He did see service in the Northwest Rebellion. But he has loaned his time, without any expense to the Government, to assist in this undertaking over there, and he has been a tremendous asset to us. All the young men who have been oveT there are officers or non-commissioned officers who have done splendid work overseas, several of whom have received honours. The young officers who have been in the United States have carried out a wonderful mission in that country. They have not only succeeded in getting a large number of first-class recruits, a large majority of whom are already overseas, but they have accomplished another and far-reaching object, namely, to foster a splendid feeling between all classes in the United States and Canada, which I venture to say will have a lasting effect. I do not know whether my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will concur in that statement, as in the early days of the session he accused members on this side of the House of trucking with the Yankees. We have been trucking with the Yankees, so far as that mission is concerned.
Sir 'WILFRID LAURIER: Hear, hear.


Major General MEWBURN:: And we are delighted to do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I approve of it, and compliment my hon. friend. We can stand some more of it, especially in the matter of trading.
Major-General MEWBURN: Now, regarding the transports. As soon as we can raise our troops and equip them, and with what little training we can give them, it is our

duty to get them overseas. So transportation by rail and ocean has been one of our great activities. Within the twelve months between April 1, 1917, and the 31st of March this year, we have sent overseas reinforcements to the number of 66,733 men. That includes all branches. In addition to that there has been a rather interesting work undertaken by our Quartermaster General's Branch, which, of course, has acted in conjunction with one of the big railroads. We have transported across this continent overseas about 85,000 Chinese coolies, who are serving in certain special labour corps in France behind the lines.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they from Hong
Kong?
Major-General MEWBURN: From north-, ern China. Some have just passed through here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have seen 'them.
Major-General" MEWBURN:	To move
such a large number of mien naturally, at a time like the present, greatly added to the difficulties of those officers entrusted with transportation duties. During the past winter unusual obstacles have had to be overcome. We had to cope with a large number of outbreaks of infectious disease; these were successfully dealt with but, of course, they caused delays and gave trouble. It is hardly necessary to apeak of the bad weather. It hampered the movement of troops as it did every other species of traffic on this continent. 'The Halifax disaster interfered for a month with embarkations at Halifax. It is only fair to add that the railways had trouble as well as we. Not only was the weather outrageous, not only was there an alarming shortage of coal, but they had to contend wilth two special disadvantages. One was that they were and are shorthanded, for we have made heavy drafts upon the skilled railway workers of Canada to serve the strategic railways of France-and brave and effective service they are rendering Another is the lack of rails. This is coming-to be severely felt in Canada. Our own troubles, it is well to bear in mind, are not in excess of those which others have to bear.
Now, regarding transports. We are up against this situation, not only as regards transports for troops going overseas, but we are now face to face with the problem of invalids coming back, and also of men unfit for further service at the front being brought back. There have been some complaints, probably some of them just and many unjust, as to the transports coming
Major-General Mewburn.]
back. We are not responsible here for bringing the troops back to Canada so far as berthing and arranging for ships is concerned. That is entirely under the Admiralty. So many troops, who are collected at the Buxton Discharge Depot, where they undergo their examination, and the returned and hospital cases, are notified on very short notice to proceed to the embarkation point and get on board ship. So far, the Canadian Government have been unable to charter a complete ship, and men complained, in .some instances, that berths were empty, and that they were not permitted to use those berths. An investigation is going on now. Some time ago an officer proceeded overseas to see if some better co-ordination could be brought adopt. The steamship companies sold passages and berths in England to civilians, and in some instances the berths were not occupied. Canada was paying so much per capita for the transport of the men, and when the ship sailed with empty staterooms, there was complaint by a few of the men; but the majority realized the difficulty about transports, and that there was bound to be a little trouble. But I think it has practically all passed away and better and more definite arrangements are being made. Probably we will be able to charter complete ships, and bring our men back as troops and not as civilians. It is a difficult thing to handle men coming back when they are not organized as units but as individuals, collected on short notice. For in- -stance, I have known of men hurried- down to the port of embarkation, and held twelve and fourteen days before they were allowed to leave. These conditions have arisen and will arise in the future, but arrangements have been made that will gradually and effectually overcome all of these little annoyances. After all, as many officers and men have told me, these are only petty annoyances and discomforts, and they realize that there is a war on, and that they must put up with some discomforts.
I would like to speak, if I may take up the time of the House for a few minutes, regarding the surplus officers returned to Canada. I feel it is my duty to say something in regard to that, and I would like to call to the attention of hon. gentlemen, who may not have seen or read it, an article which appeared a short time ago in the Military Gazette entitled "Mental Crucifixion of Officers." I shall not wade through the whole article, but I think hon. members will appreciate it if an explanation is made, and some of these unfortunate offi-


errs will have more decent consideration than they have had in the past:
It is about time that the indignities and mental torture endured' by offioers ordered back to Canada, because of age and senior rank, were put an end to by a strong and clear announcement from the Militia Department, published, at advertising rates, if necessary in every single paper, great and small, in the country.
Owing to the system of recruiting by means of oounty and district corps, so long in vogue, and so wonderfully fruitful in result, a very large number of senior officers found themselves in England, without a chance to serve with their rank in Franoe, and with but little chance, even in the lower grade, to see service there. These gentlemen had enlisted in perfectly good faith, fully expecting to accompany their respective corps to the front, only to find on crossing the seas that the exigencies of war required the battalion to be broken up for reinforcements, with the result that their connection with it was severed forever. Now, there is in England very useful employment for a great many officers. All the reserve battalions need them, to say nothing of suoh big departments as the Pay Corps, the Records Office, and a dozen minor ones. These various positions absorbed many officers or disbanded' units, who thus did useful work, releasing younger men for the front.
But as the war went on, and the number of returned' wounded offioers increased', it was felt that these men who had suffered much should be given these positions in England, their vacated posts in France being filled, wherever possible, by men from the ranks who had seen much service there.
With this plan surely no one can quarrel. As a result a gradual displacement has taken place, so hundreds of officers, of the county corps class, have been superseded by returned casualties, and find themselves without employment. What could these unfortunates then do? IF BELOW FORTY YEARS OF AGE they could revert to a lieutenancy and go to the front. Hundreds have done so, but hundreds of others, in fact, nearly all of the rank of Major and Lt.-Colonel, with many Captains, too, were above the age limit, and could not be used in this way.
I may say that that age limit has since been reduced from forty to thirty-five year?.
The writer has known many who have fairly gone on their knees to headquarters to be excepted from the general rule, and allowed to go over, though past forty. Naturally, headquarters has been deaf to these appeals, for to open the door to one would make trouble with scores of others.
Nor could1 an officer "grab up a rifle and rush to the front," as some melodramatic people at home have recommended. War is no longer a "rush to the front," but a highly organized business in which headquarters has the say as to who shall and shall not "rush" there.
As an officer said to me: "This is an awful war. It takes an awful long time to get to it." He had been in England for a year and a half. The article continues:
And so in due course, an officer who has sacrificed much in helping to raise a corps, who
has given up a lucrative profession or business, who has done his best to go and fight, and has not been allowed to do so, finds himself ordered back to Canada, and at home once more.
And then the horrible thing happens, at least it has often happened, and may again. His fellow citizens actually send a committee to ask him to apologize for not having been killed. The bitter humiliation of such a visitation can only be appreciated by one who has had to endure it.
I regret that there is a good deal of truth in what the writer of this article says. The whole trouble experienced in 'Connection with returned surplus officers is simply the by-product of voluntary recruiting. Two hundred and fifty-eight battalions were raised, each having from thirty-six to forty officers, senior and otherwise. Many of these officers had given years of their lives to training; others had joined the forces only since the outbreak of war. With very little financial assistance from the Government; they raised these battalions and took them overseas. I know one man not many miles from Ottawa who was asked to raise a battalion and assured that he would be allowed to take command of it at the front. He sacrificed his business, raised the battalion, and went over to England. There his unit was broken up and ultimately he was returned as a surplus officer. There have been many such cases, but it is difficult to know what to do under circumstances like that. In these various- battalions there were some three or four thousand officers; what was to become of them? Hon. gentlemen must bear in mind that as we were accumulating this mass of officers in England, officers without war experience and war testing, the divisions in France were advancing men who had shown ability and leadership on the field of battle. Much is to be said in favour of making promotion in war time depend upon war service. But what of our officers fresh from 'Canada? The easy reply is, " Let them revert." For the younger men this is possible to some extent, though only to some extent; for there is a limit to the number of lieutenants needed, and the battalions at the front have many deserving non-commissioned) officers of proved worth whom they desire to promote. For older men reversion becomes very difficult. When a man is past 40 he is not likely to make a very good platoon leader. That is a young man's job. Then an order was issued that no officer over 35 years of age could revert. I put it to every honourable member: if he were colonel of a battalion in the trenches and had his choice for the leadership of one of his platoons between a man of 45 who has never been in action, who was formerly a major or a colonel, and a young man of


Mr. COPP:: How long has the Militia Council been in existence?
Major-General MEWBURN: I think since 1904. Since the war started, the scope of the Militia Council has been greatly enlarged, and one can imagine that the work of the council is very much greater than

it has ever been before. It is an advisory council, matters of a very technical nature come before it, and before decisions 'are given, reports are made to it by the heads of the different branches of the Militia Department.


Mr. VIEN:: There is no longer a Parliamentary Secretary.
Major-General MEWBURN: No, I wish sometimes there were two or three of them. I should like to bear testimony to the very efficient work of several of the officers who have carried on this burden since the "war started. In the first place there is my deputy minister who is present now. I shall not say what I think of him at the present time, 'but certainly his long experience of both military and administrative work, his military services in South Africa, and his faithful and unceasing work, not only before the war but since, are wonderful, and he is deserving of the greatest possible credit. There is another officer of whom I should like to speak, and I do so with the greatest admiration and respect. I refer to the Chief of the General Staff, Major-General W. G. Gwatkin, who has been directly responsible for all the training and military operations of the troops. He has also had numerous other responsibilites thrust upon his shoulders. The public do not and probably never will realize the magnificent work that has been performed by this hard-working, patient and faithful officer. He has 'been responsible for all the confidential correspondence and cables with the War Office and has been directly in touch with the Admiralty on naval matters in connection with the war, as far as my department is concerned. The country owes a heavy debt to both General Fiset and General Gwatkin for their faithful and efficient work performed since the war started. There are other officers who are working day and night in that department. I wish to tell the hon. gentlemen present that the (Militia Department is overworked. It has no complaints to make. The only regret we had when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) brought in the Daylight (Saving Bill was that he could no(t increase the number of hours per day to twenty-four so that we might proibahly have heavier (production. fPhe duties of the Adjutant-General which are now performed hy Major-General Ashton, are tremendous. Under the Adjutant General the following officers have shown wonderful ability and have devoted all their best efforts to the prosecution of the war;
[.Major-General Mewburn.]
I refer particularly to Brigadier-General Gwynne, in charge of mobilization, Colonel C. S. Maolnnes, in charge of organization, Colonel A. Z. Palmer and Major S. T Blackwood, and others, who have worked night and day faithfully and honestly, not for the small pay which they have been receiving, but simply for the honour and glory of doing something for their country.
The organization of the department has been undergoing certain changes. My hon. friend asked me last night if 'I had the details of it; I have a draft of it here hut I shall not burden the House with the details. But the organization in the different departments is under the (Minister of Militia, the deputy minister, the chief of the general staff, the Adjutant (General, the Quartermaster General, the Master General of the Ordnance, who goes into all the technical work of the 'branches and the whole service generally, and who has a much heavier task than many hon. gentlemen realize. Then we have, under the Adjutant General, what is known as the Record Office which has developed since, the war started. That office is responsible for. all the documents and information pertaining to every officer, non-commissioned officer and mian who has gone overseas or who has returned from overseas.	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Both officers and men?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Yes. Of
course, the records of all officers are also in the militia headquarters. The Record Office in London, England, has grown to an enormous extent. It has a large staff which is responsible for getting out all the returns, the statistics relating to every individual man and all the casualty lists. As the casualties come forward, one can realize the heavy strain on that department. I have been endeavouring to make some changes in various departments, and while I am not boasting in (any way, within the last few months I have, by reorganization undertaken by a very efficient man who came from overseas, who has seen service at the front, and who. is familiar with that work, succeeded in reducing the sltaff by over 400 and in showing a saving of over $250,000 in that one department alone. There has I understand been criticism in the press and elsewhere in regard to the dismissals of employees in the record office.
There has been no person peremptorily dismissed. I want, if I can accomplish it, to get the highest efficiency and economy in my department. I do. not ever expect to reach that objective, but I am endeavouring

to do so. It is necessary in my judgment, if you are running a department, to get an efficient head, put the responsibility on that head and make him, livie up to it. If you do that, you will accomplish something. There will (be no dismissals except foT cause. In the Record Office the correspondence and the magnitude of the work is enormous. There are over two thousand five hundred telegrams and letters coming in daily that the 'branch has to deal with. Every time there is a casualty the Record Branch deals with it and conveys the news to the next of kin, promptly.
One of the largest departments under the Paymaster General is the Assigned Pay and Separation Allowance Branch. When I took charge of the department I found, the work of that branch to be something in the nature of an enormous financial (transaction and I made up my mind-to put it on a proper financial ibasis. I succeeded in getting an officer who had 'been at the, front and who, simply loaned his services until he got it running smoothly. Then, he went back to civil life. I have been assisted by financial men who have voluntarily given their service's, with (the result that I think I am getting the, efficiency in that department that I am getting in many others.
I would like to give a few facts relating to the Separation and Assigned Pay Branch in, order that hon. members may realize the magnitude of work carried on there. During the year 1917, the average number of cheques issued each month was 254,400. Since the Separation and Assigned Pay accounts have been consolidated, the average number of combined cheques is about 180,000 monthly, although, of course, action has to Ibe taken on 265,000 accounts. To write out the cheques for one month would ' take am average clerk, working full working hours, over four years. With the new printing machinery which is now being installed in the 'Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch, it would be possible, if necessary, to write these cheques in two and one-half days. This new equipment also automatically prepares the mailing list for the poet office and the Return tor the Auditor General. The average number of letters received and replied to during the year 1917 was about 425,000, or about 1,350 per working, day. Some days the correspondence received is as high as 5,000 letters.
So you can realize when some hon. member writes to know why one of his constituents has not received her separation allowance why the devil he does not get a
reply by next mail that it is very difficult to comply with every request of this -kind as speedily as otherwise might :be possible.
During the year 1917, 18,000 new Separation Allowance accounts and 56,000 Assigned Pay accounts were opened. During the same period 14,000 Separation Allowance accounts and 26,000 Assigned Pay -accounts were closed. Also, 8,000 soldiers changed the amount of their assignment, through the Chief Paymaster, overseas. Change of address has been one of the great troubles.
The number of clerks employed in the branch is 872. The total expenditure during the year 1917 was $59,561,299, or an average of almost $5,000,000 per month. It is difficult to realize the work which is done by the S. A. & A. P. Branch, unless one visits their office and makes a close inspection.
During the year 1917 almost every one of the 80,000 separation allowance accounts has been investigated to see that the separation allowance was being properly paid. The enormous amount of work entailed can only be imagined. The dependents live from coast to coast, and each investigation had to be carried on in the locality in which the dependent resided. This, of course, was only rendered possible by the co-operation of the Canadian, Patriotic Eund. Such investigation was- necessary, as no business firm would think of paying out money unless they knew that the payee was entitled to it.
The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) has been instrumental in rendering the greatest possible assistance, through the Patriotic Fund, to the Militia Department in getting information regarding these thousands of accounts.
Every payment of assigned pay from the S. A. & A. P. Branch amounting to some 170,000 accounts each month, has been checked over with deductions made in the Chief Paymaster's Office, London, England, and the organization is now so perfect that a casualty in the field affecting a soldier's assigned1 pay is acted on in the S. A. & A. P. Branch within seven days from the date of casualty being reported. I think we are improving, and that probably in a short time the department will be working more smoothly and without much cause for complaint.
The country, as far as the Militia Department is concerned, is divided into eleven military districts, the division not in all cases being in conformity with provincial boundaries. The districts are as follows:
No. 1, Western Ontario, Brigadier-General L. W. Shannon; No. 2, Central Ontario, Major-General W. A. Logie; No. 3, Eastern Ontario, Brigadier-General T. D. R. Hemming;

No. 4, Western Quebec, Major-General E. W. Wilson; No. 5, Eastern Quebec, Brigadier-General J. P. Landry; No. 6, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Major-General F. L. Lessard; No. 7, New Brunswick, Brigadier-General A. H. Macdonell; No. 10, Manitoba and a portion of New Ontario. .Major-General John Hughes; No. 11, British Columbia, Major-General R. G. E. Leckie; No. 12, Saskatchewan, Major-General J. C. MacDougall; No. 13, Alberta, Colonel G. Macdonald.
Each of these districts has a general officer commanding, with the necessary staff. That staff is qualified to perform administration duties as well as to handle all recruits, train and mobilize the same. During the past year these district staffs have disbursed in the neighbourhood of $75,000,000, under the direction and authority of headquarters.	-
As I said before, I am a great believer in decentralization. With a country the size of Canada, it is absolutely impossible to carry out the enormous amount of work by centralizing at headquarters. As heavier and greater responsibilities have been and will be put on the shoulders of G. O. C.'s of districts, some changes have taken place and other changes will likely be made. No permanent appointments have or will be made at present, as it is recognized1 as things develop that appointments to these positions will be made by officers who have seen service at the front. In all districts in Canada, there have been officers who have been carrying on the drudgery work since the war started and magnificent service thqy have performed. I know of no single instance where an officer who has been employed at headquarters has not desired to go. overseas. In some instances there have been officers who have been medically unfit and for this reason unable to proceed overseas. There are many other instances of officers, whose hearts have almost been,, broken with the idea of being held back, but in order to cope with the tremendous situation in Canada it was absolutely essential to retain certain officers in Canada to carry on the work, as Canada is the base and foundation of all our overseas forces.
Just here I wish to bear testimony to the faithful, loyal support and help that has been given by the G. O. C.'s of various military districts and their splendid staffs and I would particularly mention General Shannon at Military District No. 1, General Logie at Military District No. 2, General Hemming at Military District No. 3, General Wilson at Military District No. 4, General
[Major-General Mewburn.]
Fages at Military District No. 5 (Quebec), General Benson at Military District No. 6, General Ruttan at Military District No. 10 (Winnipeg), Colonel Macdonald at Military District No. 13 (Calgary, Colonel Duff Stuart at Military District No. 11 (Vancouver).
It is a difficult matter to single out any one officer for special recognition, as with very few exceptions all officers employed both at headquarters and at districts are performing and have performed their arduous duties with the greatest satisfaction, and the names I have mentioned are those who are the responsible heads of departments and districts.
It is my intention to carry the idea of decentralization very much further than it has ever been carried before and on the same principle as I have spoken of in regard to some of the other branches. In each military district, a good general officer commanding should be responsible for the whole organization, administration and discipline within his military district. If that is carried out, it is going to save the headquarters from a great deal of labour and it is going to make for greater efficiency because everything that is centralized in headquarters tends to weaken the efficiency of the militia service. It is difficult in a country extending three thousand six hundred miles from Halifax to Esquimalt to administer military affairs from headquarters. It is physically impossible, and the machinery will play out if it is attempted. I hope that in the near future we will have a strengthening of the various military districts by the adoption of a policy of decentralization and everything it means.
There are two branches of the service I would like particularly to bring to the attention of the House. One is the Medical Services.
The devotion of the Canadian Army Medical Corps has been magnificent, both overseas and in Canada. The following extract is from a report made by Mr. McPherson to the House of Commons in England, as to the work of the Army Medical Corps, and is significant:
In the Napoleonic Wars the percentage ot deaths from disease was 97 and from death on the battlefield three; Even as late as the South African Campaign there were 67,000 cases of disease admitted to hospital and over 8,000 deaths. Four times as many men died from disease in South Africa as there were cases in France up to the beginning of November last. Sir W. Cheyne, than whom there was no greater authority, had made It clear how, although In a stationary army epidemics of disease were most liable to break out. skill and medical science, care and forethought had made the incidence of disease in the British Forces in

France less than in the history of any army in the world."
The Canadian Dental Corps has performed marvellous work. During the past eighteen months, 1,042,000 dental operations have been performed, and I am making a conservative estimate when I say that at least forty per cent of the Canadian soldiers now serving in France, would never have been permitted to leave Canada, had it not been for the magnificent service rendered by the Dental Corps.
From the reports from overseas, on the .work of the Canadian Army Dental Corps up to the 31st of December, 1917, we learn that the Dental Corps in England and France, performed' 1,375,629 different dental operations and treatments.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men have you in that dental corps?	.
Major-General MEWBURN: It is distributed all over. In Military District No. 2, at Camp Borden and at Niagara, the dentists and their assistants have a corps of, I think, not over 35 or 40, and I know, frbim the figures I checked as A.A.G. of that district, that 10,000 men proceeded overseas to France who would have been rejected had not the Army Dental Corps given their services.
If any further information is desired I will be delighted to give it at any time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the debate to be adjourned?


Robert Laird Borden: We will meet at eight o'clock and see if any hon. gentleman desires information.
At six o"clock the committee took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed in committee at eight o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Militia and Defence this afterno-on began hie observations Iby remarking that he was opening his mouth for the first time in this House, and he claimed the indulgence always given to new members. I may tell him- that, he might have dispensed altogether with any such request. He needed no indulgence, he gave us a very masterly speech, and one which contains, a lot of very valuable information; and if he will take it from me, I convey to him the sincere appreciation of his speech from this side, and perhaps I may say from both sides. But the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, as well as
the Prime Minister, gave a lot of figures which it is impossible to review at the present time. There are also several details which, are yet needed, and I understood) from the Prime Minister that he would agree to adjourn the debate to another day.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	Then, if my
right hon. friend agrees to the adjournment of the debate we will resume it at some other time.


Robert Laird Borden: I merely thought we would resume this evening for the purpose of ascertaining if there was any subject which occurred to hon. gentlemen on. the other side which has not yet been placed before the Committee, and as to which they desire information. It would be useful to have any suggestions of that kind in order that the information necessary might be prepared and be immediately available. However, as no question seems to arise for the moment, perhaps we had better adjourn the debate forthwith.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have one
question to ask. Can the Minister of Militia and Defence give us the number of men conscripted! in Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN- The number of men that are in. Canada?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
think it- is desirable to give details as to the actual number of troops of the Canadian Expeditionary Force that are in this country, but on the 31st March there were approximately 30,000 troops in Canada, including conscripted men. If my right hon. friend would 'like to get any further information I will be very glad to give ilt to him confidentially, because I do not think it is wise to disclose the places where all these troops are. They are, as hon. gentlemen know, moving overseas very rapidly. As I stated this afternoon, we are desirous of getting them there as quickly as possible, or as soon as ships are available. We 'have distributed in the various military districts both the men who have reported to these depot battalions, and others who have come from the United States .as recruits raised by the recruiting mission that has been at work there, and they are categorized in the various branches as infantry, cavalry, artillery, engineers, medical and dental organizations, railway construction corps, veterinary units, and -so forth. Thos"

5M

are not immediately available for duty overseas by any means, unfortunately. A rigorous medical examination is now required. In the first >and second years of the war men did go overseas, and broke down under training in England or at the front; they were unable to stand the severe test of the arduous work there. Therefore we have found it necessary ithat, after the men get into the depot battalions or regiments where we have them now, and .before sending them overseas, it is necessary , to have a final medical board. .It has been found inadvisable to allow men to proceed overseas who are not .absolutely in what we call technically class A, and fit for immediate service at the front. I regret to say _ that under the Military Service Act there have been many cases of men rwho have been found after re-medical examination, medically unfit. These men have had to be discharged and this has, in some instances, reduced our available reinforcements. Some of the men in question have -been placed, even after joining the colours, in the lower B category. They will, we hope in some instances/ come back to the higher category. Then, included in )the number given are a certain number of men whom we have had on special guard duties within Canada, and whom we have 'been forced to hold, including t'he garrisons at Halifax and other points. Approximately the total is as I have stated. Should my right hon. friend desire more details I would be very glad to give them to him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Publicly or privately?


Major General MEWBURN:: Privately.
T do not think it is in the public interest to give detailed information publicly.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister, wheji speaking this afternoon, said he thought a mistake had been mads in the early part of the war in sending over so many battalions officered by such a large number of officers-I think he toll us that each battalion had thirty-five or forty officers, if I remember correctly. He said that upon reaching the other side the men were drafted into other battalions and the officers were left in England with practically nothing to do. Now there has been a great deal of talk in the press and elsewhere with regard to this matter. I notice by the press that a large number of these officers have been returned to Canada, but there still must be many on the other side. Would it be possible for the minister to state the approximate number of such officers who are still in England?
[Major-General Mewburn.]


Major General MEWBURN:: As regards the surplus officers in England, I am not in a position to give the exact number that are there at the present time. With respect to the regiments or battalions which were .raised in the early stages of the war, I did observe that I thought other arrangements might have been made, but there was this to he said with respect to the regiments in question: when these battalions *were authorized and organized, in 1915 and 1916 particularly, had it not been for the individual efforts of these officers in raising the battalions in question I do not think we wiould ever have got the number of men that we did get. Owing to the military situation those battalions went overseas up to their regular establishment, in round figures about 1,150. Each composite battalion had one hundred extra [DOT]men, but the strength was subsequently reduced to 1.050. I do not think all the officers were struck off, hut in many in stances when those battalions want overseas the officers were taken away from them. The men were put into t-ne or other of the numerous reserve battalions for training in England, which were then officered by officers who had been in England from the early stages of the war, as well as officers who' had been returned wounded from France and could not go back. Theie.were many instances where officers failed to find employment, 'but in 1916 they were all employed in England and they were employed in taking special courses. A very large number of those officers took various courses, qualifying them for the higher rank, such as field courses, and so on, with the object of giving them the higher training that would enable them to be utilized in France. Subsequently the policy was adopted under which non-commissioned officers and privates who had distinguished themselves in the field and who were recommended by their commanding officers weie given commissions. Therefore, there naturally was very little chance of some of the officers in question getting to the front. They had the privilege of reverting to the rank of lieutenant, tout in many cases officers who went from Canada did so with the rank of major and had held that rank in the Canadian militia for a long time. They had taken highly technical courses and were in command of double companies when they went to the front. There were many of those who did revert in rank and are to-day serving at the front as lieutenants, and all the more honour to them on that account. There was another class of officers who were over the age of thirty-five, and who, under the
APRIL 10, 101b
new order, were prohibited from going-" to the front. There were still others-and I think this is a great compliment to Canada -who accepted positions in the Imperial army. For a time the Imperial army were short of officers, but to-day they have a large surplus of junior officers. In some instances we had officers who were trained in the higher .branches of the service who were qualified for conducting open warfare, and who would, under the new order, be struck off and sent back to Canada as surplus. But I am glad to say that I know of two instances where Canadian officers were accepted by the British War Office and are to-day in France in command of British regiments with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The British Army recognized their ability and were glad to accept their eervices. A very large number of officers returned to Canada. I .am not prepared to give the exact number because I have not the information available. Within the last six or seven months a large number of officers have been returned. A large number have gone back to civilian life; a large number, when they found they could not get over to France, in some cases even offered to go as privates and being refused, returned to Canada. Other officers went immediately off the pay-eheet; they paid their own way back to Canada and have gone back to civil life rather than loaf around. There are other officers who, after being employed temporarily, are being sent back gradually.. Take the officers of the Fifth Division. At the time that division was up to full strength, and after the artillery of that division was taken away, there were some 330 officers released to be disposed of. There are something like_ 2,300 officers employed in administration, and a large percentage, I am informed, employed in these administrative services, are unfit to return to France. In the reserve battalions, I have not the actual figures, but I may say that these officers are being very rapidly returned to Canada, and where they cannot be absorbed here-we cannot give employment to everybody-they are very rapidly returned to civil life. Those to whom we 'have given preference and priority, having regard to efficiency, are the officers who have served actually at the front and who have been wounded and are not fit to return to the front. I am afraid I cannot give the actual number of officers now in England now unemployed, but my information is that there are very- few -and they are returning rapidly by every ship.


Samuel Hughes: The principle of taking officers from the ranks dates from the 38i
beginning of the war. On one occasion, long before the overseas minister was appointed, we had the honour of taking over two hundred and fifty men in one day from the ranks of the non-commissioned "officers and promoting them to be officers. Let me give in detail the plan. The First Division passed over. I can not recall a solitary instance in the First Division, where officers were put on from outside sources, the promotions were always from within. Then the Second Division went, taking over very few officers outside of those who had been engaged' in raising and training the battalions composing that division. The officers who were qualified in that division were retained. Some we had to replace, but in replacing them, as far as we could) we selected officers who had already served in the First Division. In the same way, the new officers held their battalions as far as qualified, which was perfectly right, and each man had to go through a very rigid test to prove whether or not he was qualified to take his position in the battalion. In other words, we did not impose on any division that had already been in the fighting, but we did take the ground that new divisions going in, or new brigades, should as far as possible, retain the officers they had been trained under, provided they were qualified. In cases where an officer had to be replaced, he stepped down and out willingly, but he was always courteously treated, not thrown out like a buccaneer, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bal-lantyne) was when he went over with his battalion. When we organized the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Divisions, in large numbers by battalions, every officer was given to understand that unless he measured up, and unless his unit measured up, he must give place to the corps already in the field, and his unit must be broken up. That was distinctly understood by ninety-nine out of every hundred, and if it was not understood' it was contrary to orders. They -were to go over taking their chances, and if by their efficiency they could merit recognition, they were to be maintained together as far as possible as reserve battalions. There never was any intention I can assure hon. gentlemen but that officers who had given their time and money, as they had done in the years 1915 and 1916-I may say here that there was never anything to equal that system in the history of this or any other country-were entitled to absolutely fair treatment.
It was only when the overseas minister was appointed that these men had their

battalions taken from them and they were thrown out. I never in my life saw anything like the way they were treated. Noncommissioned officers would sometimes take the battalions away from the colonels who had brought them over. In my time they were treated with the utmost courtesy in every solitary instance. It was all right enough to break the battalions up. That could not be avoided, except in some cases where there was favouritism shown, and men were put over the heads of better men, and others were treated discourteously and given no consideration at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: On whose recommendation were these men put over the head of the others?


Samuel Hughes: I have not the records. The hon. member will have to get that from the records. It did not. occur in my time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In your time? On whose recommendation were these inferior men put over the heads of the others?


Samuel Hughes: There were no
inferior men, no junior men, put over the head of the senior, unless the senior were absolutely unqualified, in my time. But later on there were many instances where men were put over excellent officers, their betters in every way, and these had no chance whatever, but were passed over, and then, of course, there was a good deal of trouble. The whole trouble could have been avoided if these men had been courteously relieved of their battalions instead of their being ruthlessly taken from them. Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries can explain why he was thrown out.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, I cannot altogether concur in the last observation of my good friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). I certainly was not, as he puts it, thrown out in England. I endeavoured to raise an overseas battalion of infantry, the 245th Battalion Canadian Grenadier Guards, and with the loyal and enthusiastic assistance of the officers associated with me, and at the expenditure of a respectable sum of money, I succeeded, after great effort, in Tecruiting a considerable number of men with a splendid organization, but I could not bring my battalion up to strength. The (reason fox this was that the voluntary system of recruiting had broken down, and notwithstanding the fact that there were plenty of available men in the good city of Montreal, I found it quite impossible to

induce them to join up for overseas service. Before I left with my battalion for overseas I was perfectly well aware that it would be broken up shortly after our arrival in England. I knew that my men would be drafted into one of the reserve battalions there, and later, after they had completed their training, sent forward to France. When I arrived in England wi,th my unit I was allowed to Tetain command for about ten days in Shoxeham ca'mp, and then I received orders to turn my unit over to the 23rd Reserve Battalion. I was then ordered by the General Officer Commanding, Shore-ham Camp, to report at London. I offered my services to General Turner in any capacity that he considered I could best serve in either in England or in France, but he informed me that my services could not be accepted, for two reasons: First, that qnly junior officers would be allowed to go to England, men not over 35 years of age, ,and inasmuch -as I was fifty years of age, tI could not be permitted to revert to the rank of lieutenant. The second reason was that there was a large number of junior officers in the various camps in England, *some fully trained and others training, waiting an opportunity to go to France. I found no fault with the policy prevailing in England, that overseas units arriving there of necessity had to be broken up to maintain up to strength the four divisions of Canadian infantry in France.


Thomas Vien: That was in May, 1917?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, I admit that there was a large number of Canadian officers in the various camps in England at that time, but that was not surprising. Notwithstanding the training officers and non-oammissioned officers and men receive *in Canada before they leave for overseas, they have to take a long course of additional training in England. At the present time there are not nearly so many Canadian officers in England as there were when I was there, because owing to the heavy casualties at the front they are being sent over more quickly. I will admit that, like all other commanding officers whose battalions are broken up on arrival in England, I was disappointed. I knew full well, however, before I left that this system would prevail, and I can find no fault with the treatment accorded me.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman, on his return from overseas, was one of the most wrathy men I ever met.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Disappointed.


Mr. McMASTER:: The remarks of the exMinister of Militia (>Sir Sam Hughes) maybe very interesting, tout I would ask him to speak a little louder, so that we all may get the benefit of them.


Samuel Hughes: I was saying that'the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), on his return from England was-J will not say the maddest man, but one of the most intensely disappointed men that it has ever been my privilege to meet. I told all whom I met before they left that they must take their chance; that the proficiency or strength of their battalions would be the measure of their chance of being retained in the new divisions. I wish to pay my good friend (Mr. Ballantyne) this tribute: no officer in Canada surpassed him in zeal, in enthusiasm, or in the desire to have a good battalion. For some unaccountable reason-he knows, you know, and others know what the troubles were; I shall not intrude them on the committee now, though I may do so later in the session- recruiting did not measure up as I had hoped. The officers who went over with these battalions knew that it was not possible under the circumstances for every battalion,to go to the front as a unit, but what did hurt me was that officers who had given of their time and money to the raising of their battalions should have them taken from them immediately on their arrival in England. To illustrate-I say it advisedly; the facts are as I state them unless officers have misrepresented them, *and I do not believe that they have-officers have landed in England, marched their battalions into camp, and have never 'been allowed to see them again. One member of this House told1 me that his battalion had been taken from him by a sergeant major and marched off, while he and his officers were left behind. That has been the cause of much dissatisfaction.. Many of these officers-all; I think, who were within the age-were desirous' of going to the fronts At that time there were not, of course, places for all officers. The system of taking non-commissioned officers from the ranks and giving them commissions was>
not new; it had been in vogue from the beginning of the campaign within each battalion, division, and so on. But when a new division went over it was right that the officers who had raised the units and who had given their time and money to the work should, provided they were qualified, command the battalions, companies and platoons in the field.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has told us that many of these battalions
were disposed of rather unceremoniously. He has cited the case of a man whose battalion was marched off by a sergeant-major; was this done at the instance of the Canadian, or of the Imperial, authorities?


Samuel Hughes: The policy had: been to keep the battalions there for a time and let them get settled down, the old officers remaining with them until the units were broken up. Later the policy was inaugurated of breaking up the battalions immediately on their arrival in England. That was done by the Canadian local brigadier and officers in command of the unit to which the battalions were assigned. Certainly I had nothing whatever to do with it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did this come from the Overseas Minister of Militia?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know from whom else it would come. I should hope that it did not come from this side.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: The same thing was done before an overseas minister was appointed. The commanding officer of the 189th Battalion, a very fine young man named Piuze-


Samuel Hughes: A fine fellow.


Ernest Lapointe: He recruited his
regiment with great success and crossed over in 1916.


Samuel Hughes: What month?


Ernest Lapointe: In September or October.


Samuel Hughes: October, I think.


Ernest Lapointe: An officer was waiting on the wharf at Liverpool, and when the regiment disembarked the officer asked for Colonel Piuze. He then told Colonel Piuze that he had orders to take over the command of his regiment, and that fine officer, who had been the most successful recruiting officer in the province of Quebec and who had been assured that his regiment would go to the front as a unit, had not the glory -if it be called a glory-of commanding his own unit on British soil. He had to act as a sort of visitor at the camp for some months. Colonel Piuze, who is a very well qualified officer, is to-day commanding the depot battalion at Quebec. That is what happened in England; I was there at the time, and I know what I am talking about. All the officers of the unit were very angry, and took opportunity to yentilate itbeir grievances. Colonel Piuze 'himself did not complain.


Mr. BUREAU:: The other day one of the_ members inquired regarding an article in the papers about the treatment received by the soldiers returning from overseas. The Minister of Militia and Defence replied that the matter rested with the overseas minister. I must say that I know very little about this overseas minister, and I am anxious to kno w more. We have in this House a Minister of Militia who is,responsible to Parliament for everything that is done in bis department, and we are here to criticise him if we have occasion to find fault. But things are done by the Overseas Minister of Militia for which the Minister of Militia who sits in this House is responsible. We cannot criticise those things because we do not know what is going on overseas in regard to them. The question that comes to the ordinary mufti-dressed man is: Why should there be two. departments in one, and why should one man, if I may use the expression, wear the harness, draw the cart, be exposed here to all the criticism, and yet have no- control over the pther man? il do not believe, unless they have private information, there are many members of this House, except those who have been overseas who know what is being done there. I do not know what is being done nor who is performing what duties. When I look over the statutes and read the authority of the Minister of Militia and Defence, I know exactly what his authority is and what constitutes his department; I know exactly what powers Parliament has vested in him. But when 1 speak about the Overseas Ministry of Militia, why, I do not even know by what authority it exists, unless it he by Order in Council. I do not know what are the powers of the Overseas Minister of Militia, what duties he is performing overseas or what is under his control. There is no doubt he must be spending a great deal of money in England. If I understand aright the position as it is now, the authorities in England are spending money on our behalf and we are spending money on theirs, but the balance must *be drawn some day. If they are equipping and paying for our men, if we on this side are paying for ships or wheat or other commodities, when the day of reckoning comes there is a balance to be drawn.
[iMr. E. Lapointe. 1
Who has the supervision of that expenditure on the other side? I do not know. Are we to have any control over it? Are we going to be allowed to criticise the way in which the money is expended? Certainly not, according to the way in which things are being done now. I do not, of course, want to be understood as fault-finding, all I want to know is what control or authority the Overseas Minister of Militia has with reference to the Canadian Forces, and how it is that you can have two or perhaps three departments in one? Does the Overseas Minister of Militia control the expenditure of Canadian moneys or the administration of Canadian forces in France? That is what I should like to. have light upon in order to he able to put questions so .as to ascertain what condition we are in and what we may expect from this duplicate or triplicate administration of the Department of Militia and Defence. It is most unfair -that one man should shoulder in this House the whole burden, and be in this unenviable position of sometimes being unable to give information when that is absolutely not his fault. I do not want the minister to understand that I desire to criticise him. I know he cannot do any better than he is doing. If T had two* 'branches of my business one being in Montreal, and I could not go to Montreal, nobody could blame me for not knowing anything about my deeds and abstracts there, but the system could be blamed, and people could accuse me of ignorance, or neglect, or recklessness*, for which I would be answerable if I were at the head of that office and had the administration of it.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall endeavour to relieve, as far as I can, the darkness which, according to my hon. friend, is overspreading him. If he would extend his researches into the statutory law a little further and examine the statutes that were passed last session, he would find there a statue which defines the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the Minister of the Overseas Service. That can be stated in a very few words. The Minister of the Overseas Service is to have, and does have, the isame jurisdiction and powers and duties in resipect of the troops in Great Britain and France that the Minister of Militia and Defence has in respect of the troops that are raised here before they embark for overseas. So far as the payments overseas are concerned, I have already explained to the committee-I do not know whether my hon. friend was

present or not-that they are under the direct supervision of the Auditor General, who, after consultation with the Government about eighteen months ago, detailed officers of his department for the purpose of examining the system of checking accounts overseas. Officers have gone to England for that purpose and have made any necessary examination. Further than that, my hon. friend does not seem to be aware that the major portion of the expenditure overseas is regulated by statute; that is to say, the pay and allowances of the troops who are serving in Great Britain and in France. That is provided by law'; it is not subject to the discretion of any minister or officer. In respect of transport and in respect of the provision of food, expenditures have to be made, and are made in the ordinary way. The maintenance of the troops in France is undertaken by the British Government, and a fixed amount per day for each man serving in France has been agreed upon between the Government of this country and the Government of the United Kingdom. Those are matters of accounting -which will be adjusted afterwards.


Thomas Vien: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much the amount is per man per day?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already stated that this afternoon. I shall state it again. The amount per man in France, as regulated in the first instance, was six shillings, which covered not only the maintenance of the man there, but ammunition for the rifles, shells for the guns, everything that was to be done in France.


Samuel Hughes: But not the pay of the men.


Robert Laird Borden: But not the pay of the men. I thought, of course, I had made that plain already. It is for the maintenance of the men and not for the pay of the men, so that there is very little left to the discretion or regulation of the overseas minister, but whatever is left has been under the direct supervision of the Auditor General and has been carefully checked by him from time to time. I spoke to the Auditor General to-day before coming into the House, and so far as I could1 gather from him, the arrangements made in the public interest to superintend those expenditures are entirely to hi-s satisfaction.


Jacques Bureau: My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) tells me, as one of the explanations- to make sunshine in my darkness, that that expenditure is authorized by statute.


Robert Laird Borden: The greater part.


Jacques Bureau: Very well. Even if "the .whole of it were authorized by statute, that would not be a satisfactory explanation. The expenditure of this Parliament is authorized by statute, and yet my right hon. friend knows how that expenditure is criticised, and he knows that parties in Opposition have found that expenditures, although authorized by statute, are sometimes very badly handled. That is the objection I raise. Even if the expenditure be authorized by statute, the man who has authority to spend the money ought to be in this House or have a representative here; or if you like it better, the minister who is responsible to this House ought to have a representative under his control, and this expenditure ought to be made also under his control. The other explanation given by the right -hon. gentleman is rather a surprise to me, namely, that the expenditure is under the immediate control of the Auditor General. The other night we had a discussion in this House, and I addressed the following remarks to the acting Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Finance, I do not know which, as that matter is a little hazy just now: I note that in your estimates you are decreasing the amount which goes- to pay the employees of your department. He admitted that. I asked him: How can you do it whep your work of- auditing is increasing on account of the larger expenditures to which the country is being put as a result of the war? I did not have time to look at Hansard, but what I gathered from his answer was this;
The details of the war expenditure do-not go to the Auditor General to be examined and passed upon. Hie answer seemed to- 'be very reasonable, in view of the objection that, I was -making, that the staff -was decreasing as the work was increasing. It seemed very reasonable to suppose that somebody else -must have been assuming a part- of the burden. My right hon. friend says that the Auditor General has been -there and has examined the accounts. It may be all very well to- say that the Auditor General is assuming responsibility, but I contend that the Auditor -General is our officer, he is our servant, he is independent of the Government, and for a very good reason. He is the watch dog of the treasury, as -we are pleased to call him, but I do- not think it is fair that he should delegate bis powers to any man over -whom he has- not immediate supervision. He may find a -good- man, but I

da not think he should have an assistant auditor or a staff of. auditors across the seas to perform work which ought to toe performed under his immediate -supervision in his office, and for which work he should be open to criticism. It may toe that the darkness is viery thick, as analyzed toy my hon. friend, tout that does not account for it, and that does not make me feel satisfied with the audit of the expenditure made overseas toy the Department of Militia and Defence.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry if
my efforts were so unavailing. I will repeat-


Jacques Bureau: I understand what you said; yon need not repeat.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Jacques Bureau: I suggest that the expenditures should be controlled here.


Robert Laird Borden: They are controlled here in the same way as other expenditures, by the Auditor General. They are controlled, in the first place, by the fact that they are, for the most part, fixed expenditures. No man can pay anything in

excess' of the amount fixed by law to any officer, non-commissioned officer or man who serves at the front. They are controlled, in the next place, by the supervision of the Auditor General through himself and his officers here as well as -by officers whom he sends overseas.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) does not wish to give the wrong impression that the Auditor General brought about any reforms when he went over there?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that,


Samuel Hughes: On the contrary, he was compelled to report-I do not know whether willingly or against his will-that he found everything correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is correct.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out, to show what the conditions were in England for a while, that when the troops went over there at first they were regarded, not as Canadians, but as British soldiers-. I had the honour of going over in 1914, arriving at the same time as the troops, and while speaking with the Acting High Commissioner, Mr. Perley, now Sir George Perley, he said to me: " You do not pretend to have any control of the soldiers here?" I said: " Why not?" " They are British soldiers," he said. I said that I was not aware that I was called u-pon to offer any explanation, but that I felt, as I was bound to feel, that I was standing by the law. I later on- met the Secretary of State for War, who used almost identical language. On the strength of the remarks of the Acting High Commissioner, Nie said that these troops were British soldiers, and added: " You do not pretend to have any claim upon them?" I said " I make no pretense to anything, but I merely claim what the Army Act allows." Section 177 of the Army Act, to my mind, clearly gives Canada absolute control of her troops except as to military directions in the field. Tbry are subject to the Com-rnander-in-Chiei of the British army in the field. That is the line I took. That is the ground I stand on to-day and that is the ground, I' am pleased to have to observe, is taken by the Government, although I had a long up-hill fight before I carried my point. A little later I received a message from Canada asking if the Canadians were in action. I replied " No." A cable came back asking if So-and-8o had been killed in action, saying

that his wife had been, notified by the .British War Office that her husband had been killed in Belgium. I made inquiries and I found that a man had been killed in Belgium two weeks before and it did not require a great astuteness to see that there was something wrong. Some one had drawn .pay for that man who had been dead for two weeks.	I found that the
*pay of a great many absentees without leave had been drawn by somebody. I presume that the officers did not check the matter up very closely in some cases. I immediately set to work to rectify this and I found that the Pay Department, by somebody's instructions, was under the direction of the British War Office and that ,we were not supposed to interfere. I let it pass for the time being but I instructed the officers to keep a careful eye on this aspect of the matter. Later on I found out that in order to have anything like a proper control of payments there must be a different system, and after consultation with General Carson, I placed in charge of that department, and made responsible for the correct auditing of the accounts, a very capable officer whose name I forget at the mloment. He did willing service and in a short time he reduced the system to a proper basis. We then introduced the system of paying by passbook and carried it out so that we had it down in a short time to as perfect a system as could be established anywhere. Still wishing to strengthen the system, II selected Colonel Ross, of the Royal Highlanders, Montreal, and sent him over with instructions to see that everything was done in an absolutely correct manner. Then the Auditor General, after he had been well worked up by the hon. the .Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), in a fit of epilepsy thought things might be going wrong over there and he went over himself. When he got to England he gratefully acknowledged that he found everything in absolute ship-shape. I want to narrate the condition of affairs .to the House, to show that every avenue .and every loophole for the possibility of *fraud, looseness or carelessness had been closed before the Auditor General and his .assistants were sent over by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Finance Minister. Perhaps the present *Minister of Militia might explain-although I do not charge him for being responsible for anything that has gone wrong-whether .the Auditor General has been active in seeing that accounts for separation allowance and assigned pay are kept in proper condition in Canada, or whether there have been any slips and any money lost.
Major-General MEWBURN: I understand the Auditor General has been and is auditing the accounts regularly.


Samuel Hughes: And that everything is all right?
Major-General MEWBURN: I have no statement from him, but I know that, as a matter of fact, there are a large number of accounts for separation allowance and assigned pay where over-payment has been .made, and I think in the early stages of the war, in the years 1914 and 1915 particularly, mistakes were made when the separation allowance and assigned pay were being paid out by military districts, instead of by Headquarters. In many cases where troops have gone overseas there has been over-payment in connection with the separation allowance. Every endeavour, I understand, has been made to recover those payments in some instances, and I imagine .quite a number; but I do not think those amounts can be or should be recovered. They are at present, I understand, written off or put in suspense account, and will .have to be dealt with by the House at a .later date, when they are finally ascertained, but they chiefly were cases where .married women received over-payment in connection with separation allowance, and where they have endeavoured to keep up their little homes and families. I think it would be an extreme hardship if they were .asked to refund $50 or $100. It was through no fault of theirs that they were overpaid. I am speaking generally, and am not in a position to give figures.


Thomas Vien: And is there on this side of the ocean any office or any representative of the overseas Department of Militia and Defence?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Overseas Service sends regular reports to the Prime Minister and copies' 9 p.m. of them, to the Minister of Militia and Defence. In that way touch between the department and the department here is continually kept up.


Thomas Vien: Is the Overseas Minister of Militia and Defence under the control in any shape or form of the Minister of Militia and Defence on this side, or of the Militia Council?


Robert Laird Borden: The minister
overseas is in the same position as any other minister of the Grown He is a member of the Cabinet, responsible for the administration of the department which has *been confided to him.


Thomas Vien: He has not, as yet, laid upon *the table of the House any report of his department overseas, has he?


Robert Laird Borden: The report of
his department was 'comprised in statements made upon this appropriation last year. At the commencement of last year the present Minister of the Overseas Service had been in office only a very short time.


Mr. WEN:: I want to ash the Minister
of Militia and Defence what system exists in so far as purchasing of war material is concerned? Is the war material purchased for the expeditionary force on this side of the ocean', or in England? I wish to refer specially to general service wagons, for instance water wagons, munition wagons, and also to arms, clothing, equipment and munitions.
Major-General MEWBURN: As far as the Amy Service Corps wagons or kitchens, or any equipment of that kind is concerned, none has been purchased in Canada in the last year or two. With regard to arms, the answer is, no. The arms that onr force is using at the front are supplied, I understand, by the Imperial army-the same weapon as they use. As regards the clothing, that is contracted for and purchased in Canada, and those purchases are made through the War Purchasing Commission on demand from the Department of Militia and Defence here.


Samuel Hughes: For the soldiers at the front?
Major-General MEWBURN: All the uniforms are sent from here for the troops overseas.


Thomas Vien: Even for those at the front?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes, certainly-made here in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Since when?
Major-General MEWBURN: I am advised that system is carried on at the present time. They are shipping a certain number of uniforms over regularly.


Samuel Hughes: For troops in England?
Major-General MEWBURN:	And the
boots for our troops in Canada have been manufactured in Canada, issued to the troops in Canada, and each man going overseas takes two pairs of boots with him.


Samuel Hughes: I do net know what the latest order is, but I might place the facts before the House. In regard to the

troops in England, the statement is correct. For the troops going over to France, they take the uniforms on their back, and do not change before they go. They keep the boots on their feet.


Jacques Bureau: What about the uniforms?


Samuel Hughes: When the uniform was supplied the rule was-and I fought against it-that the troops in France and Belgium should be supplied with a British outfit.
Major-General MEWBURN: Those were replacements, I understand.


Samuel Hughes: No; they are supplied to our troops, and the Prime Minister will remember that when the arrangement was made and submitted to me loj approval, I drew his attention to the fact that if these uniforms were to be taken from the British stores, the British Government should give to the Canadian manufacturers orders for a similar number of uniforms to those supplied to our troops in France and Belgium from the British store. The hon. Prime Minister will remember that. -I understand that has not been done, although we still take uniforms from the British store, but I understand the British Government is not buying from Canadian manufacturers an equivalent amount.


Thomas Vien: Is a scale of prices arranged for with the British Government, in so far as the equipment arms, and clothing is concerned? Who has control of them?


Mr. TWEEDIE:: The minister has just
mentioned one fact-


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to obtain an answer? I put a question and the minister will answer.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend will be patient, he will get hie answer.	.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: 
Thomas Vien: Would the hon. the minister answer my question?


Robert Laird Borden: I will give the
hon. gentleman the answer as far as possible. In the first place, the men go over with their uniforms from here, and with a certain additional supply, with extra boots, for example; and when they leave England for France they are fully equippea with uniforms, boots and every lining else which has been supplied to them before they leave this country. It is impossible, of course, to keep up separate depots for the Canadian force in. France. That force is part of a very large army, and it is necessary to have depots, commissariat arrangements, and everything of that kind provided for the army as a whole; it is entirely impossible to have separate arrangements foT 150,000 men out of perhaps two millions. So, in France, the replacements of uniforms, as I understand it, are made out of the British stores. I am not sure at the moment
whether or not any exact arrangement has been made as to the amount which shall he charged for these replacements. If no such arrangement has Ibeen made, it, will be suibject to adjustment at a later date. We have never found any disposition on the part of the British authorities to endeavour to exact from this country a higher price than that which would be just and reasonable for all such supplier.


Thomas Vien: Yes. _ But probably the difficulty would arise when the war is over and the readjustment takes place. Would it not toe 'better-and I suggest it with no political intention-that some arrangement should Ibe made right away so that-regard should Ibe had to prevailing prices, and no advantage taken-of perhaps higher prices at a later date when the readjustment takes place?


Robert Laird Borden: When the readjustment takes place, of course, it must be on the basis of the prices at the time the articles were furnished. J do not at all anticipate any such difficulty as my hon. friend suggests. However, inquiry will be made with regard to the matter if he considers it important. There are a good many subjects which will come up for adjustment between the two governments when this war is ended, and, of course, on both sides a complete record is kept of such matters for the purpose of the proposed eventual adjustment.


Samuel Hughes: I would draw the Prime Minister's attention to the point I raised some time ago. It may seem a small matter, but I know that the British Government is willing to deal fairly in the premises-they told me so personally, and I think the Prime Minister took the matter up also. The manufacture of clothing for 150,000 to 200,000 men is quite a little item. It is of primary importance that our factories should be kept going and employment -given to our workers. I drew the Prime Minister's attention, at the time the conference with the British Government was arranged, to the desirability of purchases being made directly through this Government from our manufacturers, or that a quantity of uniforms corresponding to the number which the British Government have supplied to our troops at the front should be replaced from here. In that way the manufacturers would receive orders and the labouring people get employment in the same manner as they would if we were ourselves supplying our own troops with uniforms.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bearing the hon. gentleman's point in mind. I impressed that consideration upon the British authorities not only by correspondence, but also orally; it formed the subject of some discussion about a year ago. The British Government are desirous of doing anything in that regard that may be practicable, but, of course, we have to take into consideration the difficulties of transport, which are very considerable. They are able to point out to us, as they have pointed out, that if we may be a little short in the supply of uniforms or equipment of any kind, we are very much ahead in the supply of shells, munitions of war and a great many other articles which have been produced in enormous quantities in this country, in very great excess of the requirements of the Canadian troops at the front. So on the whole I think we hare not anything to complain of, although we would be very glad, indeed, if an arrangement could be made by which some of the uniforms for the British troops could be purchased in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: The principle which has been enunciated by the Government with regard to the appointment of two cabinet ministers for one position is something which we on this side of th_e House cannot understand. It is to us subversive of all principles of ministerial responsibility and parliamentary practice. There are other countries at war just now as well as Canada, but I have yet to find that in any of the other governments they have considered it necessary to have two ministers of war. They are satisfied to have one minister on the parliamentary benches, and to have officers who are properly qualified for the position in the trenches. But to have ministers in the trenches and on the benches at the same time is something that does not appeal to' us at all. Now the-'United iStates are allies of ours, and I have yet to learn that they have two cabinet ministers attending to the War Department, although there would be much more reason for them to have two ministers than ourselves, because their administrative system is entirely different from ours. In the United States there is no ministerial responsibility, the cabinet is in no way responsible to the House; and if a member of the United States cabinet wishes to take a jaunt across the Atlantic to see how matters are going on at the front, the business of the country can go on just the same. I see by the newspapers that Mr. Baker is conferring with the Allies on the other side, but no Additional minister, as I understand it, is taking
fSir Sam Hughes.]
his place even Under the American system. The only reason I can suggest why there should be two ministers for Canada-one on the other side of the Atlantic and one on this-is that they should not quarrel, and therefore it is well to have the Atlantic ocean between them. Or, it may be, that the right hon. the Prime Minister, in his desire to see that both parties were properly represented in the Union Government, thought fit to provide that the Conservative Minister of Militia should be on the other sde of the Atlantic, and the Liberal Minister of Militia on this side.
- Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (KamOuraska): Fifty-fifty.	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: This system of providing positions in order to make room for every person, in order to see that every person is happy during these strenuous times, is further exemplified in the division of the functions of the Minister of the Interior. That position has also been divided, and now we have a Minister of the Interior, looking after the Department of the Interior I suppose, and we have a Minister of Immigration and Colonization. At no time in the history of Canada did we less require a Minister of Immigration than at this time when there is not a single immigrant coming into the country, and as for colonization the matter is not to be thought of until after the war is over. And yet it was considered necessary to create a new portfolio only a few months ago, and $7,000 of the people's money accordingly goes to the up-keep of a Minister of Immigration and Colonization.
Then we have also the Ministry of Finance divided, and we find a Conservative Minister of Finance in California three thousand miles away, and at the same time we have a Liberal Minister of Finance in Ottawa, so that every one is satisfied.
So far as I can understand, Mr. Chairman, the position which the Overseas Minister of Militia occupies just now is nothing more or less than that of a glorified paymaster. That is all he is, because we cannot hold him responsible for anything he does. The session will have prorogued before we are able to see the classic lineaments of this gentleman on this side of the Atlantic, This business could be done just as well by a deputy minister, and not by a full-fledged Minister of Militia and Defence, whose duty is to ibe right here at this particular time to answer all questions that are being put to him. The House had an opportunity the other day of seeing how a minister refused to accept responsibility for

certain acts committed in Quebec. When'the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) referred to one department, that gentleman stood from.under and put it on the other minister, and then that .gentleman tried to absolve himself from responsibility. That is what is going to happen in this case. The Minister of Militia and Defence will say: I have nothing to do with that; the other minister is attending to that. We have no means of checking him up, and in that way the party responsible can escape because of the duplication of the position. It is an endeavour to make some person responsible for the acts of some other person. That is what is being done by the creation of this new position. It may be that I cannot see this matter as well as some hon. gentlemen in the House, but I have always been 'brought up to believe in personal, individual responsibility, not vicarious sacrifice, and that is probably why it is that I rise to ask some further explanation from the right hon. Prime Minister, or the Government, as to why this position was duplicated at this particular juncture.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid that my hon. friend has not pursued his studies into cabinet responsibility very far, otherwise he would have learned that the Government as, a whole is responsible for the acts of every minister. There is not any such individual responsibility as he alleges, apart from the collective responsibility of the whole Cabinet. The minister has his responsibility in the first instance, but the Cabinet as a whole is responsible for the administration of every minister of the Crown. My hon. friend has not pursued his studies far enough, or he would have known what has taken place in Great Britain. One of the first things done in the first six months of the war was to divide up the War Department in Great Britain. Has the hon. member never heard of the Minister of Munitions?


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that gentleman who has been created an additional member of the Cabinet following the camp in the same way as our present minister, or is he in London?


Robert Laird Borden: He is in London, and it would be rather idle-to establish a Minister of Overseas Service and have him here when hi-s duties require him to be overseas. My hon. friend seems to think [DOT]that we have divided up departments for the sake of making positions.


Jacques Bureau: Of duplicating positions.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me say that Sir Edward Kemp was not desirous of assuming the duties of Minister of Militia -overseas, and it was at my urgent request that he accepted; he is endeavoring to discharge his duties to the best of his ability, and he is discharging them with great ability and diligence:	But with regard to
the illustration which I gave to my right hon. friend, of the division of department with which he found so much fault


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I interpose a question? Has the Minister of Munitions in Great Britain 'a seat in the House of Commons? I think he has.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, he has a seat in the House of Commons, and so has Sir Edward Kemp a seat in this House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is unoccupied.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend imagine that every minister of the Crown must be present in this House all the time?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Sometimes.


Robert Laird Borden: Doe3 he not
know that both in Great Britain and here there are ministers of the Crown who are members of the other House, and their colleagues have to answer fox them? And we .shall endeavour to answer for the Minister of Militia Overseas. But I can give you hon. friend some more illustrations to indicate to him how imperfectly he has followed u.p this question in the United Kingdom. After itihe outbreak of the war, I think about a year and a half after, .a Minister of Blockade was established in Great Britain, who undertook duties which formerly were performed by other departments of the Government, and later on ia Minister of Shipping was appointed, who undertook certain duties which theretofore had been discharged by the Admiralty. I read a statement in the British Hansard not long ago to the effect that there ate ait the present time something over ninety members in the British Government, taking ministers, parliamentary secretaries and every one else. So I think that, on the whole, considering that we are alt wax-and I hope my hon. friend will not forget that,-


Samuel William Jacobs: I helped to vote 8500,000,000 this afternoon, eo I have not forgotten it.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 thought in the course of his observations that he had forgotten it for a moment; I am glad it is always in his mind. We are at war, and there

are very serious duties devolving upon those who sit on the Treasury benches, much more serious and arduous duties than have ever before been placed on any Government in this country. It has been necessary somewhat to enlarge the Governaient, but not in anything like the same measure as has 'been found necessary in the United Kingdom. We have established a Ministry of Militia Overseas, and have put a man on t'he spot, with the idea that he could supervise over there and keep in continual communication with the Minister of Militia here, each one of them having definite and specified duties, and we have also-
Mr. JAjOOBS :	Why could not a deputy
minister do that work instead of torturing the Constitution in this way?


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend will pardon me, I do not propose going over all that debate which took place last session-


Samuel William Jacobs: I was not here.


Robert Laird Borden: -when a statute was passed which established the Ministry of Militia Overseas. It is perfectly true that my hon. friend was not here, but I might suggest that Hansard is available to him, and it might be worth while to look at that before he takes occasion to discuss this matter. I repeat that, so far as the Minister of Militia Overseas i:s concerned, we, his colleagues here, will answer for him. In the very nature of things he cannot be here to answer for himself. We shall give all the information with regard to this expenditure that he could supply, and if anything is asked for which the information is not available, we will telegraph for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman-


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I caught the eye of the Chairman.


Samuel Hughes: I shall be delighted to leave it to the Chairman, but I shall not make way unless the Chairman rules the other way.


The CHAIRMAN:: I told the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) a few minutes ago that I would see him next.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to revive a corpse, hut I would like to ask the Minister of Militia what became of the Ross rifles which were discarded?
Major-General MEWBURN: My information is that very few of them were dis-

carded, but I am not positive. I understand they were disposed of to great advantage in the United Kingdom.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were they transformed?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I cannot
answer that. The hon. ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) can probably give more information than I can.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question, and I may say, incidentally, that I do not propose entering into a discussion. I am trying to remember that we are at war-although there are ninety members of the British Government, the British are not meeting with any great success at the front at the present time; and bearing that in mind, I shall not enter into a discussion of what is fully in my heart, which might not be just as advisable to discuss at the present time as we might like. I may point out here that the United States Government, having in view the fact that the Canadian Government has multiplied its officers to a very large number, and in view of the fact that the British Government had increased its membership-though I did not know it had reached the number of ninety; God pity the country if they have ninety-refused point blank to have a committee appointed by either branch of the Congress of the United States to advise and consult with either the Secretary for War or for the Navy on matters connected with the war. If I may express an opinion, they did absolutely right.


Robert Laird Borden: In the United States they have appointed a great many boards and commissions.


Samuel Hughes: All under the Secretary of War.


Robert Laird Borden: Each board or commission is under a chairman who is in some association-I do not know precisely the nature of it-with ia department of Government. For example, they have a War Industries Board, a War Trade Board, an Ordnance Board, and a great many such bodies. I was informed1 to-day, though I do not say it authoritatively, that very important additions have been made to the War Department quite recently.


Samuel Hughes: Under the Secretary for War?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes,


Jacques Bureau: The member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) made an inquiry regarding Separ ation allowance and Assigned Pay, and

I understood the minister to say that in future, in cases where the refund asked for could not he made by the person whp had been overpaid, the amount would be written off the books and a report made to the House. I suggest that when the minister makes his report on this subject, he ask Parliament also to vote an appropriation to reimburse the poor women who have already made such payments, and who in many cases have had to borrow money in order to do so.


Samuel Hughes: Why not treat all alike, and give it also to those who were not overpaid?	.


Jacques Bureau: The cases would not be identical. The ex-minister suffers from the same disease as the Prime Minister, who gives an example of the subdividing of departments. I do not object to the subdividing of departments, but I do object to the duplicating of departments and the creating of concurrent jurisdiction. The Minister of Militia Overseas has the same power as the Minister of Militia in Canada. I know that there is solidarity among the ministers, but what I do not know is what the other gentleman is doing overseas. I should like to see him in his seat, the same as the Minister of Militia for Canada, so that we could quiz him when we wanted to find anything out.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt that he would like to be here and enjoy the privilege of being quizzed by my hon. friend or by any other hon. gentleman, but in default of his presence, my hon. friend is at liberty to quiz us.


Jacques Bureau: Why the concurrent jurisdiction?


Robert Laird Borden: I pointed out the statute to my hon. friend; it is chapter 35 of the statutes of 1917. He will see that his assertion that these ministers have the same duties is entirely unfounded. Ministers of various departments have to act in conjunction with each other. For example, if any member of the Government desires additional acdommodation for his department, say, the erection of a new building, the minister who desires the building erected gets in touch with the Minister of Public Works, under whose direction and by whose officer the construction of the proposed building is carried out. There is nothing very difficult about the situation as regards the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Minister Overseas. One deals with the raising, provision for and equipment of troops here
in Canada until they embark for overseas, . and when they reach England they come under the immediate jurisdiction of the Minister of Overseas Service.


Major General MEWBURN:: In regard to the Separation Allowance, there were many cases of hardship where overpayments on both separation allowance and assigned pay had been made. The officers in charge of the department, asked, and rightly so, for refunds where these overpayments had been made. In cases where the refund would cause hardship, however, the amounts were left in what we call the suspense account, consideration having first been given to the matter by the Auditor General. I had intended, when the adjustments were made, to come to the House and ask permission to write the amounts, off. I do not see how we could very well make the provision retroactive, because, as the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) suggests, we might have to pay every one the additional amount.


Thomas Vien: It is known that these overpayments amount to several hundred thousand dollars?


Major General MEWBURN:: I could not give the amount.


Thomas Vien: Is the minister prepared to admit that they amount to over $100,000?


Major General MEWBURN:: I would say that the amount does exceed $100,000, though I could not say by how much.


Samuel Hughes: A great many of our boys -transferred from the -Canadian Expeditionary Force to the Royal- Flying Corps, and in doing so they reverted in rank and were required to take less pay, and there was a great deal of complaint. Has anything been done in this matter?


Robert Laird Borden: If I am not mistaken, an Order in Council was passed some time ago by which -it provided that Canadian officers entering the Flying Corp6 and thereby receiving smaller pay than that of their rank in the Canadian Expeditionary Force should have the difference made -good to them. I think that is the case today.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Mr. GLASS:: Mr. Chairman


Georges Henri Boivin: I promised the member for -Oharlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) that I would -see him next. I will recognize the hon. gentleman (Mr. Glass) as soon as the member for -Charlevoix has finished.
(508


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 
Samuel Francis Glass: Reverting to the matter of overpayment in assigned pay and separation allowance, I just wanted to ask the minister whether, under the auditing system which is in force now, there is likely to be any recurrence of those errors. I presume not. In the early stages of the war, several cases of that nature came to my attention in my own district, and I knew of several cases in which it was positively impossible for those who had' been recipients of overpay to return the money. It would be a great hardship for them to have to do so. I agree entirely with the hon. members who have stated that the action the minister purposes taking in that matter will meet with the approval of the House. It would be uncharitable to attempt to enforce payment from those unfortunate beneficiaries who have been overpaid through the error of the Government. I have not had my attention personally drawn to any cas-es of the kind during the last two years, and I presume the system of accounting will prevent the recurrence of the mistakes made at the beginning of the war.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I think 1
can honestly and safely say that there have been no mistakes of that nature under the present system of accounting. In the early stages of the war those accounts were all paid out by military districts where the troops were raised. There was no oversight,

and that is how the mistakes occurred. Many mistakes were made during the first two months of the war.


*Mr. LEDUC:: I think all hon. members understand the requirements of our men overseas, but my opinion is that the men who are required at the front are trained *men, and as soon as the men are trained, we are as willing and ready as the Minister of Militia and Defence to send them overseas. But while we have the food here for them, we would not like to send them overseas until they are fully trained. Why should we send them to England to he trained, when we can look after them better than they can be looked after on the other eide iwhere there is such a scarcity of food! Last week, I was asked this question by a gentleman who has a son a prisoner in Germany:	" Is the (Minister of Militia
aware that the fathers of prisoners in Germany are sending overseas equipment, boots and everything else they require? Are we supposed to leave those .men there without any equipment whatever or are we supposed to look after them?"
(Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
know wheither the hon. gentleman was in the .House this afternoon or not, but I shall endeavour to make myself very clear in regard to the training of troops. In the first place, I believe I am supported in my view by everybody who is vitally interested in this war and who realizes the urgent need of reinforcements. The fact of having our men in England even untrained is a great source of relief and comfort to our troops in France, because they feel thiat those men are only a hundred miles away from the firing line instead ot three thousand miles. Our men going to England now are being given what is known as intensified training in all branches. An individual soldier can, with fourteen weeks of a syllabus of intensifieu training, he fitted for service in France, and no man who goes over to England is allowed to cross over to France until he has gone through that course.
As regards prisoners in Germany, I think I am right in saying that every possible measure has been and is being taken to see that our men get the proper and necessary supplies and money there through the various missions. I know whereof I speak because one of my cousins has been a prisoner in Germany since the battle of St. Julien in June, 1915, and I understand they are geltting everything that . is necessary.
Sir W1LLFRJD LAURJER: I understand 'the policy of the Minister of Militia is to use as little as possible the camps that have been built in this country, such as Camp Borden, Valoartier and Petawawa, and to send the men as soon as possible to Europe?
Major-General MEWBURN:	It would
give me the greatest amount of satisfaction and pleasure if we could use Valoartier and some of those . other large camps. As far as Camp Borden is concerned, that camp will be utilized, I think, to the full extent, by the Royal Flying Corps. I am in hopes that we will be able to get sufficient men under the Military Seryice Act this spring to enable us to have troops for training at, Valoartier and at some of the camps in the West. I had hoped that we could have forwarded overseas reinforcements at the rate of about ten thousand per month and always hold sufficient in hand for our training here. But our flow began to drop off and it would not he possible to open some of the camps unless we got an increased number of men.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will only be able to send a certain number overseas because he has not the ships available to send too many. Undoubtedly there will be such a rush to camp in the spring, and with the impetus given by the Union Government, and all that sort of thing, that our camps will be more than filled and we will not have room enough for the thirty or forty thousand men in the camps all over the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us hope so.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that it gives courage to the boys in the trenches to see the other fellows beside them. But I do pot see .any reason why . the minister should speak in a loud voice or accuse us of ignoring that there is a war on, or treat us with suspicion when we ask honest questions. When it is suggested that the scarcity of food on the other side might be regarded as a ground for training some of our men here, consuming the food here and dispensing with the necessity of finding transportation for it, that is no reason rvhy the minister should impute motives to gentlemen on this side of the House. If the minister is going to get angry when we ask a question we will not get any farther. He will not scare us by talking in a loud voice-I do not intend to have any motives imputed to me, and I do not propose to refrain from .asking questions because the minister gets impatient. He had better remain



patient and give us answers to the questions we ask without imputing motives.
Major-General MEWBURN:	The hon.
gentleman has misunderstood my motives. If I talk in a loud voice it is probably my misfortune and not my fault. I did not intend to convey any idea of resentment. Probably I may be feeling very deeply and very sincerely in my desire to get troops overseas. If the hon. gentleman had seen some of the cables that have come into my possession in the last three months, and if he had known how necessary it was to get troops over there, he would probably have felt as keenly as I do. But I want to assure my hon. friend, and every hon. member on the other side of the House, that I had no thought of answering anybody in the way my hon. friend has suggested.


Wilfrid Laurier: The men have to be trained on this side of the water or on the other side, and my hon. friend from .Char-levoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) asked a very pertinent question and even made the suggestion that it would be better to have them trained in this country where there is a sufficient provision of food, rather than in England. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence in answer to that, said the men should be in England as soon as possible, because we were at war, and .the troops got comfort and courage because they saw these men beside them. That may be true, but the question was one that was perhaps not answered as it should have been.
, Major-General MEWBURN: I shall endeavour to make myself a little clearer. My first object was to rush quite a number over to England as quickly as possible, if we could get the ships to take them over. It all came down to a question of ships. Secondly, they have various training schools at which these men are trained. A cable we received last week spoke of some of the men who had gone over under the Military .Service Act, and said that they had made marvellous progress and had become expert in various lines of training. This cable also spoke of the great effect upon the morale .of our troops which had been caused by the fact that these men had gone over.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I suggest, as one who has been over there and has known the conditions, that there are such things as emergencies in war. We do know that the casualties in battle in any army, even the Canadian army, can count up very rapidly, even in the space of a few hours, and that the reserves which I believe were 	'
available for trench warfare in England a few weeks ago would hardly last any time .at all. I think every man who knows anything about conditions, who knows the crisis that is existing to-day, who knows how low the Canadian reserves have been, must congratulate the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence on the methods he has taken to get men across the Atlantic. I was over there in the days before conscription was introduced into England. My regiment often was down to two hundred, two hundred and fifty or three hundred men in place of a thousand.


Samuel Hughes: Do you mean a Canadian regiment?
, Mr. McGIBBON: No, I was in the Imperials. Many a time we got recruits over from England with only three or four weeks' training. We were glad to get them. We found them very useful, because after all, the best training you can get in this war is the training the boys get in actual work in the trenches.
Progress reported.



SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.

[Stage Direction]
. On motion of Sir Robert Borden, Bill No. 12, respecting the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin <in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title:
Mr BUREAU:: So that there may not be the same misunderstanding as there was in regard to the last measure before the House, I desire to get an explanation. I observe this Bill is in the name of the Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I ehould like to know
what department will be -shorn of any of its prerogatives by the creation of the new department of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill speaks for itself as to the duties imposed upon the minister, and as to his powers.


Jacques Bureau: How are they being performed, and by whom? Or is this measure just for future emergencies?


Robert Laird Borden: The House has already been informed of the change that is made in remitting to the Department of Militia and Defence certain duties that heretofore have been performed by .the Mili-

tary Hospitals Com mission. The line of demarcation, I think, is perfectly clear. Until the soldier is discharged his care, whether in hospitals or otherwise, is to remain with the Department of Militia and Defence. If, after returning here from overseas, he requires further treatment in the hospital, he will receive that treatment in a hospital which is under the direction and control of the Department of Militia and Defence, and will remain there until he is discharged. If, on the other hand, he requires no treatment in a hospital he is to he returned to a depot home in the militia district.


Jacques Bureau: There was one point this afternoon which ,1 did not understand. As long as a man is sick, he is under the Department of Militia, but the hon. (Minister of Militia stated a case of a man who, for instance, had tuberculosis or a disease which would make him unfit for. future wmrk. T did not understand what they were going to do with such a man-the man with articular rheumatism or something that makes him absolutely unfit for future occupation.


Major General MEWBURN:: In the case of a tubercular man, our arrangement was that when he came from overseas he left England as a soldier, he arrived in Canada as a soldier, still on the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The intention of the medical service was that that man should be placed under immediate observation in one of the homes, and if it were found that he was suffering from acute tuberculosis, he would immediately have his pay adjusted up to date, would go on full pension, and then go into one of the sanatoria which still remain under the control of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission, which was formerly the Military Hospitals Commission. They are retaining under their control the sanatoria and vocational training camp which will
10	p.m. take charge of that man after he has been discharged from the service. He is off our strength, and is given his military pay up to date, and then goes off on full pension. The same might be said of the insane cases. There "are, unfortunately, many cases of insane men coming back. Arrangements have been made with the other department, and the old Military Hospitals Commission, through some of the various provinces whereby they will take care of these patients. If that man has a wife or children his pension is paid to them. If he has no wife or child, and he is entitled to a pen-39}
sion, that money is held, and some arrangement is made with the local government about caring for that man while he is in the hospital. There are many cases of epileptic, and possibly nervous cases, which have not reached that stage that will be discharged and go back to their own care, but if they require further medical treatment, this new medical department will look after them, but they are chiefly charged with the vocational training end of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The explanations which have just been given by the Prime Minister and Minister of Militia and Defence do not seem to fit. The object soughtt Major General MEWBURN: I was explaining what would happen to a tubercular man.


Wilfrid Laurier: We are here dealing with the creation of a department of government-the Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment. The explanations given by the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Militia dlo not agree with the object of the Bill, which is stated in clause 5.


Robert Laird Borden: I was interrupted by a question as I was about to give an explanation.


Jacques Bureau: I asked a question which had no reference to this Bill.	-


Wilfrid Laurier: The right hon. gentleman might state the object of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: It is my fault; I plead guilty.


Robert Laird Borden: I was merely explaining as a preliminary matter that a clear line of demarcation had been fixed between the work of the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with the soldiers returned from the front, and the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. The Department of Militia and Defence has complete control and direction of the men until they are discharged, and if it is necessary that the men receive treatment in hospitals before they are discharged, they receive that treatment in hospitals under the control and direction of the Department of Militia and Defence. While they are in those hospitals, however, they may receive instruction, vocational training and help of that kind, by arrangement between the Department of Militia and Defence and Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Bir SAM HUGHES:: That would only be regarding instructors. 'They would be loaned?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think they would be loaned. They would be permitted to go to the hospitals, and give instruction and vocational training to men before they had been discharged. That training would be given under the direction of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. The Minister of Militia and Defence has pointed out that men suffering from diseases on account of which they should be discharged immediately for prolonged treatment, will be discharged, and provision made for their treatment by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department and by the Invalided Soldiers' Commission which is attached to that department in sanatoria and in convalescent homes. But that is only a portion of the work of the department which we are now seeking to establish. In regard to men who do not require hospital treatment when they return to Canada, and who are discharged immediately, the Department of Soldiers' Re-establishment will assume the duty of seeing that those men are provided with any- training and any re-education required to fit them for taking up once more their duties in civil life. And further than that the department will have the duty in connection with the authorities of the provinces, in connection with the commissions for that purpose which have been established in every province in Canada, to find employment and means of activity in the life of this country for men who have been so returned from the front. The w'ork of this department is intimately connected with the question of demobilization. If this war should end tomorrow we would have three hundred thousand men or more to be returned to Canada. It would be quite a task to see to it that those men are provided with the opportunity in this country of earning their livelihood, or receiving training or re-education which would better fit them for that purpose.	.
The Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment is charged with the duty of solving that problem as best it may. It takes over the soldier who requires' treatment in sanatoria, or convalescent homes, or asylums, takes him over and provides for him re-education or vocational training when he is able to receive it. It also takes over all those who do not receive any special care and treatment so far as their physical condition is concerned. And finally, this department, in connection with the commis-

sions which have been established in the various provinces of Canada, is charged with the duty of re-establishing these men once more, of absorbing them into the general activities of the country and bringing about once more the conditions which prevailed before we entered upon this war.


Samuel Hughes: What control will this department have over the men,-I will not say soldiers because once they come back they cease to be soldiers-or what means of asserting discipline?


Robert Laird Borden: There is no control in the sense of military control.


Samuel Hughes: That is the point I have reference to.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no such control. They are absolutely free from all military discipline. So long as they are in hospitals I suppose there must be some control, but I do not know precisely how that will be worked out. But the department, the general commission that has been established, the Invalided Soldiers' Commission, and the various commissions in the several provinces of Canada, will be at the service of any man who desires vocational training or re-education, or who. desires the assistance of any of these commissions in seeking such employment as he may consider himself fitted for. The department, in short, is charged with the general problem of assisting these men in re-establishing themselves once more in civil activities.


Samuel Hughes: If I might make the suggestion, it would be well to avoid the fault that was committed at the time of the creation of the Military Hospitals Commission, and which resulted in. an overlapping of authority, which was largely responsible for its failure.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I think so.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right
hon. friend will pardon me for saying that, in my judgment at all events, and I think the judgment of most of those who sat around me, the explanations which he has given are rather hazy. It is not so much my right hon. friend's fault as it is the fault of the Bill being either ill-digested or not digested at all. If the Bill means anything it means that the Government have created a department to assist men in getting re-established in civiil life. It is not proposed that the men who have fought shall always remain in military life; on the contrary, we hope that as soon as possible

they -will ibe returned to civil life, and the object of the Bill, we gather, is that a department is created for the purpose, of assisting those men who return from war to take their places once more in civil life. Let me read the section of the Bill which bears upon the point:
The minister shall have the management and control of all matters relating to the reestablishment in civil life and activities of all persons who have served' in the naval or military forces of His Majesty, or any of His Majesty's Allies during the present war, and the dependents of such persons, and the administration of any statutes or of any regulations or orders enacted or made by the Governor in Council for such purpose.
What are the matters here referred to?_ My right hon. friend has stated that they will relate to the looking after of men who have returned diseased from the war and have to go to a hospital or a sanitorium. That has nothing to do with the establishment of a man in civil life, it is a matter of caring for the man who is diseased, or has been crippled and cannot engage in civil work at all, and who must he a charge upon the country. When I first took the Bill in hand I thought what it was proposed to do was, for example, to seek to help a man who wanted to go into farming, or something of that kind. The object of the Bill may be all right, what is intended may be good, but it seems to me we should have before us a concrete plan of what this department intends to carry out. The whole thing is very hazy, we are left in the dark, and the explanations are very meagre and cannot be otherwise unti-l the Government has arrived at a well considered plan as to what it proposes to do in order to restore the returned soldier to civil life. Perhaps the returned soldier may be without any occupation, or, perhaps, he cannot return to the occupation he formerly followed for some reason or another. In that case the Government should have ready a concrete plan under which they could say: We propose to do this or do that to assist the man into this or that occupation. Certainly there is nothing in the explanations which have been given, or in the Bill itself, which indicates what the Government are going to do. It may be that the department itself should initiate some plan, but at the present time, it seems to me-I speak with all due deference, and not in critical terms, because the object contemplated may be a very good one-we should have more information than we have at the present time to justify the creation of such a department. After the American Civil War in 1865, nearly one million men, perhaps over that number, went
back into civil life without any effort at all. Those who were disabled were given a pension, and those who were able to earn their own living with brain or brawn were simply discharged and absorbed in a very short time into civil life. Perhaps it is advisable that the men here should be aided in returning into civil life, but I warn my Tight hon. friend, and not in any carping manner, that if this Bill establishes a department to assist returned men to go back again into civil life he is preparing for himself a crop of applications which will, perhaps, be very embarrassing. I would rather trust the manhood of the man, if he comes back sound in limb and body, to find his own way into civil life, than depend for that upon the assistance of apaternalgovernment. I would urge my right hon. friend, if he will permit me to say so, to think very seriously before he undertakes to hold out hopes of that kind to the men who come back_ but rather to trust to their manhood as far as possible. If they are crippled or disabled then, of course, the country must take care of them, but if they come back sound in 'body and limb, we had better leave them to their own exertions.


Robert Laird Borden: There might be some force in what my right hon. friend has observed if these men were coming back sound in limb and body, and, further than that, possessing the capacity for continuous work which they had before they went overseas. But I may tell my right hon. friend-and I think he will realize it -that this is not such a war as ever was in the world before, and even when men. do come back apparently sound in body and in limb in every way, I venture to believe that they will require some aid and guidance before they can once more take up their work in the civil life of this country as they had taken it up before they went overseas. I know of what I am speaking from absolute experience among some of these men. No one of us can realize the effect upon a man's temperament and nervous system of two years in that awful warfare at the front. It has a very serious effect sometimes. But>
apart from all that, there are thousands and tens of thousands who will no,t come back sound in body and limb. Some of them .are coming back, unfortunately, blinded, some maimed with the loss of an arm or of a leg, or the loss of both arms or both legs. Is it not desirable that we should give these men some assistance so that they can continue, after they return to Canada, to have an interest in

life and to feel that they are performing some honourable service in the ordinary life of the country? I venture to think that we would be derelict to our duty if we did not make some provision, for them. The problem is a great one which has been studied in the United Kingdom during the past year very attentively, and we have given consideration to it here. I spoke to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence about this, and he agreed that it would be a cruel thing if we brought these men back and dismissed them from the army and told them to shift for themselves. We could not do it.


Samuel Hughes: That is what is happening to lots of them already.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not happening so far as I am aware. At all events, I do know that the Military Hospitals Commission and the various commissions which have been established! in the several provinces, have been doing a very creditable work in that regard, and I have been trying to keep in very close touch with it. It is valuable and wise work. It may be that, in some cases, men have been overlooked. If so, I am sorry for it. This new department has been created with the general problem placed before it, and one of the duties of the minister at the head of that department will be to consider and to submit to the Government the methods (by which he will proceed to carry out what I venture to believe will be regarded by the people of this country as a proper and a necessary purpose. We have not the concrete proposals to submit to the House this evening because the minister has not yet been able to give that study and attention to the general problem which will be absolutely necessary before any matured scheme could be submitted to the Government or presented to Parliament. So we are asking the authority of Parliament for the constitution of this department, realizing, as we do, that a very serious task is imposed upon it and that it will have great scope for usefulness in the immediate future. For these men are coming back in considerable numbers now, and when the war is over we shall have the problem immediately placed upon this department of undertaking work of this character for three or four hundred thousand men as rapidly as they can be returned from overseas.


Samuel Hughes: When the Liberal party came into power in 1896, times were not good in 'Canada. I may be pardoned for bringing in the name of a gentleman

to whom I attribute the good times which followed. It was the Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton who foresaw the opening up of the Northwest and the bringing in of settlers from the United States. That made good times in this country. And without entering into that discussion any further, I have observed that fact very closely, having been engaged in the development of the Northwest two years before the Liberal party came into power, and having been instrumental in directing the attention of that gentleman and his Government to the prospects in the Northwest. In short, the opening up of the Northwest made Canada prosperous for many years after 18%.


Jacques Bureau: And it made Sifton rich.
Sir SAM HUGHES': I was speaking to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) a few minutes ago-and let me suggest here, that, from my point of view, that department can utilize from two hundred and fifty to three hundred thousand men directly and indirectly as soon as they return from the war and millions more who may choose to come in afterwards. That department is required and there is work for it to do now. I think the money we are voting for it will be well spent money. Some one objected to it, but the appropriation shbuld be made. I am satisfied that the whole Northwest of Canada should be surveyed from the viewpoint of drainage, for the provision of main arteries of wagon roads and of railroads. New territories are there only awaiting development, waiting for settlers to come in, and many of these settlers will come from the United States; others with a little money will come from other places, and they will start their homes. They will require furniture, hardware, farming implements, and in order to put up their homes and out-buildings they will require lumber and other building materials. This will bring about a repetition of what occurred from 1896 onwards under the administration of the leader 'of the Opposition, The consequent stimulation of trade will make eastern Canada feel good, and bring about most harmonious relations between the East and the West. I am satisfied that we would not have any trouble at all in absorbing the great bulk of our returned men. iBut I can see that there is still room for the work of a commission of this kind to help those who are not in as independent a position as others, and to assist in opening up for those some new avenue of life. I look with great faith and interest to the new Department of Immigration and Colonization to help to ab-

sorb the soldiers on their return, provided there is preparation made in advance for the work they have to do. Millions of acres could be reclaimed by drainage, and tens of thousands of men could be employed in drainage and road building, as well as in the construction of new railroads; and the Government must, to my mind, see to it in advance that these things are done so that when the boys come back they will find avenues of work.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Has the hon. gentleman any idea, or any warrant for the idea, as to what percentage of the soldiers who return from the front will be suitable foi farmers and what percentage will he likely to go into farming?


Samuel Hughes: I have no conception. I was not thinking of farming alone, for the farmers may come from any place. Any one familiar with the development of the Northwest knows that in every six miles of settled country there are stores, blacksmith shops, employing men, churches requiring ministers,-


Jacques Bureau: And Orange lodges.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, thank goodness, Orange lodges, which give men employment in building them. Often the men work as carpenters or at other trades, and in the evening they attend to their adjoining homesteads. In some cases their wives remain on the farms while they step into the towns to carry on their particular work. Thus one development brings on another; 'the farms and the towns are built up and in that way a development of ithe whole country is brought about.


Mr. WIGMORE:: I look upon this as one of the most important measures that was ever brought before the House. It is only another evidence -that the Government intend to carry out their promise to the boys who went overseas. In the constituency which I represent cases have come under my observation of men who, having returned from the front, have been discharged and allowed to drift about, seeking employment here and there, and in many cases not getting it. Those suffering from tuberculosis; those who are otherwise diseased; those who are unfortunate enough to have to be sent to military asylums; are being provided for in some way, while those who do not come within those categories, but are simply unable to seek employment in regular walks of life, are given three months' pay, and the Militia Department has no further interest in them. I have felt for a long time that the Government should take hold of this matter in a more serious way-and I congratulate the minister on bringing it to the attention of the Committee and giving us an opportunity of expressing our views. We have in Canada to-day a number of training camps, and it is my view that after the war, when the soldiers return from the front, instead of being given three months' pay and set adrift they should be mobilized in these camps under military discipline until they are honourably discharged, or until those who wish to employ them go to the Government and: request their services. I suggest also that employers give the Government some guarantee that the positions they are offering are permanent and will afford sufficient remuneration to the employees at least to enable them to keep the wolf from- the door. The returned soldier should, to say the least, be placed in as good a position as he occupied before enlistment. We owe a debt to these men, and I think we should discharge it to the full. It is not right simply to pay them off when they are unfit for further military service, and leave them on their own resources. We cannot furnish positions to. all these men, hut we should continue their military pay and keep them under military discipline until they are fit for service in their different walks of life.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that the intention of this Bill?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: The Bill does not go that far, but I would go further than the Bill does. A number of men who have returned from the front are walking the -streets to-day, looking for Government positions. There -are not enough of these positions to go round, and these men are criticizing the Government and the Militia Department. This condition should not exist; those of us who are at home should! be sufficiently interested in the boys* who have fought our battles to see that they are properly looked after.
- Mr. NICKLE: I agree with the member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Wigmore), that this is one of the most important measures that have come before the House this year, and probably quite as important as any that will come before the House. I agree with him also that this Bill has not gone far enough, but I view it from a different angle altogether from that from which ,he regards it. He takes the position that the returned man should be kept in some central depot battalion under military discipline until he is discharged.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I mean at the close of the war, when 300,000 or 400,000 men are brought back.


Mr. NICKLE:: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman; I thought he meant at the present time. I was going to say that my point of view was diametrically opposed to his. My idea is that this Bill does not go far enough in that it does not make the line of cleavage between the soldier returning to be restored to civil life and the civilian being prepared for the work of a soldier. In my judgment, as soon as a soldier is brought hack to Canada, all our energies should be directed to getting him away from what we call military discipline. There should be a cessation of accentuation of his position as a soldier, and. accentuation of his duty as a citizen. I agree with the object of the Bill in making the demarcation, but when the man returns to Canada, it being reasonably clear that he never again can be a soldier, he should be taken from under military discipline and put under civil discipline. I believe no man in this House has given closer attention to the problem of the returned soldier than I have. No problem is going to be of greater difficulty of solution, or is apt to cause more heart-burning and sorrow than the position of the returned soldier in the community in the years that are to come. In speaking of the mental position of the returned soldier, I refer to the man who has been to the front; who has been under fire; who has suffered more or less from the nerve strain incidental to actual warfare. His nerve is not altogether broken; his nerves are not altogether gone. I do not know that I can describe his condition any better than a surgeon in Kingston, in one of our military hospitals, described it, when he said that the man was " susceptible to his environment." To-day we are bringing the men back to Canada, we are dividing them, if I understood the Prime Minister correctly, into two classes. One of these classes, such as the tubercular, we are turning over to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. But the ordinary man who comes back wounded, and is not tubercular or affected with a disease that makes it clear that he never again will be useful in any capacity as a military man, is put in one of the large military hospitals and there kept under military discipline. The result is that instead (O f developing individual initiative in your returned man and accentuating ihe duties of self-restraint, you continue to emphasize the military system. flMr. Nickle.]
The man ie not taught self-restraint; he is not taught personal responsibility; but it is impressed upon him, as it has been impressed upon him for months, that duty and obedience is something he owes to the man who occupies a higher rank than he does. Instead of stimulating, as I termed it a moment ago, individual initiative, you stamp still further upon him an apathy towards self-responsibility and towards the attitude of mind that makes a man realize that he is going to pay the penalty of his own mistakes, not because some superior authority iis going to punish him, but because the inevitable trend of events will be to make his future action unsuccessful. It seems to me the military authorities are carrying this idea of military discipline towards the returned men to ridiculous lengths. I have never been in a military uniform; I have never had to respect what is called superior rank in the army. But when a man issues an order to men in military hospitals that they must salute a military officer, and if their physical condition is such that they are unable to give a salute in the ordinary way, they must turn their heads in the direction of such authority, I say, as a Canadian citizen, that is ridiculous. Such an order was issued a short time ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where?


William Folger Nickle: It came.to Kingston.


Samuel Hughes: Do you know the officer?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Why did you not report him?


William Folger Nickle: I am reporting it now. That order came through the Army Medical Service, and I think came through General Fotheringham, at least, he and I discussed it vigorously at one time. The order was that men who had returned from the front had to salute their superior officers, and if they could not give the salute in the ordinary way they had to turn their head in the direction of the officer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: On their pillows?


William Folger Nickle: I am not saying that because I dto not.know, but I assume that it is so, (because it was a hospital order. All the nurses in the Army Medical Service hospitals are lieutenants. That makes every nurse in those hospitals the superior officer of the private and the non-commissioned officer, and that carries with it that the nurse must be respected 'because she is

a superior officer and not 'because she is a nurse. If you think that is going to develop individual initiative, I do not believe it is going to do anything of the sort. Those hospitals for returned men should all be civilian. We should impress upon the returned men: You owe a duty to yourself to behave yourself. If you behave yourself you will be treated as you will be in any other hospital. A man in that way would be taught that good conduct brought good results, and that bad conduct brought bad results, not because, as I say, some superior authority impressed that on him, but as the actual reward of every day life on his own conduct.
I. want to go into another matter. I feel pretty strongly on this returned soldier problem. I do not think any board of doctors who have to determine what a man's pension shall be should be superior in military rank to the man making application for a pension, and they should not he in uniform. A private or non-commissioned officer goes before a medical board to be examined as to his disability. That board has the power of determining to a very large extent what that man's financial status shall be during the rest of his life. Some of them do not approach that man as doctors to decide on his case. I am only speaking, of some doctors, and in a ease like that we must speak oi the case of the man who cannot be heard and who is going to suffer. Some doctors approach his case as a lawyer might cross-examine a witness. They approach him from the point of view that there is an antagonism between the State and the man and not from the point of view that he is a man who has done something for his country and for whom his country wants to do all to which he is entitled. I have been told by men who have gone before these medical boards for pensions that they were asked to tell their condition, how they felt and this, that and the other thing about themselves and that when they had done so, the medical officers who were their superiors in rank said: "That is not so; we do not believe it; that is subjective." When a doctor used the word "subjective," he means: That is your point of view as to your disability, but it is not the true point of view. These men could not contradict the doctors because, according to military etiquette, they cannot contradict a superior officer. When a soldier comes before a medical board to apply foT a pension, the soldier should ibe in mufti and the doctors should be in mufti. It should Ibe a consultation between a medical man who is there to protect the state
and a soldier who has done his duty to the state. The soldier should be absolutely at liberty to state his condition and position, but there should be no suppression of the facts and no browbeating of the man by superior authority. Their rights should be equal. That is my view.
(In regard to .what has been done for the returned soldier, I do not know what has been done in the other provinces, but in Ontario we are doing quite a little as the Soldiers' Aid Commission is assisting in a branch of what was the Military Hospitals work. The provincial legislature, by statute, constituted the Soldiers' Aid Commission for the express purpose of aiding and assisting the returned soldier. The central office is in the city of Toronto where there is an inspector. There is a western inspector in London and an eastern inspector at ^Kingston. Each of those inspectors has a subordinate officer whose duty it is to make an industrial survey of that part of the country in which they are working, so as to make themselves thoroughly conversant with the positions open in industrial work, and offices have been opened both at Kingston and at London to which the returned soldier may make application for work. The returned soldier goes there and the man in charge will learn from him what work he can do. He then tells the soldier if there is any industrial occupation open to him and he tries to bring employer and employee together. In that way very much good has been done. This is one of the problems that is going to meet us. The returned man particularly the man who has had to undergo the rigours of active service in the front line trenches, while he may appear all right, while in ordinary cases one would say he is a normal man, be really is not, he is affected in his nerves or as I put it a few moments ago, he is " susceptible." You send him to a factory and the very roar of the machinery breaks that man down and he cannot continue. Within the last year while I had the power of recommendation of those who should assist in the care of the convicts in Kingston penitentiary I suggested to the warden the names of nine or ten men who had been overseas, to act as nightkeepers in that institution. The warden co-operated most loyally with me in trying to give the men work. Of the ten men sent there there was only one man I think who lasted twto months. Some of them told me they could not stand the mental strain of knowing that the clock was coming round to the hour at which they had to begin their work. All they had to do was to walk

around the grounds and buildings and see that things were all right. Some told me their nervous condition was such that they could not stand the strain and they gave up the job. What are you going to do with such a man? His brain is clear; his eye is bright, but the ordinary man does not understand his real condition. The country has to be taught to understand him and we have to devise ways and means by which the country may he taught to understand him.
I should like to advert to one point which the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) brought up. He asked how many men were going to go back on the farms. My inquiries lead me to believe that very few will go hack. I doubt very much if you will get ten per cent. You may get five per cent who will take up farming and stick to it. These men have had all the outdoor life-the camp life-they want. They want to go hack to the cities and enjoy * the comforts of everyday life. I think what we have to plan for is to see that industrial openings are as far ae possible made for these men, and in working along that line I would urge on the Government that_ while this is a move in the right direction, they give careful consideration to the fact that they have to go farther than the Bill has gone and take every man, when he returns to Canada and whom the militia authorities admit cannot again be a combatant, into a hospital manner) by civil doctors and nursed by women in ordinary nurses' uniform, and endeavour to stimulate the sense of personal responsibility and to develop individual initiative.
Mr. WiIGMORE:	I am afraid that my
hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nicltle) misunderstood me. I meant to say that when the war is over and the troops come home they should be kept in these camps for a while instead of being turned loose. If you took two hundred thousand or three hundred thousand men and turned them loose with nothing to do, even if they were all Presbyterians, they would not turn out very well. What I meant was that they should be put in these camps under military discipline eo that they may be looked after until the time arrives when they can get suitable positions throughout the Dominion.


Mr. MANION:: I just wish to say a word in reply to the observations of the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) in regard to the treatment and attention given these returned soldiers in military hospitals. Did I understand my hon. friend to

mention the name of General Fotihering-ham?


William Folger Nickle: The hon. ex-Minister of
Militia and Defence asked me who had issued a certain order and I said that I thought it had come from General Fotheringham.


Robert James Manion: I have been overseas
and I have seen some of the military hoe-pitals; therefore, I may he able to give some reasons for some of the conditions referred to by the hon. member for Kingston. I have the very greatest respect for that hon. gentleman because nobody is in a better position to speak on this subject than he. I remember that during the progress of the battle of Vimy Ridge it was my duty and privilege to dress the wound of the son of the hon. member for Kingston in order that he might return to the firing line and continue the fight, which he did, displaying such gallantry and courage as to win the Military Gross. In some of the remarks which my hon. friend addressed to the committee he was not quite correct. For instance, he spoke of the discipline in military .lospitals. I have had a good deal of experience in military hospitals and one of the difficult things to do in a military hospital where soldiers are being handled is to deal with them in such a v-ay as to maintain discipline. I am saying this most respectfully to the soldier because nobody has a greater admiration for the Canadian soldiers than I have. But a certain amount of discipline is necessary in a military hospital or you will find the soldiers over-running all your orders and imposing upon you. The point that my hon. friend made in regard to soldiers being irritable is absolutely correct. A man coming back from the front, after he has been in the firing line for from seven to ten months, is exceedingly irritable although perhaps he is not conscious of it. His nervous system has been subjected to a shock that has upset him. The reason I asked about General Fotheringham was this: I happened to know General Fotheringham very well. I was a student of his fifteen or sixteen years ago in Toronto and he was then, as he is now, my friend. I knew him at the front when he was A.D.M.S. to the Second Canadian Division at the front, and I have had some dealings with him in Canada. I think that the remarks of my hon. friend were an implied charge against Dr. Fotheringham and therefore I wish to say that there is no officer whether he be in the medical service or in the ordinary military force, who is more conscientious.

more honest, more upright or disinterested in eve'y sense of the word than is General Fotheimgham.


William Folger Nickle: If you can discipline a hundred and fifty or two hundred soldiers suffering from tuberculosis in a civilian hospital as the Prime Minister proposes, why cannot you discipline the same number of other men without military discipline in another hospital?


Robert James Manion: I am not suggesting that military discipline should be carried to the extreme. The point I am making is that a certain amount of military discipline is necessary to get the best results in handling patients in the hospital. I am speaking from personal knowledge. I remember being in a British hospital for some time and it was in charge of a colonel who was a very lax disciplinarian. The result was that the patients were allowed to ignore the officers and it was almost impossible to handle the patients. I think every real military man-not an honorary one such as I am myself-will back me up in saying that no man, including a patient, is expected to salute any superior officer more than once in any one day. If he salutes him once that is sufficient and he does not have to turn his head and salute him the second time. That rule applies in hospitals as well as elsewhere.


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Robert James Manion: In order to have discipline in military life it is necessary. A man who has never been in touch with military affairs does not realize the necessity for discipline. If you did not have discipline and if you did not have saluting in the army, you would never succeed in getting your men to go over the top and suffer the trials and dangers that are necessary. As I mentioned, yesterday was the anniversay of the battle of Vimy Ridge. The Canadians would celebrate it at the front. I did not hear it mentioned in the House by anybody; I presume it was forgotten. In fact, I had forgotten it myself.
There are no soldiers who have ever gone to the front who have shown themselves to be superior to the Canadian -soldiers, and I do not think we can do anything too good to the Canadian soldier on his return from overseas. There is nothing that we can possibly do, no money, no position that we can give him, that will remunerate him for the sacrifice that he has made. Every consideration must be given him. I just offer these suggestions in justice to General Fotheringham. I would like to impress upon the committee the necessity of everybody remembering that the men, when they come back from the front, whether they belong to the ranks, or whether they are officers or noncommissioned officers, are in an irritable condition and must be given special consideration not only by this House, -but by the people of the country. I would beg the House to give every consideration to these men.
Major-General MEWBURN: I entirely disagree with the remarks of the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), and I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Manion). There is no desire on the part of the military authorities to keep these men under military discipline or control for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. If the hon. member for Kingston had ever taken an interest in military matters, or if he had ever been in uniform and in personal touch with military affairs, he would probably look at the matter through different spectacles and have a different kind of vision.
I think I am quite safe in saying that every European nation, and partioular y England, France, and the Allies in the United States, for many years past, have gone into this thing very carefully, and if has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a soldier should be under a certain amount or military control until he :s discharged from the army. This question of saluting and looking up to superior officers, and everything of that kind, to me is all nonsense. You would think from the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston that the officers and nursing sisters were putting themselves on a pedestal away above the soldier. I do not believe that to be the case. Saluting is not a question of paying any particular respect to the individual officer or nurse. It is the amount of respect that is shown throughout the army, not only from the man to the officer, but from the officer to the man. This matter has been -very carefully considered. If my hon. friend says you should immediately get the soldier back to civil life, then why should1 my good civilian friends, who are sincerely and honestly, I believe, endeavouring to help in this matter, wait until the soldiers come back to Canada? Why not go to No Man's Land, and, when the soldier comes from a casualty on the battlefield, take charge of him there? Why wait until he returns to Canada? Why not look

after him from that point before he is discharged from the army?


William Folger Nickle: Do you think that would be practicable?
Major-General MEWBUEN: No, and I do not think the other proposition would be practicable.
' Sir SAM HUGHES: It is a question of pay. As long as he is under pay of the Militia Department, that department has the right to control him.
Major-General MEWBURN: The man is brought to England and taken to the hospital, then taken from the hospital, and brought back to Canada. All we desire to do-and it is no particular desire, I believe it is our duty and responsibility-is to look after that man up to a certain stage. If that is our duty, we must assume it and live up to it. Why bring in those various classes of men? MV hon. friend was speaking of the different classes of men requiring medical treatment, who will go into a military hospital and undergo
11	p.m. the treatment required. Working in conjunction with that hospital is the other department where the vocational training may continue as long as the man requires further medical treatment. He is under military pay. He is drawing his pay, and allowances up to the time the medical profession say he should be evacuated from that hospital, where 'he can no longer do himself any good. He is only taking up room that may be required for another invalid soldier. He evacuates the hospital, and then goes out on to a pension or is paid up in full as a soldier. He goes out of the hospital at the earliest possible moment, as he will not require further military treament. Then he passes into your new department, and if that man is not fit for further work in the civilian line, and requires further treatment, he will then be taken care of as a civilian. I think probably the Bill does not go far enough. I hope in future further attention will be given to this, but I am thoroughly convinced-and I speak not only from my own observation, but from the experience of Great Britain, Italy, France and the United States-that it is a mistake to make some other change, and probably make more mistakes. With reference to General Fother-inghaih I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Mahion). General Fotheringham' has had long experience in his profession, and long military experience, and has served with great credit to him-
[Major-General Mewburn.]
self with the Second Division at the front. I do not wish to doubt the statement of the hon. member for Kingston, but I cannot conceive any orders that may have been issued for any man to keep on saluting his superior officers and nursing sisters. If a soldier is in a hospital under discipline he will pay respect to those in charge as any other good soldier will do, and I think I am safe in saying that the majority of these men who have returned from the front would prefer to ;be under military care up to the time they are discharged from the army.


William Folger Nickle: I do not want the hon. Minister of Militia to put. words in my mouth, and I will not let him, if I can prevent it. I do not know that I said he should keep on saluting. I used no such language. I simply said that, in my opinion, an order issued that a man in a hospital must turn his head in the direction of a superior officer, provided he was not physically able to salute in the ordinary way, was in my judgment ridiculous, and it would not make the slightest difference to me whether the ex-Minister of Militia and the present Minister of Militia thought differently, I still would think it ridiculous. I stick to my ground on that point. Those hon. members are soldiers; I am not. As the Minister of Militia says, if I had taken an active part in militia affairs, I probably would see eye to eye with them. Probably I would, because I have noticed, from the little experience I have had, that there is a singular contagion in military etiquette in regard to the exercise of authority. I made no reflection on the good intention of General Fotheringham. I made no reflection on his capacity or his medical knowledge. The ex-Minister of Militia asked me from whom that order came. I told him from whom I thought it came. Dr. Fotheringham may be right. He approaches the matter from the point of view of the soldier. When a member is asked a question in this House as to who gave a certain order and he names the man, it cannot be implied that there is anything improper in his motive. I simply say that he issued an order that, in my judgment, was not a wise order. Dr. Fotheringham thinks differently. He is responsible for the administration of the Army Medical Service, and I am responsible to my constituents. He is doing what he thinks is right; I am doing what I think is right, and we will leave the matter there.


Samuel Hughes: No man in Canada, passing along the street and meeting a very

charming lady, takes off his hat with greater grace than the hon. member for Kingston.
"Mr. NICKLE: Not because I must.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, because the hon. gentleman must. Common courtesy would rise in rebellion in the heart of the hon. gentleman if he did not do that.


Jacques Bureau: Because it is the weaker sex.


Samuel Hughes: 
Jacques Bureau: What is a mud major?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what he ie and do not care.


Jacques Bureau: I asked, what is a mud
major. .


Samuel Hughes: A bum major. If
the soldier knew his business, all he has to do is to write a report, reporting this officer for misconduct, and I am satisfied when the matter came before the proper authorities the officer would be the one who would get the wigging, not the poor soldier. It ie not generally understood that the officer owee a salute to the soldier just as much as the soldier owes it to the officer, and as to the question of a soldier lying in his bed and turning his head to an officer as he comes along, it is perfect nonsense. No medical officer ever heard of it being done. The soldier lies there and the officer comes along and always has a kind word for him.


William Folger Nickle: That order was issued.


Samuel Hughes: Then the officer had no business to issue it.


William Folger Nickle: We agree there.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, the proper
spirit to have in all these things is to shut one's eyes to these little delinquencies. I have had men walk up to me and say "Hello, Sam, how are you, I want to have a talk with you."


Georges Henri Boivin: I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to come nearer to the subject matter.


Samuel Hughes: And I was only too pleased to acquiesce in his request and have a good talk with him. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I am merely following the lines laid down, and I think it is very important, if we are going to get along with this Bill, that a proper understanding of discipline in this matter should be reached.
I have n<o hesitation in saying that the man who is going round all the time insisting upon the observance of little points of etiquette and discipline, and wanting himself to be regarded as somebody, is unfit for his job; he should treat these wounded soldiers with every courtesy and consideration. Personally, I have never . met many soldiers who would not be inclined in matters of this kind to meet their officers more than half way.


John Wesley Edwards: Whether a soldier is an inmate of a soldiers' hospital, .or whether a man is a civilian and an inmate of a hospital, the moment he goes within the doors of that institution he comes under discipline, and he must do so for his own good. I am very strongly of the opinion that no officer who had seen active service at the front would think of insisting on a wounded private-a man who was wearing blue badges on his sleeve to indicate that he had been wounded- saluting him. Ilf any officer has so far forgotten himself as to insist upon a wounded soldier giving him a salute, I venture to say that officer is a man who .perhaps three and a half or four years ago was in civilian life, but who upon the outbreak of the war was given a lieutenancy, and then with only a few days' interval between each stage was jumped up successively to the office of captain, major, and colonel. If you want to get persons who are in sympathy with the returned soldier to determine pensions, or promote his welfare in any other respect, by all means secure the co-operation of men who have been overseas. The man who has never been outside of Military District No. fi, or for that matter any other military district-the man who has never left the shores of Canada, no matter how kindly natured he may be-is in my judgment

absolutely unfit to deal with the question of pensions, or to sit on a medical board in connection with questions of discipline. Because, no matter how genial he may be by inclination I do not think he can have that proper sympathy for the returned soldier that an officer would have who has seen service overseas.
I believe there are plenty of offices in this .country occupied by men who have never been oustide of Canada, although they are wearing uniform, men who have jumped .very rapidly from one rank to the other. Such men should be relegated back to civil .life and their places taken by men from .overseas. If that were done, it would be most advantageous all round. I am conversant with the case of one young man .who enlisted five days after war was declared, went overseas with the First Contingent and served twenty-six months in France. He had graduated at the Toronto Veterinary College and did good work in .France, but came back a broken man and .unfitted for further overseas service. His case came 'before a medical board, not one of whose members had ever been overseas, .and they decided that he was unfit to return to the front. On the seventh day of a certain month-mark the day-he received notice that he was only fit for home service if anything could be found for him to do, and on the eighth day of the same month he was notified that no employment could be found for him and that he would be given his discharge. That decision had been .arrived at between the seventh and the eighth day of the month, so that there was not very much time spent in ascertaining whether there was anything available for this poor fellow or not. Let me tell' the Committee that in Military District No. 3 there are to-day two men acting as .veterinary officers. One has been overseas, I believe, but the other was never outside of Military District No. 3. Yet both men are drawing colonel's pay. What, in the name of Heaven, the officer who was never out of the district did to entitle him to be .promoted to the rank of colonel, I do not ,know; it certainly was not the blood that he spilt overseas. I have it on pretty good authority that there was only one sick horse .to attend to last winter, out of all the horses that came under the charge of these officers in Kingston, and a year ago last .winter there were only three. Yet, for such slight services we have two men drawing colonel's pay, and the man to whom I have referred, and who had served twenty-six months in France, was discharged because

.there was nothing for him to do. Mr. .Chairman, I believe there are thousands pf cases. in this country of men ,who were formerly civilians and when .the war started donned their uniform, and secured rapid promotion to the .rank of major and colonel. I am .always glad to hear of the promotion of any man who has gone overseas, whether he went as private or as officer, and nobody will envy his promotion after he gets there, but I do think that thousands and tens of thousands of dollars have been improperly paid out in this way; that men have been advanced in rank without sufficient justification. I refer to men who have never been outside of Canada since this war commenced, who were contented before that to strut around for twelve or fourteen days each year in camp, thrusting out their chests and exposing their gold buttons and gold lace, and all that sort of thing, and who would humbly kowtow to those placed above them in rank. Too many of this type of men have been advanced in rank with a corresponding advance in pay, and in Military District No. 3 at Kingston it has simply come to this, in my humble judgment, that we have practically got a little ring there that they say among themselves: "You boost me and I'll boost you."	.
In reference to returned soldiers going back on the land, you would think that with three or four hundred thousand men returning, all you had to do was to send them out on the farms and they would take their places there. A great many of the men who enlisted and went overseas came from cities; they do not know a bit more about farming than the hon. member for South York (Mt. W. F. Maclean), and he would not know which end of a horse to put the halter on if he went on to a farm. These men should not go to the farm, simply .because, that, theoretically, it would be a nice place to put them; they are going to exercise, the same as other people do, the right of selecting	their own	job.	While Iwould	like	to see a	great	many ofthese	men	go on to	farms,	I don'tthink	you are going to	solve	the difficulty which has to be met in that way; these men will hunt their own vocations. *Some of them will go back on the farms, but a great many will' look for positions in the cities and towns.
I would like to add this one word more. Whatever we do, do not be in too great a hurry to get rid of the men, and get them off our hands, when they come from overseas. We might better throw away a few million dollars in overpaying than in underpaying the men who have come back from

the front. There is one thing we cannot afford to have in Canada. When this war is over we cannot afford to have any person pointed out as one who, having served his country is neglected after he returns from overseas.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I agree with nearly
every person who has spoken to-night that this is perhaps the most important Bill which will be brought before the House during this session, unless we are to have other Bills which will more clearly define the policy of the Government in regard to the aiding of men after they have come *back to this country. In looking over the Bill, which purports to establish a department for the re-establiehment in civil life of the returned men, I have no doubt that the exigencies, of the case will make it necessary for regulations to be passed by the Council allowing the minister in charge to carry into effect whatever the. policy of the Government may be. While this discussion may not come within the terms of the Bill I believe that the members of the Government will be very glad to have had this discussion to-night in order that they may gather the views of members of the Commons from various parts of the country. Personally, I have some very strong views with regard to some points. I come from a district in which a great many men have been enlisted for overseas and a district to which a great many men- have returned from the front. Clause 5 of the Bill, setting out the powers of the minister, says:
The minister shall have the management and control of all matters relating to the re-establishment in civil life and activities of all persons who have served in the naval or military forces of His Majesty or any of His Majesty's allies during the present war, and the dependents of sudh persons, and the administration of any statutes or of any regulations or orders enacted or made by the Governor in Council for such purpose.
This clause is broad enough to cover all those who return, and the dependents in this country of those who do not return. The first class which will be considered, no douJbt, will be the dependents of the men who have been killed at the front ot have come back absolutely incapacitated for the performance of any duties in civil life in this country. That class will be dealt with by the Pension Board.
I understand that a special committee is to be appointed for the consideration of the question of pensions. I wish to call attention to one or two facts. Although the Government has made generous increases in the matter of pensions, I still think that further increases can be made. When a man is killed
and leaves his wife and children, the Government makes an allowance of only eight dollars for the support, maintenance and education of each child. It is beyond belief that under the present conditions any woman can possibly bring up her children as they should be brought up on such an allowance. If there is any class of people who should receive the consideration of this Government, it is the dependent children, because they are the future citizens of this country, and very great consideration should be given to them. Again, when a man is returned invalided, I have known of some pensions which have been payable at the rate of $2,50 per month. I do not believe, under any circumstances, that there can be any justification for a man found to be entitled to a pension from this country receiving so small a pension as $2.50 per month, and I think that the Government should take into consideration the fixing of a minimum pension which shall be paid, or the adoption of the old bonus system.
The next class to which we come is that of men who have been invalided home and have been confined in hospitals. Every possible means should be adopted in order that these men shall be returned to take their part in civil life, and if it is found that they cannot be returned to such a condition of health, then adequate compensation should he given them by way of pension.
The third class includes the men who return to this country and are physically fit and who wish to embark upon civil life. We must realize that the men who left this country in 1914 and in subsequent years are men who have made great sacrifice. The sacrifice which they have made is the sacrifice of opportunity. While they have been absent from their homes and their work for three or four years, others who have remained at home have made that much advance in their civil life, and in the vast majority of cases have been acquiring a competence to live upon. What should be the attitude with regard to these men when they return? The present system is that when they receive their discharge from the army they get a post-service pay of three months, which simply means that a man, after serving at the front, anywhere from four years to the close of the war, has only three months' pay on which to re-establish himself.
We know of no other provision which has been made by the Government other than the provision made by the Land Settlement Act, about which I shall speak later. I believe that if these men are to be successful in their civil life they should be retained, as

has been suggested here, under military service in so far as their pay is concerned, and that they should receive their pay, and their family should receive separation allowance for a reasonable length of time, even if that should be six months or twelve months, in order that the man himself may look around and view the opportunities which lie before him to enter voluntarily upon some civil employment for the rest of his life. You may attempt to carve out a man's future, when he is between fourteen and eighteen years of age. But when you take a man from twenty-five to forty years of age, his life is so shaped that others cannot carve out for him his future course, and I believe that the responsibility rests upon this Gov-which will be the congenial to him. the opportunity of selecting employment which will be congenial to him. In addition to that, I think the Government is to be congratulated upon the system of education which has been established in, connection (with the military hospitals, and it should be expanded so that the men, if they so desire, may further equip themselves upon any particular line which they choose.
Now, in regard to the men going upon the land, we have the Land Settlement Act, passed by the House, I believe, last yea^, But I do not think that Act is in any way a compensation for the soldier. They have the opportunity, if they are farmers, of taking up land and procuring a loan from the Government, but I understand that the man must be a skilled farmer, and must prove himself worthy of the loan, in order to procure it from the Government. In that case we are not doing much more for the soldier than the Federal and provincial governments are doing for civilians. In the provinces of British Columbia Alberta and Saskatchewan, I understand legislation is now in effect whereby they will make loans to any agriculturist cn security of his land and chattels. So that the position of soldiers in the matter of land settlement does not differ materially from that of men who come to this country from any Other part of the British Empire or, perhaps, from any foreign country.
I do not concur in the view expressed by the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) with regard to the matter of aid to returned soldiers. There is no doubt that the responsibility for the care of these men and their dependents after the war is over rests upon the Federal Government, and the Federal Government alone. It is not in keeping with the dignity of this young and

prosperous country that charitable organizations throughout the country should be seeking subscriptions for the purpose of rendering aid to soldiers and their dependents. In the early days of the Patriotic Fund I was an ardent supporter of the voluntary system, but at that time we anticipated that the war would be of short duration and that the enlistments would be small in number. Since then hundreds of thousands of men have gone overseas, and I now believe that all funds of this kind should be financed by the Federal Government and paid out to soldiers and their dependents as a matter of recognition of services rendered, not as a gift from any class of the people. These men enlisted of their own free will; there was no bartering, no trading, no dickering on their part as to what amount they should receive for their services. They left it to the honour of the people at home to see that they were fairly dealt with on their return, and it rests with this Government to make fair and generous provision for these men and their dependents.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am glad that the Government are taking some steps in the matter of looking after the returned soldier when he becomes incapacitated. At different times during the past three years I have approached departments of the Government in regard to these matters. I have asked the Board of Pension Commissioners that justice be done to the dependents of soldiers who had been wounded or killed overseas, and I was met always with an excuse, courteously expressed, of course, but having the effect of bringing no definite re

suit. During last session I had occasion to approach officials of the Government with a view to getting information regarding pensions which I thought should be paid to twd mothers of soldiers who had been killed at the front. I was told that while it was just and equitable that these pensions should be granted, it was impossible under the regulations to grant them. Soon after the prorogration of Parliament an election came on, and during the progress of the election, early in December, pensions were granted in respect of the two claims which I had previously brought to the attention of the Board of Pension Commissioners. It is evident, therefore, that though the regulations six or nine months previously prevented the granting of pensions in these cases, there was nothing to ( prevent their being granted during the early part of December. If this Bill has the effect oE creating a department that will

honestly investigate all these matters and decide them equitably and thus bring an advantage to soldiers generally and their dependents, it will have my hearty and undivided support, hut it it is the means of bringing about further delay, it will mean a large expenditure with very little resulting good.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Department constituted:
Mr: CANNON: Who is the minister in charge of the new department?
Robert Laird Borden: Sir James Loug-heed.


Jacques Bureau: This Bill creates a new department and all the machinery and organization necessary for its operation. I realize the importance of this problem, and I have no objection to the Government's taking any step to facilitate the re-establishment of returned soldiers. The member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) suggests to me, however, that it would be well, in this or another section of the Bill, to provide a time when this department and the machinery created for its administration shall cease to operate. My object is to have it stated that there shall be a Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for the period of time that the condition of the soldier or the war may require, so that when that time comes, whoever is in power, will not have to face a large number of civil servants in that department who will ask him to let them continue in their positions.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend must realize it will be quite impossible to fix a definite time at which this department would become unnecessary and its continuance undesirable. I shall, however, recall to his mind that, in an Act which passed this House a few days ago, power was taken for the Governor in Council to amalgamate departments and also to abolish departments. Under t'he power which is vested in the Governor in Council by that Act, this department and other departments which have been constituted by reason of the necessities of the war, can 'be abolished when there is no further occasion for them.


Jacques Bureau: I realize the position,
but I want to point out the difficulty that will confront the Governor in Council as well as Parliament in abolishing a department after it has once been established, while at this particular juncture, when there will be no pressure exercised and no objection offered, we should say:	This Act
shall ibe in force for a period of twelve, or fifteen or twenty years, or longer, after the war.


Robert Laird Borden: I really think
it would be undesirable to fix a definite period. I would hardly assent to that. The power is vested in the Governor in Council. As I have already declared in this House, that power will be exercised as soon as that Act receives the assent of His Excellency the Governor General, by the amalgamation of the Department of Inland Revenue with the Department of Customs.. In the same way, at the pro.per time, this department will cease to exist under a like order of the Governor in Council regarding it. It will be impossible to define the time at present. This departmeht may have to continue in existence for half a dozen years after the war is over. We cannot foresee the conditions at present. There are in the public service at present many people who cannot be continued in the public service after the necessities of the war have ceased. I appreciate entirely what my hon. friend has said. Those aTe difficulties with which this Government or some 'future Government will have to deal, and they must be dealt with in the very best way possible with due regard for the public interest in dealing with them.


Mr. CANNON:: I understand there are
at present twenty-three Cabinet ministers. Am I right?


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell the
hon. gentleman who they are. There is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Overseas Military Forces, the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Secretary if State, the Postmaster General, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the Naval Service, the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Militia and Defence, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Labour. Then, there is Hon. A. K. Maclean, who is Vice-Chairman of the Reconstruction and Development Committee and who is also discharging the duties of Minister of Finance during the absence of Sir Thomas White. There is Hon. Mr. Robertson, who is Chairman of the Labour Committee and Chairman also of the Registration Board. Both those gentlemen are quite as actively occupied as any of the



ministers in the duties which devolve upon them. There is also Hon. Mr. Cochrane, who i3 a minister without portfolio.


Lucien Cannon: This list includes twenty-two ministers, if the Hon. Mr. Maclean and the Hon. Mr. Robertson are to be considered as Cabinet ministers.


Robert Laird Borden: They are Cabinet ministers.


Lucien Cannon: But at present they have no special department?


Robert Laird Borden: They have the duties_to which I have already alluded. One of them is Vice-Chairman of the Reconstruction and Development Committee, and virtually Chairman, because the work devolves altogether upon him. The other is Chairman of the Labour Committee and Chairman of the Registration Board.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand that besides those ministers there are also par-parliamentary secretaries?


Robert Laird Borden: There are two parliamentary secretaries, and the Solicitor General.


Lucien Cannon: Who are they?


Robert Laird Borden: The parliamentary secretaries are Mr. McCurdy who is Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and Mr. Hugh Clark, who is Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of External Affairs. The Solicitor General is the Hon. Mr. Guthrie.	. ,,


Lucien Cannon: According to custom in Canada, the Solicitor General is not a member of the Cabinet. Is the Solicitor General under the present ministry, a member of the Cabinet?


Robert Laird Borden: The Solicitor
General is not a member of the Privy Council, nor is either of the parliamentary secretaries.


Lucien Cannon: Judging by these answers, we have at present 22 ministers, one Solicitor General and two parliamentary secretaries, making in all 25 ministers, and as I might call them, assistant ministers. At a time when we are all speaking of economy, I would suggest that it might be possible for the Government instead of appointing -a minister to administer this department, to pass the work over to another minister whose department is not working as hard on account of the war. I see, for instance, that there is in the Cabinet a Minister of Immigration. Immigration, at present, is ab-

solutely nil. There is a little immigration from the United States, but the work of the department is in no way large enough to occupy the ability and energy of the minister. Why not utilize his energies and abilities in the administration of this new department? We would save money by doing so. The country would not have to pay the -salary of one minister, and I am quite sure the work the Minister of Immigration would do in this department would be satisfactory.	,
Instead of putting the very important question of the civil re-establishment of soldiers in the hands of a -minister who, unfortunately, in most cases is a politician, why not put it into the hands of a commission? The Prime Minister has, I understand, had a special preference for forming commissions since he became Premier of this country. The hour is late. I do not ask the Prime Minister to tell me the number of commissions he has formed since 1911, as the number is very considerable. I would not even ask the Prime Minister why all these commissions have been formed and wrhat they have done. But I think that this is a case where one should be formed instead of entrusting this responsibility to a minister or a department. These soldiers are coming back from the war; I agree with all the remarks which have been made on tooth sides of this House, that they deserve the 'best treatment possible. Is there not a danger that if this civil establishment is left in the hands of a minister and a politician, you will have a certain amount of patronage? When the Union Government was formed it was to have many effects, but it had one effect, and a good effect, if we are to believe the newspapers. That is the effect of abolishing patronage. How long will this Government keep to its attitude as regards patronage? I do not know, but I hope patronage is abolished never to return. But when Union ceases because-after all, Union is net to be eternal-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?
*Mr. 'CANNON: If it is to be eternal the ideas of some of our friends on the other side will have to change, because we have been watching since the session opened and we have seen certain signs of a lack of cohesion in the ranks of the Government supporters. But supposing Union ceases, we will have in this country either a Liberal or a Tory Government. If it is a Liberal Government there is nothing to fear as to how the soldiers will be treated. If it is a Tory Government, I hope everything will be

all right, but I am not so sure of it as I would be with a Liberal Government. In either ease we will have patronage and under those circumstances ought a question like this to toe left in the hands of a politician? I say tio.
This same question has been submitted to parliaments before. The question of the civil re-establishment of soldiers has arisen in other countries. If you will refeT to the history of France after Napoleon's wars you will see that the question was up before the Parliament of France. It was a very serious question. What were the French people to do with those soldiers .who had fought for twenty years under the .Emperor in every part of Europe and who had won glory for their country? These soldiers were handled by the Government as the Government thought best, and the consequences were very bad for the country. The soldiers were disbanded too quickly. They had acquired an adventurous spirit and it was hard to get them to return to the habits of civil life. That is a danger that we will have to avoid in Canada. What means will be taken we do not know, the Bill does not mention them. As to the evils of patronage in connection with the civil re-establishment of soldiers, the best example we have is what happened in the United States after the Civil War. Any man that would support a Republican thought he was entitled to a pension and he sometimes got it even though he had not fought at all in the war. After the Civil War had been finished for over forty years the number of people who were receiving pensions from the government was far greater than the number of soldiers who actually fought in the war. Is this going to happen in Canada? If it is what am'ount of money will be spent? Where will we stop? What guarantee have we as long as a politician is administering affairs in connection with the civil re-establishment of soldiers?


Mr. POWER:: The hon. gentleman calls them politicians; the members of the Union Government are statesmen.


Lucien Cannon: I suppose that if we have statesmen everything will be all right, but how long will it last? I submit that this Bill, the principle >of which is very good, the principle of which I approve of, ought to be amended in such a way that instead of establishing a new department, we shall have a commission composed, of independent men, composed, for instance, of soldiers *who have gone to the front, composed of business men, composed Of men who can
g've justice without any regard to the .political preferences of the people who apply to them for justice.. What has happened since the war started? Soldiers who have gone to the front, soldiers who have done their duty, because they did not belong to the right side of politics, have been unable to obtain justice from the Government in some cases. I understand that since the Government has changed and has teen improved by the fact that some Liberals have entered it, conditions have altered. But, we have no guarantee for the future.
I heard the Prime Minister say that this Bill was introduced because the Government realized that we were at war and that ,we had to do something for the returned soldiers. We all agree, but how it is that it took the Government four years to realize. this? We have been at war since 1914, we are now in the year 1918, and it took four years for the Government to realize this. I believe the real reason is that some friends of the Government needed portfolios, that they had to be given portfolios on the fifty-fifty basis which the papers mention, with the result that instead of having a commission of impartial men in whom the people would have full confidence we have now a department the portfolio of which will be given to some politician, either Liberal or Tory Unionist. Mr. Chairman, before finishing these remarks, .1 wish to say that I am willing to give every support possible to the Government in helping the returned soldiers but I sincerely hope that politics will have nothing to do with the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I have listened .with a great deal of interest to the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon). He seems to think that the late Government, myself particularly, appointed too many commissions during the past six and ,a half years, and yet he desires me to heap .another sin on my head by appointing .another commission. The observations of my hon. friend do not seem very logical in that respect. .1 leave it at that. As far as the duties of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization are concerned, I can only say to my hon. friend-if he will permit me to say it with all respect-if he were discharging the duties and carrying on the work which the minister is carrying on at the present time, he would find himself very much busier than ever he has been during his entire life. As far as the appointment of .a politician is concerned, we ha,ve taken that matter into account and we have appointed a gentleman who is not a politi-

cian. My hon. friend has not been long enough in parliament to realize that in the pure and serene and happy atmosphere of the Senate there are no politicians at all, and it was for that reason that we selected Sir James Lougheed, who has 'been a minister without portfolio for six years before he assumed this post and who, during that time has given, without salary or remuneration, very effective and valuable service to the people of this country in many ways. My hon. friend also observed that we had waited for four years. We have not waited four years, because it is less than three years since the soldiers commenced to come back from the front-probably not much more than two years. They have not been coming back in great numbers until recently, but now they will- be coming back in much larger numbers, and it seems desirable that this department should be established, in order that desirable safeguards and measures that are eminently necessary might be adopted and carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Duties.	.
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to mo.ve ' that clause five of the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following proviso:
"Provided, however, that nothing in this Act 6hall be deemed in any way to affect the powers or duties of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada."
I do not think there is anything in the Act which would affect these powers and duties, but that hoard was appointed under the report of the special committee, approved by Parliament and afterwards carried into effect by Order in Council. It is desirable that the independent
12	p.m. status should he maintained. It is probable that the board will report to the Minister of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Hitherto, it has reported wherever there was occasion to report, to the Minister of Finance who has desired more than once to be relieved from giving attention to such matters for the reason that his other duties and responsibilities are sufficiently onerous.


Ernest Lapointe: I notice on reading
Clause 5, the following:
The minister shall have the management and >
control of all matters relating to the re-establishment in civil life and activities of all persons who have served in the naval or military forces of His Majesty or any of His Majesty's allies during the present war.
Would it not he preferable to limit it to those who resided in Canada before the war?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand
the point my hon. friend mentions, but it was thought it should apply to any soldiers who served in the Allied armies and came to this country, and that we should endeavour to assist them with vocational training and re-education and otherwise, so that they might be assisted, so far as they needed assistance, to take their part in the ordinary activities of our national life. That is assuming they came here to take up permanent residence.
IMr. LEM1IEUX:	I was a member of the
Returned Soldiers Committee last year. I listened to the evidence which was presented to that committee and took part in the framing of the resolution which was adopted, and that principle was consecrated. Soldiers belonging to another nationality, hut fighting with the allied nations should be treated on a footing of equality with our own men. The safe principle was embodied in the resolution introduced last year by the Minister of the Interior as regards the land in the West. It seems to me the principle is a good one.


Mr. STACEY:: I have the honour to come from a province which, I believe, contributed by voluntary enlistment about one-tenth of the entire population. A very large number of those men, I am not prepared to say how many, are from the rank of what we call in British Columbia small farmers. They were on what we call ranches. A great many of those who are returning are looking forward to resuming civil life on some such plan as existed when they left, and I venture to suggest to the Government the advisability of making some special provision for them which, if I understand the Land Settlement Act correctly, is not made in that Act. We have in the province of British Columbia a great many thousand acres of the richest land in Canada, which is at present practically unoccupied. While theoreticallj and absolutely held by the Dominion Government, or held by some of the natives of that country, the land is wasted, has never been used, and in all probability never will be used. It might be well at this juncture, if consideration were given to the advisability of satisfying the Indian claims, and so arranging matters that these men could be placed upon small holdings of say 10 or 20 acres, so that they could resume the occupation which they left upon entering military service. I am safe in saying that if consideration could be given to a plan of this kind, which I have only barely outlined, it would meet with the approval of a

great number of people who have gone from that province to the front. Many of them would like to return, but the conditions are such that, unless some special arrangement is made, they will not be able to do so. If they could go back there they would be very valuable contributors to the welfare of the province. Referring to a suggestion that has been made, I am satisfied this House realizes that it would be next thing to criminal to compel our. men, during the life of this generation, to go away back in the northern country far removed from all .society-I mean society in a good sense- and from all social surrounding on the contrary. If we can keep these men near to us with the idea of community life, it would be very vital to their comfort and to the wellbeing of the community as a whole.


Robert Laird Borden: The observations which t!he hon. member for Westminster District (Mr. Stacey) has placed before the Committee are well worthy of consideration and they will receive it; I shall commend them to the attention of the minister. As far as the Indian claims in British Columbia are concerned, my hon. friend doubtless realizes that the Indians of that province have pretty comprehensive claims. As to what those claims are, and whether or not anything can be worked out along that line I am not prepared to say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Previous action confirmed.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Board of Demobilization will come under the jurisdiction of this new department?


Robert Laird Borden: No. The Board of Demobilization, so far as I understand, is under the Department of Militia and Defence. It deale with matters which are to be considered in connection with the discharge of the soldiers, their transportation from overseas, and the order in which they come. There are a great many considerations of that kind, which my hon, friend will appreciate as well as any hon. gentleman in this House, which must be taken into account. But those matters are naturally under the Department of Militia and Defence. So far as measures are to be taken overseas, they would come under the attention of the Minister of the Overseas Service.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then this department will have no jurisdiction whatsoever overseas?


Robert Laird Borden: No-. It deals
altogether with matters in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first and second times and concurred in.
Robert Laird Borden: Is there any objection to taking the third reading now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would prefer, in accordance with the wishes of the leader of the Opposition, that the Bill should stand.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 12,10 a. m. (Thursday.)
Thursday, April 11, 1918.
| The House met at Three o'clock.



NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Naval Service) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 49, respecting the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911.
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The object
of this Bill is to provide that the discipline on the ships of the Canadian Navy -shall be similar to- that of the Imperial Navy and the Australian or New Zealand Navies.
In 1911 when the Canadian and Australian Navies were being farmed the Imperial Parliament passed' the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911.
. The Act declares that any dominion having adopted the Naval Discipline Act, references therein to H. M. Navy and H. M. Ships are to have effect ae including the naval forces and- ships raised by the Dominion,
The Act is intended to give effect to the agreement arrived at by the Imperial Conference with respect to the government and discipline of the naval forces of the selfgoverning dominions and their relations to the Royal Navy and to one another, namely, that there .should be power by mutual agreement between the Home Government and the Dominion Government, and between- one dominion government and another, to provide that the fleets and ships of' the Royal Navy and of the dominion navy, and of one dominion navy and another dominion navy, when co-operating together, should be treated, so far as discipline is concerned, as belonging to the

same service, so that an officer of one such force could he treated as a superior officer in relation to an officer of another such-.force and could assume command over the ships (belonging to such other force, and that for the purposes of court-martial officers could >be taken indiscriminately from both- or all such forces. The Act, however, provided that its provisions should not come into force with regard to- the naval forces of any dominion until that dominion had adopted the Act by legislaion.
The Act was applied to Australia on the 12th-August, 1913, and to New Zealand on the 16th July, 1914.
The Canadian Naval Forces having, since the outbreak of war, greatly grown, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide the necessary disciplinary measures.
It is almost impossible to form a court martial for the trial of offenders under the Naval Discipline Act, owing to the lack of Canadian officers of sufficient seniority. On the other hand, Imperial officers cannot sit on a Canadian court martial, as the above mentioned Act has not been adopted by Canada.
The passage of the Bill, a copy of which is attached, will place the Imperial and Canadian navies on an equal footing as regards disciplinary measures, and will have the effect of making officers and men inter-, changeable in the two navies. It will also provide that officers of both services will use a common form of commission, which is not the case at present. I shall be very glad to give further details when we are in Committee of the Whole.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into any controversy, but would my hon. friend state if, when he speaks of the Imperial Conference, he has reference to the Imperial Conference of 1911?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My remarks do refer to the Conference of 1911.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	_

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by astericks.)

[Stage Direction]
Mr*. SUTHERLAND:
1.	Is it the policy of the Government to fill vacancies on Tribunals, under The Military Service Act, with men opposed to the Government and to compulsory military service?

2.	Is it the policy of the Government to appoint as agricultural representatives on the Leave-of-Absence Boards in the Province of Ontario, representatives opposed to the Government and to compulsory military service?
3.	If not, on whose recommendation are they appointed ?
Robert Laird Borden: In reply to the first question: The method of filling vacancies on tribunals is determined by the Military Service Act. In reply to the second and third questions: The only policy followed by the Government is to appoint those persons who, having regard to the public interest, are most suitable for the duties to be performed and most capable of performing them.


POLICE INSPECTOR M. D. No. 4.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LESAG-E:
1.	Who is the Dominion Police Inspector of Military District No. 4, whose office is in the Drummond Building, Montreal?
2.	What salary is he paid?
3.	WTiat are his duties, executive power and prerogatives?
4.	How many subordinates has he got, and what salary or remuneration is paid to each of them?
Hon. Mir. DOHERTY:: 1.	J. A. Belanger.
2.	J200 per month.
3.	He is in charge of Dominion Police in Military District No. 4, under direction of Police Commissioner Kerr.
4.	129; 4 inspectors at $150 per month; 16 sergeants at $4 per day; 109 constables and investigators at S3 per day.


LOBSTER INDUSTRY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. fi. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysboro):
With reference to the annoHncement toy the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the Government has decided' to discontinue the propagation of lobsters toy hatcheries and sell the equipment, has the Government any alternative policy for the preservation of this industry? If so, what it it?
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: After exhaustive study and investigation the conclusion has been reached that the artificial propagation of lobsters by means of hatcheries has been of little or no value in the preservation of the fishery. In lieu thereof attention has been directed:

1.	To the adoption of a system of technical education for the fishermen, which will include study in the life, history and habits of the lobster and the necessity of preserving lobster life at its critical stages. Under the direction of the department original research has been conducted by Dr. Knight

and others, and much valuable information has been secured. These investigations are being continued.
2.	To the prohibition of the taking of immature lobsters; regulations for which have already been adopted for that portion of the Atlantic coast westward from St. George's island, Halifax harbour, to and in eluding the waiters of the counties of Albert, Charlotte and St. John, N.B.
3.	To increased efficiency in the enforcement of the existing regulations prohibiting fishing during the close seasons, and the protection of the mother lobsters. Considerable improvement has been effected in the past few years in this respect, and the better class of fishermen are co-operating with the department to overcome illegal fishing.


MR. W. C. REAM.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is Mr. W. C. Rean employed in the Privy Council Office or in some other branch of the Government?
2.	If so, was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission after competitive examination?
3.	What was the date of his appointment, what are his duties, and' what salary does he receive?
4.	What were his occupation, duties and salary immediately prior to his appointment in the service of the Dominion Government?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS.
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Has the Government paid any money in the past to an organization called Canadian Press?
2.	If so, how much per year, and for the last five years?
3.	To what person or persons was the payment made?
4.	Is the organization a body politic? If so, how was it created?
5.	Who are the officials and the members of same?
6.	Has the Government any control on the appointment of officers?
7.	Does the Government receive any report detailing, the expenditure of the subsidy?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	It is presumed this question relates to what is known as Canadian Associated Press anid the answer to question 1 is: Yes.
2.	Fiscal year 1913-14,	$8,500;	1914-15,
$5,250; 1915-16, $5,000; 1916-17, $800; 1917-18, $7,999.98.
3.	John Ross Robertson, president.
4.	Incorporated under the Dominicn Companies Act, January 16, 1904.
5.	John. Ross Robertson, president, A. T. Chadwick, secretary. The membership is made up of the subscribing newspapers.
6.	NO'.
7.	Yes.


FLAKE GRAPHITE.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What was the total production of flake graphite in Canada, during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 191S?
2.	What was the total amount exported from Canada during said fiscal year? 1
3.	What was the total quantity imported into Canada during said fiscal year, and what was the gross value of the quantities exported and imported, respectively?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	The Department of Customs has no information.
2.	Flake graphite is not separately enumerated in customs returns, but is included in the item, "Manufactures of Plumbago." The exports of "Manufactures of Plumbago" during the said fiscal year were valued at $372,410. The quantity is not stated in the returns.
3.	Imports of flake graphite are included in the item "Plumbago, ground, and manufactures of." The imports of manufactures of plumbago during the said fiscal year were valued at $112,849. The quantity is not stated in the returns.


DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is lit the intention of the Government to prohibit the importation of diamonds and precious stones?
2.	If so, at what date will measures prohibiting said importations come into effect?


Robert Laird Borden: Any necessary announcement in regard to these matters will be made in due course.


MILITARY HOSPITAL LAVAL No. 6.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the Military Hospital Laval No. 6 still under the control of the Canadian Government?
2.	If so, where ds the said hospital actually stationed?
3.	Who are the officials of the said hospital?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1. This hospital was loaned originally to the French Government by the Canadian Government, and it is understood that this arrangement is still in force.
2 and 3. This information is not available in the Department of Militia and Defence, but a letter has been written to the Overseas Ministry asking for the same.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the
Government to investigate war trade conditions in the United States?	.
2.	Apart from Members of the Cabinet, have any parties been sent by the Canadian Government on missions respecting war trade conditions in the United States? If so, what are the names of those who have been sent?
3.	If any such parties have been sent, what is the total expense to the Government of such missions?


Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Referring to Canada Gazette statement of March 30th giving particulars as to circulation and specie, against what approved securities [DOT]were Dominion notes issued to the value of ,$92,820,000?
2.	To what banks were these notes issued, and what was the respective security in each case?



PRIVILEGE-MR. MANION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. J- MANION (Fort William and Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday I referred to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), and said that during the battle of Vimy Ridge I had the privilege of dressing the wounds of his son. Unrevised Hansard quotes me as saying:
In order that he might return to the firing line and continue the fight, although he did not do so.
What I did say was: "And he did so/' meaning that he did return to the firing line after being wounded. And I might say that this gallant young gentleman received the Military Cross for his bravery in that battle.	.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: I notice in looking over the reports of the sitting of yesterday that no mention was made of the manner in which the Victory Loan of $[DOT]300,800,000 was made, and how effected. 1 made a motion in that respect as far back as the 20th March last. I shall expect that information to be brought down to the House before the Bill is proceeded with.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the motion made?


Wilfrid Laurier: On the 20th March or thereabouts.
IMajor-General Mewburn.] [DOT]



IMPRISONMENT OF RETURNED


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to a news item which appeared in this morning's Citizen. It appears that at one of the criminal assizes held in Ontario-I forget at what place-the grand jurors, in their visit to the jail, found that a returned soldier was being held at the jail because he had found no employment. I will send the paper over to my hon. friend; I hope that he will remedy this grievance.
Major-General MEWBURN: I have seen no such report, and I shall be glad if the hon. gentleman will send me the paper.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. C. ETHTER (Laval-Two Mountains) :: I should like to bring to the attention of the Government a very important matter which, I think, should be promptly dealt with. I read in this morning's Citizen the following:
Band of Deserters Flying "Red" Flag, Defy Authorities.
Draftees and Germans Are Fortified in District Along the Petawawa River-Threaten to Die First.
Daring the minions of the law, both civil and military, to come on and -take them a band' of young men, two of them deserters from the army and' the others alien enemies and draft evaders have formed a Bolsheviki soviet of their/ own in a lonely spot 20- miles out of Pembroke, and the neighborhood is greatly excited over it.
This happened, therefore, in Ontario.
Reports which came through from Pembroke last night to The Citizen give only fragmentary details of this extraordinary incident, but it is enough to make one marvel at the extent some young men are prepared to go to get out of serving their country.	,
Whether Jimmy and Cahill Coughey, two young men of Pembroke-
Deserters from Kingston headquarters.'

are the self-constituted1 leaders of the strange hand is hard to determine, but these two fellows are deserters from the army and both the civil and military police have been after them- for some time. They have been in parts unknown for several months now along with other men whose services are required in the army and also some German residents of the district, whom the police have to keep their eye on, and it was not until last week that a hint as to their whereabouts was received in Pembroke.

It filtered into the ear of Chief of Police Carroll on Friday last that he would find the fellows he was looking for camping on tilie hanks of the Petawawa river in a very lonely place, some 20 miles from the town.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member does not intend to read the whole of the article.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: No, I simply wish to finish my remarks-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. In my judgment this matter is not one of sufficient urgency to permit the hon. memlber to take the time of the House on the Orders of the Day. In any event, questions of this kind, which are not of urgency, should go on the Order Paper in the usual course.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I will leave to the Government the reading of the article, from which I was quoting. I wished to bring this matter to the attention of the Government, and to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of these facts, and if so, what steps he has taken. If he is not aware of them, does he intend to make an inquiry into the matter? Perhaps it would' be a good opportunity for the Government to send Quebec .troops there.


Mr. H. J. MACKIE:: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in giving a short explanation of this report?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member would not be in order. The question is one which should be asked in the ordinary course; it cannot be permitted to' give rise to a debate or discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: I had no information on this subject until I noticed the item in this morning's paper. The attention of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Militia will be directed to the matter and the hon. gentleman may rest assured that if the facts are as stated, effective measures will be taken to remedy the situation.
Mr. W. F. O'CONNOR, K.C.



RESIGNATION OF COST OF LIVING COMMISSIONER IN DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
. Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (E. Lambton): I wish to ask the Government whether Mr. W. F. O'Connor, of the Cost of Living Branch of the Department of Labour, has resigned, and if so, what reasons are given for his resignation.
Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend's question
can be best and most briefly answered by simply reading Mr. O'Connor's resignation and my reply thereto. The resignation i3 in these words:
Ottawa, April 4, 191S. Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
I hereby resign as your commissioner and examiner, under Order in Council re cost of living, of November, 1916. The resignation takes effect immediately. My reason is that I have failed to secure from you that support in the administration of the duties committed to me, to which support I have conceived myself entitled, and without which I cannot possibly further carry out with effect, such duties.
I thank you for unfailing support until this oocasion. If I did not deem the situation one which demands the action which I am taking,
I would remiember such unfailing support as a reason for overlooking your one failure, but I know that if the course upon which you have entered is persisted in, and if insubordinate employees may go over my head to yours, there will be an end to all discipline, and all effective work, so I respectfully retire from under.
Yours very respectfully, (Sgd) W. F. O'Connor.
To which I replied the next day as follows:
Ottawa, April 5, 1918.
Dear Mr. O'Connor,
I have your resignation of the position you had in the Cost of Living branch in the Department of Labour-'to take effect immediately'- together with the reason assigned for the course you have taken. Your attitude in the. matter does not commend itself to me. and if such is necessary, I at once relieve you from further duty in the Department.
The facts are few and simple. A little friction having arisen in that branch, involving a few clerks, one of them asked me to look into the matter, which I promised to do. Having apparently heard of that promise-
I recollect now that I spoke to Mr. O'Cbnnor about it myself. (Heading):
-you wrote me advising among other things, that I should not trouble myself respecting the matter. The next morning I had a talk with you about It, when it appeared that you had no personal knowledge concerning it. I then saw your assistant, who also stated that he tvas not personally familiar with the circumstances causing the friction, but had learnt them from the officer immediately in charge of the clerk in question. I then asked him to request her to come to see me, but instead of her coming, in a few minutes you came in to see me, considerably excited, when you said, in substance, that if I pursued the inquiry further, you and they would resign, to which I replied that you were at perfect liberty to do so.
The simple question is whether a minister at the dictation of a superior officer of his department, is to refuse to make a personal inquiry at the request of a clerk who alleges unfair treatment. I have never refused, nor shall I refuse, to hear the humblest clerk in the
6.54

department who feels that he or she (in this case a young woman apparently exemplary in conduct and character) has been unfairly treated. However, you have chosen your course, which you had a right to take, and to which I have no right to object. *
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) T. W. Crothers.
I think that answers my hon. friend's question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Was there any reply by Mr. O'Connor?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There was a reply
some days afterwards, after the whole thing was over.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think, in
fairness, we are entitled to the whole of that correspondence.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think so.



SOLDIERS CIVIL REESTABLISHMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, Bill No, 12, respecting the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, was read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Ghair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Gold and Silver Marking- Act, 1918, and1 to provide that an official certificate by any Dominion Government Assay Office an Canada that any article to which the Act applies has been assayed shall be prima facie evidence of the ingredients and quantities stated to be contained in the article, and that the certificate shall be receivable in all legal proceedings under the Act as evidence of the facts set forth therein.
Mr. DEVLIN:: Will the minister kindly explain the resolution?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The resolution really explains itself. As the Act stands at .present, the 'certificate of the Dominion Assay Office at Ottawa fulfils the duties that- are set out in the resolution. This is to make it so that any other Dominion Assay Office can give a certificate which will have equal force.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the minister explain the reason why that should be done?


George Green Foster: The reason is this: Supposing the Silver Marking Act director is in British .Columbia and matters come up with reference to the viola-
tion of the law. There is a Dominion Assay office in British Columbia. As the Act is now, he would have to- send the material to be analysed to the Assay Office at Ottawa. This is simply to make the certificate of the Dominion Assay Office in British Columbia of equal force in that regard as the Dominion Assay Office at the Mint here.
, Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	That seems
to be reasonable.


George Green Foster: That is all there is to it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose the officials of the mint concur in the amendment.


George Green Foster: Yes.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER thereupon moved for leave to. introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again, in ^committee on Bill No. 3, to confer the electoral franchise upon women, Mr. Boivin. in. the Chair.
On .section 1-Women, to be entitled to vote.
Georges Henri Boivin: The Bill has already been read, amended and reprinted. It was distributed last Monday as reprinted.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER:: I presume it is now in order for me to discuss the merits of this Bill. This Bill, with respect to woman suffrage, which is now under our consideration, is only one of the forms of feminism which are now spreading throughout the world. The question may be' asked whether all the laws which have opened the liberal professions to women and which have conferred upon them the right to vote, or to be elected to Parliament, have had any beneficial results on the progress of civilization, or have advanced the happiness of humanity. It is our urgent duty as law-makers to examine this Bill with the greatest care, and not to accept as necessary a radical reform, the advantages of which have not been clearly demonstrated. I for one say that it will be a great error if, on the pretext of giving a transitory liberty to a class, we should bring down women from their throne at the fireside, where natural law has placed them to fulfil a divine mission. If the consequences of this movement to take women

from the home and to lead them into the public arena where men are disputing great questions, are good, it is evident that we must vote in favour of this Bill; but if, on the other hand, it can be proved that those consequences would be evil for the country and regrettable for the home, it is our duty to vote against it.
For my part, I deplore this movement. The work of woman, her true realm, is nowhere but in the home, and this I say'" not only for the woman who- already possesses a home, for the mother of a family, but for the woman who has no home.
Mr. BURNHlAMi: Does the hon. member consider that he has a right to speak for women?


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Certainly; the Prime
Minister said that we could discuss the merits of this question when the Bill was in committee. A woman who has no home will always be able to exert heT energies for the betterment of those who suffer, and we all know that there are not lacking homes where distress and desolation reign supreme. I know of more than one home which is thus visited by good women who spend their leisure hours in helping their afflicted sisters. These good women really have a civilizing influence in these homes of misery. They are not satisfied with healing the wounds of the heart and of the soul, but by the.ir example they raise the moral level of these fallen homes. It is therefore in the home, in that which she has found herself, to which she has brought consolation and enlightment, that woman accomplishes with a royal majesty the work which Providence has designed for heT.	.
Natural law confides to men and to women a mission where the efforts of both are. required towards the accomplishment of a great work. The work itself is varied, and each consort has a particular part to play in relation to the other. Nothing but confusion would follow if one did that part of the	work	which
is allotted to the other, or both were to do the same work. Let me illustrate by the case of a woman who is forced by circumstances to earn the living for her familly which should he provided by the husband. The first unhappy consequence of this pretended freedom, or liberty, of the woman is that the industrial work in factories being ill-spirted to her physical characteristics, she may become sterile or perhaps give birth t-o unhealthy or undeveloped children. This is not all, for moralists have
shown the demoralizing effect offactory work, with its promiscuous and dangerous associations. Only too often the absence of the mother from the home during the greater part of the day is the ruin of family life; in fact, in some cases the children have to be sent to the orphan homes. This is one of the evils which factory work brings to the labourers' home, when the woman leaves her natural sphere and does the work of man.
Let us now pass to women in political life. Woman, naturally so goodi and beautiful, and so easily mastered by outside impressions, will naturally put her whole soul into this fascinating life, and will bring into every home from the most humble to the highest the same cause of ruin. Who can think for a moment that this right to vote, which is to be conferred on women, will be restricted to the depositing of her ballot in the box on election day? If a woman is to vote in an intelligent manner, will it not be her duty to get all possible information concerning political affairs, and to take part in the agitation which precedes the election? This- means that she would have to attend political meetings side by side with men of all classes, or else organize such meetings amongst women. Many of them will make a personal canvass, or take part in the campaign through lectures, newspapers, and literature generally. Election campaigns in this country are usually long, and when one is ended it is almost time for another to begin. There are campaigns of many different kinds, for instance, municipal elections, election of school trustees, provincial and federal elections, the referendum and the plebiscite, which follow each other in almost uninterrupted succession. It seems evident that the question of political life must necessarily draw woman from her true sphere in the home, into the discussions of the forum and of the street, i'f she is to use her right of voting in an intelligent way.
No, Sir, this is not the conception we have of the important part to be played in the world by women. She must remain crowned with the halo of our deep respect and of our love. The work and activities of a man are not srflted to her. We wish to see her in the home, surrounded by the unspeakable affection of her husband and children, and always deserving of the sweet appelation, "Mother of the living." This is the woman who instils life into a new generation, and this is the woman to whom, go my praise and my admiration.

Mr. PAMPHTlLE REAL Du TREMBLAY (Laurier-Outremont): I am glad the Government have brought down this measure this session, although I think it should have been brought down last session. This Bill renders justice to women to .some extent. At the last session of Parliament, the Government saw fit to enact a law giving the right to vote to a certain number of women in this country. The women of this country, of certain provinces at least, are desirous of having the vote to-day. In my constituency the women are very keen to vote. Let me give an example: Two days before the last election I was informed that only 2,400 women were on the list in my county, but on the day of election we w'ere surprised to learn that about 3,400 had actually made application to vote. They tell me that certain women from certain parts of Ontario were so anxious to vote that they came to my county because they could not vote in Ontario according to law, but in my county they could do so. So that we can judge from this fact that the women of this country, to a certain extent at all events, are to-day prepared and anxious to cast their vote, when an election takes place. Now, the question is, do - I favour the principle of this Bill? I say yes, but I want to submit the following observation : I think it is fair to say that all theN women in all the provinces are not desirous of voting, and I think, in what I am about to say, I voice the opinidn of the majority of the women of my province. I think it is a question of education and. of sentiment, and when I speak of education I mean the direction in which education has been given to women. In France, for instance, the women do not intend, and have not the slightest desire to vote, and you will admit that the women of France in all respects are learned and patriotic women, that they desire to advance the interests and welfare of their sex, and take a great interest in the welfare of their country. Then we have, on the other hand, across the channel, the English women. Hon. gentlemen are aware that for some years the women in England desired to vote, and started a widespread campaign with the object of obtaining the right to vote. At first the statesmen in England refused them this right. Fine speeches have been delivered in the House of Commons and before the public, and speeches have been made by the women; I understand that the Government has decided that they will give them this right, so eagerly sought for many years. So that there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is a question of education, and this depends on the direction in which education and sentiment have been [Mr. Fortier. 1
directed. Therefore, I think, that this being taken as a fundamental truth, wre should leave the question in the hands of each province to decide for itself. In Canada we have a law regarding the franchise for men. It has been in force since 1898; by this franchise each province established a franchise for men within their respective limits. It was enacted by the Liberal Government of that day, and I think we are satisfied with it. In the United States, I understand, ian amendment to the existing law was submitted to Congress, and has since been adopted. The amendment reads:
The right of citizens ot the United States to vote shall not be denied or abrogated by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
This means that everybody in the United States of 21 years and over, by this amendment, shall have the right to vote. Now, what is the law? This amendment, after being sanctioned by the Senate, is to be submitted to the various states for ratification, and in order to become effective, three-fourths of the states must approve of it. There are 48 states in the Union, and, therefore, the approval of 36 states will be necessary ~ to carry the amendment. Twelve states have already granted women suffrage. In the United States,, by this amendment and by this law, they have approved of the principle that'I have laid down. Why has this law been enacted by the Congress? Just for the reason that I have pointed out, that they understand that this question is one of sentiment, domestic necessity and of education, as was we'll explained to this House at the last session by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. In the United "States the women are well advanced and well educated, this question has been before the people for years, books have been written on the subject and a commission has been appointed to study the subject, and this legislation is a result. In this country we are, to a certain extent, in the same position as the United States. We have different zones, and we have a large country. From the Atlantic to the Pacific different people speak different languages. Therefore, I say, if this law is wise for the United States it is wise for this country. If adapted in one province, it will not deprive any one of any right in the other provinces at all. Why force the women of the different provinces to vote if they do not wish to do so? Let this Parliament pass a law providing that each province shall have a referendum on the question. Let every woman over twenty-one years of age have an opportunity of going to the poll and saying whether she is in favour of voting or not. If I am con-

suited I will say to the women of my province to ta<ke advantage of the opportunity that presents itself and declare themselves in favour of voting in future elections. I *believe that the enfranchisement of women will have the effect of elevating out political life to a higher moral level. This is an advanced measure, but I am not afraid of it, because I believe that the women of our country have arrived at the stage where they can render valuable help to the men in carrying on the public 'business.
But, while I am on this subject, let me say that the franchise of a country is an important and a sacred thing. It should not be disturbed often and it should be touched with caution because it is the very basis o.f the liberty of the country. It assures popular liberty and security, and if the rules of this House permitted me to offer an amendment to the constitution it would be that the Franchise Act should not be changed by a simple majority of Parliament at the instance of the Government to carry out their own aims, or for any other purpose, before an election. The constitution should be so amended as to provide that before the Franchise Act can be touched by an unscrupulous Government at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons should concur in. the change. We may be some day, as we have *been in the past, at the mercy of an unscrupulous Government. This manipulation of the franchise is what has caused many of the troubles in countries to the south of ua. The troubles which have distracted the Republic of Mexico for the past fifty years have been caused by the fact that political tyrants, in order to retain power, have, before the elections, disfranchised a part of the people. In this way they have sought to ensure victory at the elections. Therefore, we, the representatives of the people, in the interests of the people and of popular liberty, should declare that the Franchise Act must not in the future be changed unless with the concurrence of tiwo-thirds of the members of the House.
In conclusion, I would ask that it be left to each of the provinces to decide whether it is in favour of the enfranchisement of women or not. In that way justice would be done to the women of this country. I hope that some day the women will not only vote but that they will come and sit in this House, and by their presence, add charm to the public life of the country.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Mr. Speaker, this House contemplates the idea of granting the
women of Canada the right to vote in all federal elections, on the same grounds as men. Concurrently with that right, comes (naturally the right and privilege to 'become candidates for, and members of, the House of Commons. My right hon. friend, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), in proposing this Bill stated that it was not prompted solely by the new conditions created by the state of war, but as a reward due to the high merits of all the mothers, wives and daughters of this Dominion.
With all the reverence and respect due to the word of the Prime Minister, I think that the reward he proposes to grdnt them could be classed in the same category as the gift which Nessus gave to Hercules^ wife. The reward offered the women of Canada bji the Prime Minister will become the instrument of their torture and the cause of their downfall.
Are we not too much in favour of all the ideas coming from the old world; are we not too easily attracted by the whims, fancies and freaks promoted in countries whose people do not know how to exercise their activities? Before granting the women of Canada the right, and imposing upon them the duty, to vote, before' throwing them into the turmoil of political campaigns* before deciding that we shall abolish all and every distinction between man and woman, we must consider, and seriously consider, the ultimate consequence of that action.
With the Prime Minister, I pay a tribute of admiration and gratitude to the marvellous work of all the Canadian women in this dire crisis of the war. With him I acknowledge that they have deserved well of the country, and I would be in favour of granting them the highest privileges possible in so far as it would not be contrary to the best interests of the women and of the country.
A country cannot, without paying the full price, act contrarily to the laws of God and of nature. There is an essential distinction between man and woman. Although they have been moulded in the same clay, although they have received the same divine gift which we call intelligence, although they feel, think, speak and act alike, in almost every walk of life, there is an essential difference which ordains that a man shall always be a man, and a woman a woman, and all the laws of man shall not change that. The immediate passing of this measure will create no commotion in this country; the people will go along living in the same old way, but who shall foretell the result in a few decades from now? Shall

there not be conflicts between men and women? Shall there not be causes of dissatisfaction in the home or elsewhere? Or shall there even be any homes? We cannot take up a daily paper or a periodical without reading that the birth-rate is decreasing every year at an alarming rate. Will the granting of a franchise like this increase the birthrate? People may sneer at this petty preoccupation; people may consider it as a joke, but the future of a young nation like ours rests entirely upon the birthrate. And to keep up the birthrate of Canada we must keep our women within their sphere; we must attract them towards the accomplishment of the duties of their sex, duties specified by the unchangeable laws of nature.
A nation is not a collection of individuals; it is a collection of families,- To judge of the prosperity of a nation you have to look at the condition of its family ties. If the parental authority is respected, if the parents are not afraid of the hardships and difficulties inherent in the bringing up of a family, you may say without any danger of misconception that this nation is strong, because its fundamental element, the family, is sound and healthy. On the contrary, if the family ties are vanishing, if parental authority is a myth, it is a sign of weakness. This Franchise Bill, in my humble opinion, tends towards the disruption of family ties and the destruction of parental authority.
This Bill is not only disastrous from a national standpoint, it is deplorable if we consider the sole interests of the women. It is useless tb review the state of subjection in which women were before the Christian era. They were mere slaves in the hands of men; they still are mere slaves in all the countries where Christian civilization has not brought its light. Christianity has brought women to the position for which the Creator made her; it has made her the companion of man. The wonderful qualities of woman have been utilized by Christianity to complete the work of man. In all matters where men could not exercise all the needed beneficial influence, women have accomplished it. And it is in the Christian home that the all-powerful influence of woman has been felt. For all that she has done in that direction she has been surrounded with respect and love. There is not a man who does not look upon his mother as the sweetest creature on earth. There is not a manly man who does not surround his wife and daughters with respect. Will the passing of this Bill increase that respect? I think it tends to destroy it. This sort of feminism tends to

place women on the same footing as men. They will no longer 'be considered the companions of men; they will become their rivals. I have a great deal of respect for the women who are most desirous of obtaining the suffrage, but my respect is for the purity and beauty of their characters and lives, not for their political judgment. The ideal woman of man is not a politician. I readily, agree that women should be fully guarded by law in all rights of property and labour, but as they have been the guardian and the wellspring of the world's faith, morality and tenderness, I say that if they are degraded to a commonplace level with men this fine essential quality will be impaired, and their weakness will have to beg and follow where it now guides and controls. .
It will be a nice condition of affairs with our women in politics. Imagine at a convention multiplying the tongue whangers, without increasing the minds capable of initiating legislation. It will injure women physically. Who shall say that at all times they will be equal to the excitements of caucus rows, campaign slanders, briberies, inflammable speeches, torch parades, and balloting on stormy days? How will the poor workman's wife go to the polls? It is the sediment, not the wave of a sex. It is the antithesis of that highest and sweetest mystery, conviction by submission, conquest by sacrifice. I want no contest with women, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: They are higher, purer, nobler, smaller, meaner, more faithful, more frail, gentler, more envious, more merciful, far more merciful, than men are. Those of them who' are Catholics are better Catholics than their husbands and sons; those that are Protestants are better Christians than their menfolk. Women have all the necessary qualities to make good men, but they must give their attention to it while men are boys. If the rich ones do not do so, they will have to hand their work over to the poor ones.
This win-the-war Government is the sponsor of compulsion. If was elected by means of a policy of force, but it should employ its force towards other problems of national needs, paying heed to the call of the Motherland for production, and not to the forcing through of legislation such as the grading of hay and straw, playing with the clock, and forcing women into the foul vapours of politics.


Mr. GERVAIS (Berthier) (translation):: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is only seemly that, when a Bill of such prime importance

as the one now before this House is being discussed, I should pay my homage to woman in 'the beautiful French language.
For more reasons than one the question of woman suffrage is among the most important matters that could be submitted to the law-makers of any Parliament. In the first place, we must remember that we are living in a democratic country, blessed with a constitutional government, and that any law which has to do, either proximately or remotely, with the representatives of the people becomes, by virtue of that very fact, a matter of the highest importance. The representatives of the people, sitting in this House, are here in answer to the popular will, and when it is sought to change the law which governs our elections, whether in war-time or out of it, this, in all justice, should be gone about with the greatest circumspection, for our laws are the voice of Parliament and this voice may be influenced both by the manner in which the vote is taken and by the preparation of the voters' lists.
I believe that the women of the community are entitled to absolutely equal rights with the men.
If the woman of to-day, if the woman of our century, if the woman of our civilization, is not the equal of man in several respects, it is a question of education and training, which are encompassed not by one year but by the work of centuries.
Were I to indite a list of the men who have shone in the arts, in politics, on the speakers' platform, in Parliament, everywhere, and confront it with the names of those women who have acquired a certain fame, there is no doubt but that list of men would be much more imposing-
If we consider the comparative brain capacity we find that man's brain is more developed than that of woman; but this again is a matter of training and of civilization.
With regard to the physical aspect, wor man is man's inferior. This is still a matter of civilization and of training, taking into account the nature of the work that she has had to accomplish for generations as also the nature of the work performed by man.
It is certain, nevertheless, that we. must take things as they are and enact legislation which will keep abreast with the progress of our present-day civilization.
So true is it that womeu.could develop, and should develop, in the same manner as men, that all through the history of civilization you can keep track of civilization's progress amongst the different races by considering the measure of freedom which they granted to their women. It is for ue to guide woman and to educate her; and, having shown her her duty, to grant her all her rights; and I believe that, once sufficiently enlightened, women should enjoy all the rights of men.
Let us take the situation, as we find it. My colleague from Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Du Tremblay) was saying a moment ago that the women of France are not asking for the vote. That is true; but you cannot deny that the Anglo-Saxon women most decidedly do want to vote.
All of us remember the struggles, at times hysterical, which were carried on in England for the cause of woman suffrage; and it is only the recognition of women's tremendous generosity and patriotism during the war that has prevailed upon the Government there to grant them the vote; I do not know as they would have ever got it otherwise.
But, in a general way, if you glance at the map of the United States, it is certain that the Anglo-Saxon womlan does want the vote.. The French women do not desire to vote because their education was not conducted along those lines, whereas the education of women in Anglo-Saxon countries was precisely along those very lines, and these women want the ballot.
lNow, what should our position be? What attitude must I adopt? What attitude shall I adopt?
In theory, as I showed a moment ago, I am in favour of conferring on. woman al'l possible rights, and I believe that these rights should be equal to those of man. When all is said, beyond the theory, there is the practical side of the question; and I do not believe that the time has come to put such a law on our statute books. Let me tell you the reason Vlhy.
Mr. Chairman, how will the voters' lists be prepared? On the one hand, the western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and in the east, Ontario, have given women the vote, so we hear, and have found it to their .advantage, on the other hand, in the province of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces women are as yet denied admittance to the voting-booth.
So far, the Federal Government had always accepted the voters' lists prepared by the different provinces for their own elections and I do not see how these lists will be compiled hereafter. The Dominion Government grants a certain right; hence,

its duty to prepare its own electoral lists. This was previously done by the provinces and the plan worked out to the general satisfaction. Do you ask for instances to shtow that the provinces, and the Federal Government as well, were fully satisfied with the system of preparing these lists, in vogue till now? In 1867-86 the Federal Government, which was Conservative, took upon itself to name revisers who were intended to prepare the voters' lists for the following election. What were the consequences? A clamour of indignation against the proposed system arose from the Liberal ranks, and in 1893 the Liberal party adopted as the first plank of their platform the suppression of these revisers, and gave their word that they would take the preparation of the voters' lists out of the hands of the central authorities entirely. When the Conservative party came into power in 1911 they accepted ithe reforms brought about by the Liberal! party, as also the lists prepared by the provinces.
We have another example of the danger of allowing these lasts to be prepared by the Federal 'authorities. Does any one believe, for instance, that we on this side of the House are at all satisfied with the manner in which the lists were prepared for the last election; this thing is not even approved by all the members of the Government and it cannot be satisfactory to those who believe' that an election should be carried on honestly and lawfully.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, .that the Bill we are discussing is not sufficiently clear. It makes no mention of the way in which the voters' lists will be prepared; for instance, as regards the province of Quebec, there is not a word about the way these lists will be obtained. Evidently, the provincial lists will not avail, since women in Quebec are denied the right to vote. The Government can allow women thervote but can they force the women to register? What I say of Quebec province is equally applicable to the Maritime Provinces, since conditions are the same; there, as in Quebec, how will these lists be prepared?
No, Mr. Chairman, 'twere better to allow this idea of woman suffrage to mature; we should let. it grow by itself, make its way unaided in the public mind; let us allow the slow advance of the social education I was speaking of a moment ago. We should wait until this reform has sufficiently matured in the public mind; we should respect the privilege granted the provinces by the central power; let us leave ito the provinces the preparation of the voters'
[Mr. Gerva.is.1
lists, as in the past; in this way we will avoid a new cause of misunderstanding between the western provinces which have given the vote to women and the eastern provinces still withold this right from them.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Does this Act
suspend the provincial lists? For instance, in Manitoba the provincial list is adopted as the federal list; if we pass this Act, will Manitoba be obliged to accept it?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it does not affect the lists for the provinces. Upon the provincial lists there might foe some not entitled to vote at federal elections. Lists would' have to be made up if the elections took place under the War-time Elections Act in the manner provided by that statute. If, on the other hand, an election should be held under the Dominion Elections Act as it existed in the past, it would be necessary to have additional machinery by which women could be put on the lists in provinces where they are not entitled to vote at present. Moreover, in the provinces where women have the right to vote, the lists would have to be brought in accordance with the principles which are embodied in this statute.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think it- is important that an educational test should be applied under this Act. In 1890 when Mr., now Sir Hugh John, Macdonald was premier of Manitoba, he introduced into the legislature an Act providing that, an educational test should be applied to all electors. In the West we have a very heterogeneous population, including many foreigners, and the view of the then Premier that there should be an educational test was generally accepted in the West. Let me give an illustration to strengthen my point. In the municipal election held in Manitoba not many years ago, they were voting on a by-law as well as for reeve and councillors A number of electors were brought to the poll, and when requested, improperly, of course, to state for whom they were going to vote, in a number of cases they said: we want to vote for Mr. By-law.
The committee will see that if there .are many electors so ignorant-and there are- it is well that an educational test be provided in an Act of this kind. The educational te6t by Mr. Macdonald when he was Premier of Manitoba was that every elector should be able to read and interpret the Manitoba Act. Perhaps it was a rather severe test, but I believe that no person, male or female, should be given the franchise, unless he or she is able to explain

&41
the idea of voting or has some knowledge of the constitution of the country. It was our judgment at the time that the test proposed by Mr. Macdonald was not too strong.
I believe that this country has been all too tardy in rendering justice to the women in the matter of the franchise. The women have demonstrated in past years, and particularly in recent years, their ability, their intelligence and their right to exercise the franchise. Although during the recent election the vote was extended only to women who were relatives of soldiers, I am glad to say that the women of the West generally took a deep interest in the election and worked faithfully and well a month prior to the polling as well as at the time of polling. I have no sympathy with the view held by the gentleman who spoke in the French language (iMr. Ger-vais), or of my distinguished looking friend with the white hair (Mr. Fournier); I do not think that the birth rate would be materially affected if the women were given the franchise. As a newspaper man of long standing I have found the women in favour of moral reforms, always ready to take a hand in promoting such an issue as prohibition or any measure designed to benefit the people. I have great pleasure, therefore in recording my earnest support of the extension of the franchise to women; I believe it will prove to be a good thing for the Dominion of Canada. In Manitoba the women have been given the franchise, and, I think, in 'Saskatchewan as well.


Mr. DENIS:: When the Prime Minister moved the second reading of this Bill, he spoke as follows-I quote from page 95 of Unrevised Hansard:
I do not depend for this upon, the considerations which I have placed before the House as to the condition of provincial legislation on the subject. X do not even base it on the wonderful and' conspicuous service and sacrifice which women have rendered to the national cause in the war. Apart from all these, I can see that women are entitled to the franchise on their merits, and it is upon that basis that this Bill is presented to Parliament for its consideration.
Not being very familiar with the English language, I thought it wise to consult Webster's dictionary as to the meaning of the word "merit" when employed in this connection; and this is the definition I found:
The quality or relation of deserving well or ill.
From this definition of the word which the Prime Minister used we find that this Bill is presented for the acceptance of the House on the principle that it is based on
conditions stable and permanent. A Bill presented on its merits is a Bill based on principles which are supposed to the true now, which -were supposed to toe true yesterday, and which will be true in time to come. I would contrast a Bill presented on its merits to what I would call-I wish to be corrected if I am mistaken-an emergency Bill. The question of woman suffrage is not a new one in this House. Last year, there was presented to this House a Bill to give a certain class of women the right to vote. This year, a new Woman Suffrage Bill is submitted for our consideration. I have found it hard to believe that the two Bills do not conflict. Although it may seem rather strange to some hon. members, I would go so far as to say that the ideas contained in the Bill of last year and in the Bill of this year appear to me to be opposed to each other. That may seem paradoxical, but nevertheless I am convinced that the merits of one Bill defeats the merits of the other. Let me explain what I mean. The principle of a Bill presented on its merits was true yesterday, it is true, to-day, and it will be true in the future. Consequently, if last year it was true, on its merits, that woman deserved the right to vote, why is it that last year only a certain class of women were given the right to vote? The merits of the case were the same last year. If it is true and correct to say that on the merits of the case women are entitled to vote, how is it that last year the right to vote was not given to all the women of this country? Is it to be supposed that the admiration or condescension of, the Government towards the whole class was only in its infancy last year, while this year it has attained to its full growth and maturity. If last year we ignored what is this year the merits of the case, it must have been because there was a reason. What is the reason? I cannot find any other reason than this-


An hon. MEMBER:: To win the war.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is because last year we wanted to give the right to vote to a certain class of persons who were expected to help this Government to win the elections? This year I suppose compunction has come to the hearts of my hon. friends on the other side, and they want to repair the injustice which they did last year to a large majority of the women of this country by depriving them of the right to vote. This year, therefore, the Government is presenting to this House a Bill on its merits which will give the right to vote to all the women of this



country. If the Bill were presented last year for the sole reason I have mentioned, I congratulate hon. members on the other side on the sinister success they achieved. They certainly made no mistake last year if they gave the right to vote to a certain class of persons with the sole intent of winning the elections. If I may be allowed to use an expression which I have often heard in the speeches of the Prime Minister, I might say that this Bill of last year, drafted as it was, was certainly "fully adequate." It was adequate because it fulfilled the purpose for which it was drafted.
Let us examine the merits of this question. The question is a very wide one and one on which a great deal may be said. Th.e few remarks which I intend to make to the committee will, I am sure, be very incomplete. If we refer to sacred history, as far back as we can go, if we read the first chapter of Genesis, we find that woman was given only as an aid and consolation to man. We find that all through the Holy Scriptures that woman has no other part. She does not govern. She does not command. She has her place in no council except in that of the family. Profane history in antiquity does not show woman in any other role than as an aid and consolation to man, or else in an inferior role. The highest philosophy of antiquity has not conceived any other function for woman than that of companion to man. We all know that a companion is not a principal. A companion is a person whose object it is to follow and assist a principal, but not a person who is supposed herself to be a principal. In all domains of life, from childhood through middle age into old age, whether in science, literature, philosophy or religion, we do not find that woman has shown any superiority. Perhaps, as the hon. member for Berthier (iMr. Gervais) has said, that was because woman was not given an opportunity to develop her mind and her talents. At all events, as it is now, we must admit that woman has shown no real superiority except in so far as sentiment or imagination is concerned.
The physiology of woman, the anatomy of woman, reveals that she is in this world for the purpose of love and motherhood and not for the purpose of political strife. If the father has to he away from the home, it is the part of the mother to remain at home. I do not mean to say that .she should be confined to the house, nor that her mind should be closed to all intellectual subjects; but one of the two has to remain in the home, and if it is not the

mother, it will have to be the father, to take care of the children, so long as there are to be children in this world. From that point of view, I say if the father is not to remain in the home, then the mother should. If we give the right to vote to woman, we must as a consequence give her the right to attend political meetings, .because what is the use of giving her the right to vote, if she is not to be well informed in regard to politics? Women must know for whom they are voting and why they are voting. Consequently, it is a matter not only of marking a ballot, but of studying the politics of one's country, which of course entails the necessity for women attending and assisting at political meetings.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why not?


Mr. DENTS:: If it is my hon. friend's
dpinion that they should, I respect it, but *I hold that it is preferable for the sake of the family that the woman should remain in the home instead of taking part in political strife at political meetings', and at times, hearing the hard words which	we	are often accustomed to hear at such gatherings. Conjugal harmony is almost impossible between a husband and wife holding different political views. It would ibe all right if they held the same views on politics, hut when the husband holds one view and the wife a different one, as will happen very often, conjugal harmony will be impaired. This law, while not especially designed for that purpose, will, it seems to me, lead to a husband being arrayed against his wife in certain instances.
Have the women of this country asked for the right to vote? Some say they have this right already, which is not so true as some people believe. But if it is true that they have an undeniable right to vote, how is it that in England, the United States and other great democracies they have been so long denied that right? Consequently, we must conclude that it is very difficult to decide whether women have or have not the right to vote. But assuming they have that right, are the women asking to be allowed to exercise it? There are many rights which we possess which are never exercised, perhaps because we never think of asserting them. We must not forget that happiness is a relative thing. A man who is happy in one condition may be unhappy in another, and so it is with the right of women to vote. If the women of this country wanted the right to vote so keenly that they could not be happy without it, I might go so far as

to say that, though it would be a dangerous tool in their hands, we should give them that right. But they do not ask for it. What did we see in England? Suffragettes there have been going after the Prime Minister day after day, intruding on him in the privacy of his home, but the Prime Minister would not give them the right to vote for a long time; although lately they have been enfranchised. The same is true of the United States. In Canada there has been no demand by women for the vote. If, then, the franchise is a dangerous tool in the hands of women, why should we give it to them when they are not asking for it, and when it might work against the welfare and happiness of the women themselves?
I will take the liberty of quoting the law of the province from which I come on the status of women. Article 174 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada reads:
A husband owes protection to his wife- a wife obedience to her husband:
Has civilization advanced' beyond that? I do not know, but this is taken from the old Roman law which was introduced into the French law, codified by Napolean in 1804, and now the law of the- province of Quebec. The wife owes obedience to her husband. That does not mean that she is a mere cypher in the family, but that there must be a head and the husband is that head.
Article 175 of our Civil Code reads:
A wife is obliged to live witih her husband, and to follow him wherever he thinks fit to reside. The husband is obliged to receive her and to supply her with all the necessaries of life, according to his means and condition.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to ask whether my hon. friend suggests, having regard to the law which he has quoted, that the wife should be obliged to vote in the way that her husband directs?'


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not by any means. I am quoting the law, and the intention of the law. is that the husband shall be the head of the family. If we give the wife the same rights as her husband it might separate the family and' array the wife against her husband. We have seen by Article 175 that the wife is obliged to live with her husband and follow him wherever he thinks fit to reside. If we refer to Article 1292 we find the same principle laid down; in fact, we find this principle all through the Civil Code of Quebec. It is a basic principle of our civil law now in existence that the husband shall be the leader, and that the
rights of the wife, or woman, shall be confined to the family council.
Before taking my seat I sihould like to summarize any objections to this Bill. I say that the Holy Scriptures, -theology, ancient philosophy, Christian philosophy, history, anatomy, physiology, political economy, and feminine psychology, all seem to indicate th-at the place of women in this world is not -amid the strife of the political arena, -but in- her home. Let me give one or two facts. In the United States the right- to vote has been granted to women. This -right to vote necessarily entails the right to become a candidate in the elections for Congress or for Parliament. At the last, election in the United States, Miss Jeanette Rankin was elected to Congress from the state of Montana, the first woman ever elected to the Congress of that country. When she first entered the House o-f Representatives -her name was freely mentioned in the newspapers, and -many people had thei-r eyes on her to see what she would do. The first important -measure that cam-e up in Congress after this lady had taken her 6eat was the question of declaring war against Germany. After the question had been discussed at length Miss Rankin was called on to vote, but she would not speak; she was called the second time, and still she would not speak; when called the -third time she wept, and at last she said- in a voice scarcely audible that she -was n-ot willing to throw her country into war, and she voted with the very small minority against the declaration of war. In the opinion of a great number of hon. members in this House, Miss Rankin certainly did not prove that it was a considerable asset to have women in parliament, -nor I do not think it will be an asset to have them in public life. The experiences of Miss Eva Zaintz, in the Russian " Battalion of Death," have been published in this country. Miss Zaintz was a soldier in the ranks of that battalion. Nothing could be more pathetic than the case of these "'omen who enrolled voluntarily to defend their country when the men of Russia would no longer defend it. I will not take up the time of the House to give details. These women have shown to the world, if ever it will be shown, that they were heroes equal to the best that this wonderful war has produced. They had their hair cut. They donned soldiers' uniforms. They went through their training. They swore they Would fight until death for their country, and that if every soldier in Russia ran away from the Huns, they would stand

their ground. And what happened? They fought the exterior enemies of their country and many of them were killed. Then they fought the interior enemies, the Bol-sheviki, and many others of these women were killed, and at the conclusion the premier, Kerensky, was so horrified that he ordered the disbandment of the .Battalion of Death. All those that remained returned to their homes, and Miss Zaintz adds that after that she made her way with her aged father across Siberia and came to America. Her action reminds one of the Trojan hero of yore, fleeing from Troy, carrying his aged father upon his shoulders, to avoid the vengeance of the Greeks. And yet this woman writes to-day that there is a place for men and women, and it was not their place to go and form this Battalion of Death because they were altogether out of their sphere. The case which I am citing to this House might seem to be an exceptional one. I might relate at length facts in regard to it, but I am simply mentioning this to show, that from my point of view, there is a place for man and a place for woman in this world. Consequently, I say it is a social question, a moral question, a question of education, a question of local tendencies, a question or family traditions a question of race traditions, and a question of personal aspirations and feelings. And for all those considerations I think that this central power of Canada should not interfere in this matter, but should leave it to be decided .by each province in Canada. That, Sir, is my conclusion. We do not want to interfere with the rights of the Anglo-Saxon ladies of Ontario or elsewhere, nor to interfere with their aspirations and traditions. We shall be very happy if they find happiness in getting the right to vote. Let every race, let every family and every province-which is, perhaps, to a certain extent, a large family-decide as to their needs and settle this question for themselves. I have every admiration for the fair sex, but I would be very sorry to think that this admiration went to the extent of sacrificing all the traditions that we have known ever since this world has existed. I say very humbly that I have not been convinced that I should give my support to this Bill.


Mr. THOMAS HAY:: When this Bill first came before the House I asked the same question as was asked by the hon. member for Springfield whether an educational test would be provided in connection with this Bill. The Prime Minister misunderstood my question, or, .perhaps, I did not make myself clear, but the reply was to the effect

that the Naturalization Act provided for an educational test. My question did not refer to the women that were to come into the country after this time, but it related to that class . of women already in the country- and we have thousands of them who are unable to read or write in English, French, or any other language-and 1 asked at that time if the voters would have to comply with any law the province might pass in regard to a test, .before they could become Dominion electors. I think that was the text of my question.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the educational test is concerned, I think I did understand pretty well what my hon. friend asked. Perhaps he did not quite understand the answer I gave. In the first place, if we are to have an educational test at all,
I think it should at ply to men as well as women. There is no particular reason why we should establish an educational test to which women should he subjected, and provide no educational test for men. So far as the matter is left by" this Bill, both are in precisely the same situation. That is to say, any person who comes to this country and is naturalized must have a certain educational qualification, which is provided in the Naturalization Act. Any woman who comes to this country, and is not naturalized in her own right, but is naturalized by reason of the naturalization of her husband, or by the naturalization of a parent, must, before she is entitled to vote under this Bill, possess the qualification which would be required if she were making application for naturalization in her own right. That subjects men and women in this country to precisely the same test, so far as their right to vote is concerned. If the House in its wisdom conceives that some additional test is necessary, that ought to be provided by a general law applicable to men and women alike. It has not been undertaken in this Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was there a Naturalization Act passed by the Dominion?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, there was an Act passed in 1914 which has a wider effect than the previous Naturalization Act. Those who are to be naturalized require to have .a fair knowledge of either the English or the French language.


Mr. PACAUD:: Mr. Chairman, if the few observations which I venture to make in, criticism of this Bill oould be construed as a desire on my part to deny to the women of Canada a privilege which they were claiming, I confess that I would promptly

desist from such a course, remembering as I do this obvious truth, that it is never given to men to have the last woid.
This is not nay intention. I fully recognize, Sir, that it may be claimed with a great deal of justification that, as a matter of right, if the women of Canada really desired the privileges of citizenship which are now conferred only on men, these privileges should be granted to them.
Looking at this question from this angle, I readily admit that the women of this country have the necessary qualifications to exercise the franchise. They have both the intelligence and the culture to grasp the issues at stake and to cast their votes with an unbiased mind and a conscience free and unhampered by those selfish interests which too often weaken the judgment of man.
May we not add, Sir, that strong as may have been their claim in the past to have a vote in the management of our public affairs, stronger still is that claim to-day, when we recall the noble part that women have taken in this war? Their title to the vote has grown in proportion to their splendid service to the state and to their never ceasing sacrifices to our men at the front.
Whether in Canada or abroad, they have given their time and their help for a great cause and amidst these scenes of misery and of iwoe they appear to us to-day, more than ever, "as heaven's chosen messengers on earth."
Sir, it is because women have to such a degree elevated themselves that I hesitate to-day to be a party to a measure which, to my mind, will only tend to bring woman down from her lofty position where she is admired, respected and loved. The influence of her example is a great moral asset to the state. That influence is derived in a large measure from her position of "splendid isolation" within the home. Let us not tamper too lightly with this tradition by dragging, women into the turmoil of political strife.
The question which impresses itself upon my mind is not whether we should grant the vote to women, but whether -the women themselves want it. I do not believe that the majority are in favour of it. I know that in many provinces this right of suffrage is already granted. I recall the legislation of last year passed in this House granting to some women a right which was denied to others. This was a grave injustice. It haa no justification in fact. It was done for a special purpose. It achieved the end which its authors had in view and in so far as
this Bill tends to repair a wrong done, to wipe away an unfortunate distinction that was made in the War-time Elections Act, it has the merit at least, though too late, 'of extending equal treatment and equal justice to all the women of Canada.
Speaking for my province, I do not believe that there will be great enthusiasm displayed for this Bill. We do not consider that woman's mission has changed; her kingdom is still her home. We are more concerned about placing a wedding ring on her finger than putting a ballot in her hand. We feel that the larger field of human activity which is offered to women by this Bill will not raise them any higher, but may even degrade them in the youthful eyes of those whose hearts they never cease to lighten and to bless.
Sir, this does not mean that the women of my province do not take an interest in our public affairs. Far from it. They hold hi a large measure what I may call the substance of power. Their influence in the home is dominant. They are consulted in all matters. Their advice, always sought, is usually followed.
But, with that instinct, which women alone possess, they feel that it is wiser and better to leave to others the expression of that power. They have large families which entail heavy domestic duties which they fulfil with care and devotion. These obligations are a barrier to their appearance on a larger stage. I do not believe that it is wise to take the risk of destroying their true, womanly work, their domestic skill, their lovable and endearing qualities, by tempting them to follow us to a polling booth, to a public platform, and, some day, into this very House. For, Sir, we cannot be blind to the fact that we are but entering into the first phase. The others will follow rapidly.
Neither man nor woman can play a double part in life; they have their own spheres of activity. I 'do not believe that this is a time to experiment with a new order of things or to uproot that which has resisted the test of centuries.


Air. J. E. PREVOST (Terrebonne) (translation) :: Mr. Chairman, am I wrong in believing that two speeches in the French tongue are not over-numerous when we axe dealing with "la dame de nos pensees," the lady of our thoughts, as they used to say in deaT old France?
The Bill before the House just now brings up this question of feminism which has elicited such divergent opinions in this-House, in the press and elsewhere.

I do not believe in being absolute, neither on the one side nor on the other; and I believe that here, as always, it is in the happy medium that truth and justice .abide.
In theory, it is. indisputable that every person who contributes to the resources of the State is entitled to a voice in controlling the administration of the resources of the State. That is just and logical.
In practice, it should be borne in mind that, ever since 1869 the English have given their women the municipal vote which exists if not everywhere, at least in many parts of Canada. There have been no complaints on that score.
The women-voters have shown themselves to be most discreet, mainly devoting their activities and their time in matters political to questions affecting the relief of the poor, and bringing with them (into this .sphere, side by side with a sound administrative control, a little of the spirit of charity and of tenderness, a little of the maternal spirit.
In New Zealand, in Australia, the women have a voice in the election of their representatives, These representatives .are none the worse for th'at. .. neither are the women. I have even heard that public life in those countries had been chastened thereby. That may be.
Even, if that were all.
It is said moreover, and this of England as well as Australia, that the women voters pay great heed to questions of morality, honesty .and respectability, and that they give more weight to the- moral character of a candidate than to his party affiliations.
If this be so, then the experiment is .surely deserving of .a trial in our own .country.
Forcefully anti-feminist in many respects, absolutely convinced that what exists, and what should exist, between woman- and man, is not equality but equivalency, 1 am grieved to see women invading occupations which ,are not the least hit in the world suited to them and which remove them from tlhedr proper sphere, that i.s from the hearth; most of all I regret that our economic methods and the condition of our manners should often induce women to follow that course; I am saddened, too, toy all this childish, silly feminism, by this insane desire to be mannish in ridiculous things, by women who smoke, women who cycle, by women, man-fashion, astride a fiery steed, women who invade professions nowise meant for them, etc., and who neglect their kingdom for all these things.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to approve whatever tends to establish "equality of
[iMr, Prevost]
Tights" and to facilitate "the exercise of these rights." Here I approve, but with the understanding that the exercise of these rights will not go to lengths where woman will be diverted from her function, from her natural and sacred duty.
When you say to me: The woman doctor, the woman lawyer, my features express my disapproval; .because I am sure that one woman lawyer is perhaps not one lawyer more, but it positively is one woman less- and one mother less.
When you say to me: the woman teacher, my face, begins to brighten up because there is nothing to prevent a woman from being at one and the .same time a teacher and the mother of a family.
No doubt, we would rather see-however, let that be.
And, finally, when you say to me: the woman voter, I haven't a bit of objection left. In the first place I am just and logical and in a country where my messenger is a voter I find it rather "tough" that my sister should not enjoy that privilege; in our day, when a woman may be queen, Queen of .Great Britain, Queen of Holland, Queen of Spain, I can see no reason which would make us consider a woman as unworthy of expressing an opinion on political matters. I even see in the right of expressing that opinion the welfare of society.
There are .people who argue against woman suffrage that the exercise of this right will whirl our women into the political vortex. Do those who speak in this vein reflect that, as a matter of plain fact, that in reality, our women are practically living to-day in the atmosphere of politics, that they devote both time and attention to politics, go to the meetings, very often attend the committees organized, even in the most remote country districts, talk over the election with their husbands and with, their neighbours, men and women; that, even, when the country is in the throes of discussion anent a question of the utmost import, the women are not the last to feel the consequences and to be stirred by them?
For in-stance, when military conscription was brought up, when there is talk of prohibition,'when there is any discussion of questions involving the relief of the poor, public health, .sanitary regulations, etc., our women, feeling themselves directly interested, take an active part in the discussion of these questions and .are really in the current of public life; but they have not th6 right to express their opinion by a vote when the day comes to choose a legislator who will make enactments which

the women will have to observe. Women are to a certain extent inferior to men in education and culture, that is, amongst what we have chosen to call the upper [DOT] classes; they are superior to men in intelligence, common sense and natural keenness, in those things which are comparatively inborn to mankind, I mean to say, in those things precisely which are brought to the fore in the almost universal suffrage of our elections. The working girl has a finer sense of the fitness of things and a sharper intellect than the workingman; the peasant woman has 'better insight than her male companion; the latter is well aware of this and always consults her. Hence, our electorate is deprived of the more intellectual influence in its phere.
Women voters will pay more heed to moral questions than to matters of party, they will give more weight to the morals of the candidate than to his platform, his manifesto and his declarations. The more I look into this thing, the more I favour woman suffrage and the less reason I see for opposing it. Its sole effect would be the introduction of calm counsel and of the human element into polities generally. Another point of view; it will persuade man, by ia tangible warning and a permanent demonstration, of a thing in which, amongst a certain class, he does not sufficiently believe, namely: that the woman is his equal; that he is the head and that he must remain the head, but not the master, and that his helpmeet is a person before the State as before God. And so' I come to ithe conclusion that women should have the vote. However, the solution of this problem, for it is a problem, should be loft to the provincial legislatures.
As a matter of fact, this is a question of education and of temperament. In certain countries people willingly admit that women should go to the polls, in others where, nevertheless, the ideals of liberty and progress are in honour, as is France, for instance, this right has not yet been granted to women because it is not consistent with the French temperament. It is the same thing in Canada where ideas differ and education varies from province to province within Confederation. Each provincial legislature is better informed than any other regarding the state of mind and the opinions of that province and it should be left to that Parliament to decide whether or not the women of that province shall vote. Moreover, this interference of the Federal power in the provincial sphere has an uslv look to us. We have reason to
believe and to fear that in thus assuming the role of the legislature and defining the electoral qualifications on a given point, the Government of Ott&w-a is heading towards the old system of Federal voting lists, which was so faulty and so unjust. Prior to 1896 the Federal voting lists were prepared by revisers who were handsomely paid by the Government at Ottawa and who could add or cancel a name, at their own sweet will, so as to make the lists favourable to their masters. Nobody has forgotten the crying injustices which were wrought against so many voters whilst this system was in vogue.
The liberals came into power in the year 1896; and in 1897 they abolished the system of Federal revisers. Since that time the voters' lists have been compiled in each province in accordance with the provincial law. For instance, in the province of Quebec the lists are prepared by the secretary-treasurer of each munincipality and are revised by the municipal councils where every voter has the right to produce his qualifications and get fair treatment. By this law granting the ballot to women all over Canada the Government at Ottawa is encroaching on the system established in 1897, it deprives the provinces of the right-to themselves define the electoral qualifications which shall preside at elections, and seems desirous of setting up once more the very vicious system of olden days. This foreboding is all the more justifiable on our part since at the time of the last Federal elections, in 1917, the Government, hy its ignoble War-time Elections Act, was guilty of the gravest injustice against a huge number of voters in giving over the electoral lists for revision, in the very last days preceding the election, into the hands of a legion of examiners who, in nearly every part of the country, played havoc with the lists; which is one of the reasons behind this Government's success. We meet again, in 1917, the Tory spirit of former times, the spirit which presided at the preparation [DOT] of the voters' lists to the detriment of the voters but all to the advantage of those in power. So I do not look favourably upon the present interference of the Government who, through their law granting women the ballot are beginning to deprive the provinces of the right to prepare, themselves, the -list of voters. That is why, although favourable to the principle of woman suffrage, 1 am opposed to the law which the Government is now asking the House of Commons to sanction. It is the right of the provincial legislature to decide

whether or not their women shall vote. 1 fail to understand the eagerness and the zeal of the Federal Government, which has suddenly become imbued with an excess of politeness towards the ladies, in taking away from the provinces the opportunity of granting or refusing to their women the right to have a say, by means of the ballot, *in the elections of our country.
M. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet) (translation) :	Mr. Chairman, pray do not be
astonished if I make use of the French tongue in voicing my opposition to this measure. When, under pretense of protecting woman and of elevating her social status, the Government proposes a law which is a slight upon woman and which will fatally result in lowering her, I believe candidly-with the hon. members for Ber-thier and for Terrebonne-that, in championing the dignity and the grandeur .of woman it is only proper to employ the richest, the most 'delicately shaded, the daintiest and the purest of human tongues, which, by reason of these qualities has been acclaimed as the language of diplomacy.
On the second reading of this Bill the right hon. Prime Minister brought up a question of principle. Amongst other things, he said:
I can see that women are entitled to the franchise on their merits, and it is upon that basis that this Bill is presented to Parliament for its consideration. It is our belief that the influence of women exercised in this way will be a good influence in public life. We believe that beneficial results have ensued wherever the franchise has been granted to them ; indeed the principle of granting the franchise to women generally was practically affirmed in the last Parliament.
Let us examine right away, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, the pretext invoked in the last sentence I have just read. Personally, I am not very much inclined to follow the bad examples of the last Parliament; it was guilty of far too many iniquities: witness, the conscription law, a monumental blunder from both an economic and a patriotic standpoint, founded on a principle which is false and unconstitutional, and a law which I would choose to see wiped off our statute books, if the thing were possible; witness, again, the Wartime Elections Act which embodies the most heinous injustice and an absolute breach of faith towards thousands of British subjects, citizens of this country; that law also should be repealed, which repeal moreover has been requested by the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan.
[air. Prevost. ]
I would never be through were I to recite the long list of iniquities perpetrated by the last Parliament. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we were not elected for the purpose of approving all that had been done by that Parliament. If that were the case, an election would always be superfluous and we ourselves would be mere machines.
This argument of the hon. Prime Minister is not serious and he knows that better than any one else. We are here to study questions on their merits and to decide them according to our conscience and not at all according to what may have been the opinions of the members of the last Parliament.
Read over the hon. Prime Minister's speech and, outside of the pretext just mentioned, you will find nothing but the glittering generality: "Women have the right to vote and their exercise of this right will be an influence for good." Not a single word of argument to prove his contention, so much so, that if we had only his utterances to guide us in forming an opinion upon this question, which is highly important from every point of view, we would be hard put to it to reach a conclusion founded not alone on reason, hut, I say more, on the teachings of experience and of facts.
So I was obliged to look elsewhere and it is a brief synopsis of these explorations that I wish to present to the members of the House. In running through the best authors who have dealt with this subject I have become convinced that the Bill before the House is contrary to the natural order, to the social order, to the economic order and to the moral order. For the sake of argument, I take it for granted that, once this Bill has become law, women will exercise the privilege granted them and will take an active part., in the same way as, and side by side with, the men, in political contests. They will come to the meetings in search of information, they will busy themselves with propaganda and with what we commonly call electioneering; consequently, they will undergo the rude apprenticeship of the brutalities of public life and, sooner or litter, will claim the right to become members of Parliament and to sit in our legislative halls. This, of necessity, will divert, them from their homes and from their usual occupations and will pit their native weakness against all forms of seduction and deceit.
With this admitted, allow me to try and demonstrate the truth of my thesis. First, this Bill is contrary to the natural order which has endowed woman with a different constitution from that of a man; and since

nature has not given woman the same strength, she cannot impart to woman the same tasks, the same duties! and the same rights.	.
"In general," says Auguste Comte, "the true, path of human progress Is this: to render the feminine life more and more domestic and to release it more and more from all outside occupation, the better to insure the accomplishment of its end: mating."
This theory of the Positivist philosopher is confirmed hy a .celebrated practitioner, Doctor Fonesagrivas:	/
"Woman," he teaches in a treatise on the education of girlhood, " is essentially a hidden being, primordially destined to a private life; public life, once it touches her, transforms her into a strange being, a hybrid, a sort of pariah creature."
Further, it is contrary to the social order which demands a guardian over the home, and which in consideration of woman's relative weakness has confined to her everywhere the ministry of the interior.
Woman's place is in the bosom of her family. Everything calls her there, everything holds her there, everything ties, her there.
" The state of the family," writes M. Villey,
" assigns to each his natural task: the man works and produces; the woman administers and takes care of the children; you cannot normally ask her to perform any other task; her own, well accomplished will require all her activity, and it is a great pity that she should engage in outside occupations: this is responsible for the fact that the domestic hearth is broken up and that family ties are loosened and often sundered."
It is also contrary to the economic order and on-this score I will quote no less an authority than M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu. In his treatise on the theory and practice of political economy, he expounds the following doctrine:
Well-ordered consumption is equivalent, in part, to production, since it causes objects to last without diminishing the pleasure they afford. So, just as we say that the woman constitutes half the fortune of a home, we might add that the qualities of thrift and of caution in its women form half the fortune and welfare of a nation. Hence, the absurdity of trying to foist upon woman the functions of man; it is against the most natural division of work and of tasks; it is striving to destroy wealth. (Page 202, vol. 4.)
And elsewhere:
The question of the condition of women is one of the most delicate and the most complex that exists. We tried to deal with it in one of our first works. No doubt, we must grant women more rights, make them mistresses of their earnings and of their savings, make their lot happier. But we must not fail to realize that the " Feminist Movement " such as promoted hy a number of propagandists and favoured by
several of the lesser States, constitutes, from any point of view, a serious menace to civilization. By making the home less desirable, and motherhood more troublesome, more formidable, the masculinisation of woman must gradually strike at the birth-rate which, already, in most civilized countries, has too great a tendency towards falling off. So legislation, while making it easier for women to earn their livelihood, should not favour the assimilation of woman to man, neither should it suppress what is consecrated by law, nor interfere with the natural division of the functions -between the sexes. (Page 625, vol. 4.)
The reduction of the ibirth-raite, Mr. *Chairman; is not that the shoal we should avoid, particularly at this sorrowful period of our history? The birth-rate is intimately associated with the question of the int-crease of our population, which is one of the hardest problems to solve, when you consider the tremendous number among us who will have fallen victims to this disastrous war. The Government has given its . attention to this problem. In order to solve it, partially at least, they have evolved the problem of giving more importance to immigration by placing it under the special direction of a minister who will have charge of both immigration and colonization. But they should not, it seems to me, render fruitless the efforts of this minister towards increasing our population, as they are doing in a law like this which will inevitably result in gradually decreasing our population.
I wish to draw your attention to a further drawback from both an administrative and economical standpoint; is not it to be feared Mr. Chairman, that when women have the vote they will demand their share of the election spoils? Then the plague of patronage will be intensified. As a consequence, the expenses of civil government will constantly tend to increase, for I doubt very much if the ministers-no matter what Government may be in .power-will be able to resist the prayers and supplications, not to say the orders, of the women voters who will demand their reward for services rendered. Why preach economy when the Government by this Bill is deliberately laying itself open to greater expense and greater waste.
Finally, it is contrary to the moral order which suffers greatly from promiscuity be<-tween the sexes, and from the desertion of the domestic hearth. The women are exposing themselves to- serious dangers in taking an active part in our political contests which, too often, alas, are carried on without pity, without generosity and without courage; and where the clash of interests, of dislike and of selfishness seek their only outlet in the crushing

of an opponent. Even if they were to escape all these other perils it seems nearly impossible to me that their minds should remain chaste; in the language of Jules Simon "she will inevitably suffer in her virtues." Woman cannot fail to be the enormous loser when, in the social relations brutal constraint, material force, "the yoke of numbers and that of wealth," ineradicable consequences of political contests, take the place of persuasion, of reason, of sentiment, of intelligence and love. The mite of material .power that, by means of the vote, she might painfully obtain through the sacrifice of her health, her modesty, her motherhood and her happiness, cannot possibly be sufficient compensation. Through mingling in public affairs she will feel the need of, in a way, deserting the home, of becoming interested in others than those who have a natural claim to her love, she will live her life for herself and1 not for her loved ones, she will become dissociated, so to speak. Only part wife, she can be none but an insufficient mother. Her role and, [DOT]consequently, her grandeur will inevitably wane.
On the contrary, by remaining in the home, which is her sanctuary, woman will wield an influence beyond compare. She will remind all classes of the ''Fundamental preponderance of sentiment over reason and over activity."
What woman needs is to live in the midst of her family, to return to the home. We are here concerned with the future of the nation, with the dignity of woman, with the sanctity of family life and with the welfare of the country.
In a preface written to Mesdames Van Vorst, for their book "The Working-Woman in the United States," ex-President Roosevelt says:
A people whose men are not prepared to labour in every way, not ready to fight with all their might and who have not in their hearts a yearning after fatherhood; a people whose women are not convinced that there is for them nothing grander than to be a good wife and a good mother; well, such a people has serious reasons to be alarmed about its future.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this Bill to my mind is a deplorable yielding to a wretched sort of feminism and bids fair to cause the social disintegration of what remains of the family, to the injury of the true woman: wife, mother and queen of the household. As a result, all the world of feminine parasites-blue-stockings and "society women"- will unfold. And that is only the beginning. To complete the disintegration, there is

thought, it seems, of submitting a Bill to facilitate the granting of divorce. What profound' aberration!
Those are, Mr. Chairman, some of my .reasons for opposing the present Bill, which is not called for by the majority of women, but solely by a few emancipated creatures, a few suffragettes, crazy for a crumb of petty glory.
If I take this stand, if I maintain that women should be exempt from all political responsibility, it is not, I pray you to believe, with a view to lowering her social rank and limiting her influence. Far from that. It is so as to consecrate woman with more splendor to the eminent role which nature has assigned her and which she alone can fulfil; it is to prevent the dispersal of the family, to labour towards the resurrection and, at the same time, the reconstitution of a solidly organized society, which will make suffering much more bearable and will avoid1 an incalculable amount of harm; it is because I respect and love woman that I do not wish to see her abandon her rank, and I intend to remain worthy of her and of her teachings; finally, it is to safeguard, in its entirety,, her moral sovereignty which, till now, has been the whole charm of our civilization.


Mr. FRASER:: I have the honour to represent the constituency of Welland, which I represented in the local House for ten years, and during all that time no woman in my county ever asked me to vote for women's franchise. To-day, the cry is apparently "women's franchise." I am free to admit that the women of this country should have a vote; they are far more intelligent than the majority of the men. But I want to say right here and now that in the county of Welland the women are not looking for the franchise, but they are looking for help to be sent to their fathers, husbands and sons overseas. Why should we waste time? We have wasted one day discussing titles; we are wasting another day over votes which the women do not want, and we are not dealing with matters which will support our men at the front. Why do we not get down to business, forget these side lines, and try to help the boys who are helping us? These matters of titles and votes for women are mere camouflage; let us forget them and turn our energies towards the means of sending help to the boys at the front.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.



II, 1918

[Stage Direction]
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. DEMERS:: I desire, Mr. Chairman, to express my views in a very few words, although the question under consideration is one of the most important ever brought before the House. In doing so, I am not moved by any selfish motive. 1 am not afraid of the results of this legislation so far as the men of Canada are concerned; I am inspired only by a desire to preserve the happiness of our women, for whom I have the most profound respect and admiration and whom nobody appreciates more than I do.
Sir>
I have no faith in the results which will 'be derived from this legislation; on the contrary I believe that it is a bad piece of legislation. This Bill, when it becomes law, will not in any way improve the organization of our social, moral, economic or political life. Far from' being a step forward for women, this so-called emancipation will mean disaster to those on whose behalf it is granted, as well as to the nation at large.
Let us not forget that in this country woman occupies an exceptional position. She is at all times the object of the respect, the consideration, the solicitude of all; but I am afraid that in what we are attempting now, far from elevating her to a still loftier position>
we shall but bring her to the level of those who, like ourselves, have to gain their bread by the sweat of their brow.
The great, democratic principle of equal rights is intended to be applied by this legislation. 'This principle may have been quite sound when applied to the large labouring classes in their struggle to better their position and standing in the community, 'but such circumstances are not applicable to the position of the women, especially those in our own country. At all events, in the province from which I come, the women are so well satisfied with existing conditions that not only are they indifferent to this legislation, but the great majority of them are against it. This seems to me a good reason why such legislation should be left for the various provinces t'o decide on. The workingman fought for suffrage because he held an inferior position in the community; because he suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the wealthy classes. Have the women of Canada the same motives to impel them to desire such legislation as this? I answer, no.
It is said that woman desires the right to vote in order that she may be able t'o affirm that she is on an equal footing with man. Does she not realize that under existing conditions she is far superior to man, and that to be equal is to renounce that superiority? Does she not fear that by assuming the functions especially exercised by men up to this time, she may lose much more than she can ever hope to gain? The women of this country have rights, and they also enjoy privileges. A single glance through our civil and criminal codes will convince us that 'our laws have guaranteed to women a standing in society which is sacred.
Let us also consider the social position [DOT]of women in the state. Everywhere they are tendered respect, admiration, attention; in a word, they are idealized. This admiration is extended to them because we all recognize their sublime mission; that is to say, the moral and intellectual development of our children. We should not distract them from this great domestic and national duty. I believe that it is a dangerous experiment to take away from our homes .those wh'o are so efficient in them and transport them to the slippery and dangerous regions of politics. I am afraid that in the future there will be realized the prophecy made by a great French writer that in all our attempts to make women perfect, we shall simply succeed in making them imperfect men:
Au lieu de faire des femmes parfaites, on tie rSussira qu'a faire des hommes rnanques.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Mr. Chairman, he would be a poor man who would not say something on behalf of women at this crisis. We have heard enough about their being idealized; they are so idealized and so etherealized that they seem to be utterly useless and to have no rights. Let the women alone; let them speak for themselves. Pray, who gave men authority and dominion over them? I am amazed-not only amazed, but chagrined-that there is such a solid feeling on the part of the Opposition against granting women the right of the franchise. To think that the Liberal party, the great Liberal party, led by that illustrious gentleman who leads it now, and who stands sb high in the history of this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Hampden Burnham: -should put itself on record as having fought throughout the day and throughout the night a measure to grant to women the right to have a voice in the affairs of this country. Ought they


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a
great deal of attention to the various speeches which have been delivered this afternoon and evening on this very important subject of woman suffrage. I think I voice the sentiments of the House in stating that we have listened to new speakers who will be quite an addition to our debating power and I am pleased to say, as hailing from the province of Quebec, that it has given .this new Parliament quite an array of talent which the country might well be proud of. I have listened to my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), who is an exile in the Tory part who should be in the ranks of the radical party. He has proved that on many occasions. I am sorry to say, that on this question, he has begged the issue. He exclamed in his opening remarks:	"but what, Sir, the great
Liberal party is opposed to woman suffrage" -as if it were something new that the Liberal party were opposing a measure of this nature. If my hon. friend will look to England, from which the Canadian Liberal party and Conservative party draw their best inspirations, he will find that in that country the leaders of political thought on both sides have been opposed to woman suffrage. If my hon. friend will accept the

revered name of Gladstone as the best personification of Liberalism during the 19th century, I may tell him-and I shall quote chapter and verse in a moment-that Mir, Gladstone was opposed to woman suffrage. If my hon. friend will come to more recent times, he will find that Mr. Asquith, the great radical Premier of England, was also apposed to woman suffrage. And might I not say, taking another aspect of the question, that if the Liberals, who are in a majority in the Union Government, were true to themselves and true to the cause of provincial rights, they would be with the Opposition on this question? Does my hon. friend believe that the Conservative party in England is a unit on this question? I have read' speech after speech, lecture after lecture, toy the leading memtoers of the great English Conservative party, and I have found that they also are opposed to'woman suffrage. The very agitation which took (place in England took away from the woman's cause the most ardent believers in woman's rights.
I am. sorry, for reasons which I shall give the committee in a few moments, that the Prime Minister has thought it proper to bring forward this measure at the present time. If I have one reproach to address (to my right hon. friend, it is that he is too fond of swimming with the current. He listens a little too complacently to passing whims and he is too ready to grant whatever request is made under the shallow pretext of winning the war. When the Prime Minister was in England two years ago, he was interviewed toy Mrs. Pankhurst herself, the leader of woman suffrage.
The press reported that interview, and if my memory serves me well only one day or so before his departure the right hon. gentleman was not persona grata with the Woman's Franchise League in England. He gave the league a very curt answer. I do not forget that when Mrs. Pankhurst came within the precincts of this House some time ago she was introduced by our late lamented friend the member for Dun-das, Mr. Broder. Mrs. Pankhurst might be said to be the very personification of woman suffrage, hut the right hon. leader of the Government hesitated before giving his assent to her presence on the floor of this House. I remember the remark made by our good friend the late Mr. Broder in introducing Mrs. Pankhurst, " At last, Mrs. Pankurst," he said, " you have succeeded in entering Parliament without a fight."
Let me say at once to my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) whose'
opinion I generally respect, that when he states the Opposition in this House deliberately insults the women of this country by denying them the franchise, he is quite beside the mark. 'Those of us who are opposed to woman suffrage-and we are on both sides of the House, because this afternoon the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Fraser) declared himself in a few terse sentences against woman suffrage-do not wish to insult women or belittle their influence, but we wish to keep the woman as the angel of the home; we wish to keep her where she is most needed and where she does most for the family and mo'st for the country. I would qualify my remarks this evening by this statement: I recognize the right of any province 0f this Dominion to adopt woman suffrage. As has been stated and proven beyond peradventure this afternoon, it is a question of education and environment; it is a question of ambient air. If I were living to-day in the province of Al-berta< where my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) .introduced and carried woman suffrage through the legislature, or if I were living in the fair province of (Saskatchewan or Manitoba I would bow to the verdict of the majority, but I would not agree to imposing woman suffrage on any other province which, for reasons of its own, did not think the time ripe for granting the franchise to women. My hon. friend is isuiprised to find that outspoken, statements have been made on this side of the (House against granting the franchise to women, tout if he will read the literature on this question he will find that not only ,men of eminence in politics, in the churches, and in the various walks of life are opposed to woman suffrage, 'but to his chagrin, that some of the most prominent women in arts and literature are opposed to the granting to the vote to women. Let me mention only two well-known names. I remember some years ago we had the honour of a visit to this country toy Mrs. Humphrey Ward, one of the brightest writers of English literature. Mrs. Humphrey Ward is the president of the Anti-Woman's Suffrage Association in England. In the United States Mrs. Everett P. Wheeler, noted for her interest in many social organizations, is also opposed to woman suffrage, and has headed many leagues against the extern *sion of the franchise to women.
I may toe told toy my hon. friend-indeed, I think he meant to say it this evening- that we are not very progressive on this side of the House, and especially those of us who come from the province of Quebec.

Let me tell my hon. friend that the legislature of the province of Quebec, known *at the time as the legislature of Lower Canada, was the first one in the British Empire, and possibly in the civilized world, *to elect a representative of the Jewish race. One hundred years ago, Sir, the unpro-greesive people of Quebec elected the first Jew who ever eat in Parliament, and the city of Three Rivers, represented here to-flay toy the ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) was the city which the late Mr. Hart represented in the legislature of Lower Canada. No, we are not unanimous in our opposition to woman suffrage. My hon. friend, who understands French, *knows perfectly well that one of the best *arguments that could 'be adduced in favour of woman suffrage was delivered from this side of the House (by my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost). He delivered an excellent speech in French in favour of *woman suffrage, but always with the qualification that the franchise was a matter of provincial rights, and I shall prove in a moment that it is also a question of civil . rights, and therefore appertains exclusively to the provinces.
The reasons why I am, personally opposed to woman suffrage are many. War time, as *my hon. friend from Welland has said this *afternoon, is not the proper time to press such a measure as this, 'because it is a revolutionary measure. It is difficult, if *not impossible in war time-and my hon. *friend must realize this after the last election-to discuss matters calmly, and war *time, I claim, is not the proper time to introduce a question of such grave import as the one before us.
I do not wish to refer to the meetings which were held during the last campaign. If I have fault to find with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, it is not so much on account of the Franchise Bill, which he passed through closure during the last Parliament in order to obtain the majority of votes, not so much on account of the fact that he duplicated the vote of every soldier, but it is because .of the fact that he gave a special franchise to some only of the women of this country during the last election. We had the women, the favoured few, of this country in the various provinces organizing themselves, holding meetings, canvassing, giving the people of this country a sorry spectacle indeed. If I had only one objection to granting womeu's franchise at the present time, I would say that the meetings which were held during the last campaign were sufficient reason for
riMr. Lemieux.1
me, at least, to hesitate before granting them that franchise. But my objections are on higher grounds. My hon. friend a moment ago utteredi a truism. He said that the franchise was a right granted by the state to the individual. A human being, as a member of the community, is a subject of right, and it is desirable that different rights should be recognized by different people at different times, and' as attaching to sections of the community. Sir, I am not expressing a reactionary principle. I appeal to the common sense'of my Anglo-Saxon friends. No man has studied more deeply the constitution than Professor Dicey, and what does he say? Dicey, 1 might say, en passant, was carried away by the doctrine of Stuart Mills and was at first a supporter of women's franchise, hut he changed his mind later on and, he said:
The right to vote is in reality not a right at all; it is rather al power or function given to a citizen for the benefit, not primarily of himself, but of the public.
The franchise to women has not been the only right denied by Great Britain and by all other civilized countries. It has been also denied to minors, and why should you deny the franchise to a minor of twenty, for instance, and grant it to a man who becomes a major at twenty-one? Why the distinction is so trivial that no explanation can be given for it. Yet there is the raison d'etat which justifies the legislator m denying the franchise in that case. To say that it is an insult to women to deny them the franchise is preposterous. Are there any men in this community, Mr. Chairman, who are better fitted to vote on public questions and to pronounce upon public issues than the judges of the land? Yet they are specifically denied the right to exercise the franchise. Why? Because society deems it imprudent on the part of a judge who represents the sanctity of justice to be dragged into the turmoil of public affairs. The fair name of justice and the fair fame of the judiciary is sufficient reason why the franchise is denied. Might I not say, by way of comparison, that if, for that reason, you deny to the judges of the land the franchise, you also deny it to women, because of your respect for the stability and the sanctity of the home. Mr. Chairman, good citizenship is realized through many functions. Some of the most important, indeed the most important of all, motherhood, is assigned to women. I say further that it is unnecessary to give women votes in parliamentary elections, because, at least with my own race, women wield a great moral influence on the votes



1L 1918

[Stage Direction]
of men. I have had some experience in elections. II have sat in this House for over twenty-two years. I am sorry fo say that I am one of the deans of the House, with the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, who entered this Parliament the same day as I did in 1896. I have passed through many elections, I know what a crucible it is, and I make bold to say that, when electioneering in the county of Gaspe, and the county of Nicolet or Rouville or Maison-neuve, if I were sure of getting the women for me, I could easily carry the men afterward. They have moral influence, and no candidate will begin an election, in Quebec at least, without securing the good will of the fair ladies of that province. Mr. Chairman, the interests of the women are so intermingled with those of the men that, in safeguarding their own interests, men will, ex necessitate, to use a judicial expression have to safeguard the rights and privileges of the women. Besides, women are indirectly represented by men of intelligence and sympathy, who have the interests of women at heart. Is there a man sitting on either side of the House of Commons who would stand for any injustice being embalmed in the statutes of this country against womanhood? I say there is not one man in this House who would not do his utmost to prevent any injustice being done in regard '.to the rights of women. Moreover, it is admitted that the women of this country, as of all other countries, have their fair share of intellect, even of genius. They can always agitate, they can always write, and they can speak las much as they can smile. So that their point of view cannot remain unknown. A moment ago my hon. friend was surprised to find that Liberals were opposed to women's franchise. I do not suppose that John Bright was ever a Tory. He was a good Liberal. He was even called a radical in the forties at the time of the passage of the Corn Laws in England. What do I read from John Bright? He was opposed to John Stuart Mill on this question, and he said:
I aot from the belief that, to introduce women into the strife of political life would be a great evil to them, and that to our own sex no possible good could arise. 'When women are not safe under the charge or care of fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, it is the fault of our non-civilization, and not of our laws. As civilization founded/ on Christian principles advances, women will gain all that is right for them to have, although they are not seen contending in the strife of political parties. In my experience, I have observed evil results to many women who have entered heartily into the many political conflicts and discussions. I would save them from it.
That is the opinion of John Bright, the great mind of the radical party, and one of the greatest minds of Britain, and of the civilized world. Women, as was stated this afternoon by my hon. friend from Joliette, are unfitted for military service. Is it fair or is it just that women should be called upon to pronounce on a question of peace or war? Because I say, Mr. Chairman, if you give the women of this country the right to vote, you must be logical, you must be consequent with yourselves. If she has the right to vote, she is eligible. If she can be elected to this Parliament, then she will have the right to pass judgment on questions of peace or war, while she is labouring under a disability and is unfitted for military service. I have just quoted a few words from John Bright. Might I quote Cardinal Gibbons, who has summed up, in a few terse sentences, all his objections against this franchise? He said:
When I deprecate female suffrage I am pleading for the dignity of woman. I am contending for her honour. I am striving to perpetuate these peerless prerogatives inherent in her sex, those charms and graces which exalt womankind, and make her the ornament and the coveted companion of man. We must remember that, though woman does not personally vote, she exercises the right of suffrage by proxy. So powerful is the influence which a sensible matron exerts over her husband and sons, that they will rarely fail to follow her counsel, which comes from an inspired instinct, rather than from laboured reasoning.
My right hon. friend, in introducing this Bill the other day, said that the women of Canada had done an admirable work during the present war. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my right hon. friend that Canadian womanhood has given the world a great example. We have seen in every home, in every hamlet, in every village, and in every city of this Dominion, our womenfolk doing its utmost to afford comforts to the hoys at the front. It is not through a lack of chivalry, or a lack of recognition of the admirable work performed by the womanhood of Canada, that we oppose the granting of this franchise. Rather is it to preserve the chivalry which exists as between man and woman and the good standing of the community that I am opposed to female franchise. The women of this fair land should not be embroiled in the bitter party conflicts of Canada, because we wish to preserve the unity, purity and sanctity of the home. If political ideals- are divergent in the home, what will be the result? Domestic controversy will ensue. The words of Mr. Gladstone on this question axe appropriate. He says:
[Stage Direction]
A permanent and vast difference has been impressed upon women and men respectively by the Maker of both. I for one .am not prepared to say which of the two sexes has the higher and which has the lower province. I am not without the fear, lest beginning with the state; we should1 eventually be found to have intruded into what is yet more fundamental and more sacred, the precinct of the family and should dislocate, or seriously modify, the relations of domestic life.
In all frankness and sincerity, I must say to my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that Mr. Gladstone never insulted the women of England, he never insulted any one in his life, and I prefer his reasoned judgment on this question to thajt of my hon. friend. We should not burden the majority of women with a responsibility, which, I believe, they do not want. To use the words of another Radical, and possibly the leader amongst the men of letters in this country, Mr. Goldwin. Smith:
It is the course of nature that man particularly does uphold the Government and enforce the law.
To sum up my objections, I say that woman suffrage implies not only the casting of the ballot, but the entering of women into the field of politics. Politics is modified war. We saw it during the last campaign. There is struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement and agitation, all things which are out of harmony with the true character of womanhood.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me examine this question from another angle. All those hon. members on the other side of the House who have a fond recollection of ever haying belonged to the Liberal party, should, even if they support woman suffrage, oppose this Bill. The Bill is the thin edge of the wedge in the sense which I will explain to the committee. The Bill implies a uniform franchise in the Dominion of Canada. Liberals in all parts of Canada, whatever may have been their differences or their contentions about certain issues, have always united on the question of provincial rights. There is here a concrete question of provincial autonomy. This Bill aims at a uniform franchise.
This is not the first attempt which has been made in Canada to put upon the statute book a uniform Franchise Act. At the first session after Confederation Sir John Macdonald, who was the apostle of legislative union, introduced a Bill in favour of a uniform franchise, but he withdrew it. 'In the seventies he introduced another Bill founded upon the same principle. Sir Antoine Aime Dorion, who was one of the leaders of the Opposition, moved an amendment, and Sir 
John Macdonald again yielded and withdrew his Bill. Finally Sir John came before the Parliament of Canada and introduced the famous Franchise Act of 1885, by which he undertook to get a uniform franchise for the Dominion. He instituted the famous organization of the revising officers. The Liberals who sit on the other side of the House must remember the plucky fight which was put up at that time by their late leader, the Hon. Edward Blake, Sir Richard Cartwright, the Hon. David Mills and the right hon. gentleman, the present leader of the Opposition. Sir John Macdonald was in favour of centralization as against local liberty. The principle of centralization was, and is, antagonistic to the very federal principle which governs this country. The Bill was fought energetically by the then Opposition, but it passed after a protracted debate, and in the elections of 1887 and 1891 the Liberals had to face in every constituency a franchise made by revising officers created and paid by the Government of the day.
So incensed, so disgusted were the people of this country that in 1896, when not only the school question but the question of the franchise, was fought out, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was justified to present new legislation. It was introduced during the session of 1897, or 1898, and by that new legislation the Parliament of Canada reverted to the principle of the provincial franchise, and it has elected us ever since. There has been no agitation to return to the revising officers of old. On the contrary, the people have declared time ahd again in favour of the principle of the provincial franchise. It is the beist adapted to our people. We are all elected upon the particular franchise of each province. I may be told by hon. gentlemen that this diversity of franchise constitutes an anomaly. But, Sir, let me again go to the source of parliamentary government. Let me read the opinion of that great exponent of British Liberalism, Edmund Burke.
Government has been deemed a practical thing made for the happiness of mankind and1 not to furnish a spectacle of uniformity to justify the scheme of visionary politicians.
No doubt, it would be an excellent thing if in this country, so large and yet sparsely settled, with different provinces and populations, we could have on© language and one law. That would be considered the millennium. But that is only the scheme of a visionary mind, as Burke said. In the United Kingdom, they have not uniformity of laws. Scotland has laws differ-

ing from those of England. It is a strange spectacle for one who has attended the sittings of the Privy Council in England to hear one day counsel from the province of Quebec arguing in their own language and citing their own French, laws; and, next day, to hear counsel from the Channel Islands again cite the old laws of Normandy. Again, Indian counsel argue on the law of Manou. Still again, there is Mauritius, with its own French laws. Then there is the common law of England. In some of the other colonies, Roman law and Dutch law also. So cast away from your mind, Mr. Chairman, the idea of uniformity in the British Empire. The beauty and the real unity of the British Empire rest on its diversity. So it is with our own Dominion. We have different laws, beliefs, customs; we have different minds on many questions; and it is the duty of a statesman to respect those laws, those customs and those characteristics of each province. An anomaly in our Constitution? Of course. 'In the iprovinoe of Quebec, when 'I was a younger man than I am to-day, alas! I remember that my party, the Rouge party, was deadly opposed to the maintenance of the Legislative Council. Being a little older to-day, I stand for the Legislative Council. Why? Because the Legislature of Quebec, constituted of a majority of French Canadian members, is at [DOT] times apt to pass hastily-considered legislation, and the older men on the Legislative Council are there to revise the legislation of the Lower House. The people of my province have come to realize that the Legislative Council is, after all, a useful institution, though it may not be as useful in other provinces. There is, I think, a Legislative Council to day in Nova Scotia. It has been abolished in New Brunswick and in Prince Edward Island. Yet, it is an anomaly; in some provinces, they have only the popular legislative body, and we, in Quebec, have the bicameral system. The same anomaly exists as regards the franchise.
A franchise, Mr. Chairman, must suit the particular eircumstanees of the community. We have nine provinces in the Dominion. There are different elements in our population; we have a different territory. It may be, and I believe it is, a good thing in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the homes are'so distant one from the other and the population is sparse, and where you have a medley of races, to have a woman franchise. If I were living in those fair provinces, I should certainly accept the verdict of the majority in that respect, the golden
principle in our country being that the majority rules. But, Sir, each of the provinces knows its own peculiar circumstances, conditions and sentiments, and, furthermore, its passions and prejudices.
Let me again recall to my hon. friend the ideal which should prevail in public life. We must have national unity in Canada. To Teach that goal, we must not only respect the qualities and the virtues of our fellowmen, we must also respect their prejudices .and their passions. That is the great test of national unity. The franchise, I submit humbly, is a civil right, and civil rights comej within the ambit of the provincial legislature. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to give you the authority of Storey on this point:
The truth sgems to he that the right of voting, like many other rights, is one which, whether it has a fixed foundation in natural law or not, has always been treated in the practice of nations as a strictly civil right, derived from and regulated by each society according to its own circumstances and interests. It is difficult, even in the abstract, to oonceive how we could have oherwise been
treated-
.So, Mr. Chairman, if the question of franchise is a civil right, as it is, it belongs exclusively to the provincial legislature, and I claim that the Dominion Government has no right to invade or to impinge on that domain. In the United States, where the Federal principle is supreme all over the land, the question 'of franchise is relevant only to state legislatures. In the republic to the eouth the states themselves determine what their respective franchises shall be; and so it happens that in some of the western states, women may vote in federal elections, while in many other states they .are denied that right. To use the words of the late Mr. Blake when citing that example during the famous debate of 1885: "There you have the reason and the theory, the practice and the experience of the federal principle."
I said a moment ago that we drew our inspiration from England in matters of legislation. Although England, Scotland and Ireland have a legislative union, it is a fact that the franchise in each differs considerably. In England the franchise is controlled by the mino-iv municipal bodies., not by the central Parliament. On this point let me quote the admirable words of the late Mr. Blake:
Now, the English system has for its basis the local making of the lists. I have spoken of local liberties in the sense of provincial liberties; but I say that municipal liberties are not less important. It has been recognized' in England by the students of free institutions
[Stage Direction]


that the nurseries of larger liberties are minor local liberties; and that the powers of action of municipal bodies, within their narrow sphere of executive work of business done, and of functions and privileges enjoyed, are of the greatest consequence, as educating the people in the general principles of representative government ; and in those restraints, under constituted authorities, which are essential to the establishment of a democratic, and yet orderly and stable system of Government, I say, then, that the privileges which the municipalities enjoy in England, of making the lists through their overseers and' officers, are ancient and important privileges, and if the hon. gentleman defers to British practice, he had better follow it here.
,1 also defer to British practice on this question. We have had no general agitation throughout the country in favour of the adoption of a federal measure of woman suffrage. We have had in a restricted degree an agitation for woman suffrage in some of the provinces; I do not object to the granting of the franchise to women in such cases. But no petition in favour of Dominion-wide franchise for women has heen sent to this Parliament, and I do not see why at this moment, under the flimsy pretext of giving votes to women throughout the Dominion, we should ignore the first cardinal principles of our constitution. I am willing to give the women of my province the franchise if they ask for it and if the majority votes for it. Living in Ontario, I should have no objection to woman franchise if it is the will of the majority. It would be a provincial franchise, and that is thei only franchise which constitutionally elects the members of this Parliament.
Samuel Francis Glass: The hon. gentleman says that if the women of the province of Quebec asked for the franchise he would be willing to grant it to them. Will he tell me whether the women of his province have ever had an opportunity of expressing themselves on this subject?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been in all the provinces-mostly throughout the West- some agitation in favour of woman suffrage. In the province of Quebec we have women of the highest intelligence, some of whom are leaders in social works, yet there has been no concerted action on their part in favour of woman, suffrage. I think I am right when I say that the majority of the women in the province of Quebec to-day are safe in the hands of the men, and do not care to exercise the franchise.


Mr. THOMAS  POSTER@York East: I desire to congratulate the Prime Minister on having brought forward this very advanced and progressive measure.
rMr. Lemieux.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind members of the committee that the same decorum must exist in committee as in the House. There is altogether too much conversation. Members are not obliged to remain here; if they do not want to listen to the speakers I would ask them kindly to retire from the chamber to carry on their conversation.


George Green Foster: showing that the Government is listening to the sentiment and feeling that prevails over the whole country. Why should we misinterpret that sentiment? From my experience in cities and different ridings,
I believe a strong sentiment prevailed throughout the Dominion that the franchise should be extended to women.
My experience in the West has been that there is that general feeling, and if there is the general feeling that the franchise should be given to women after this thorough test of whether they are the equal of the men-and 1 say they are the equal of the men-it is our duty to extend the franchise to the women in appreciation of the great work they have done. Do you not think there will he great rejoicing among the four hundred thousand of our boys overseas when they hear that this Bill has passed this House and that their mothers and sisters and other female relatives who have been working morning, noon, and night to help them, are to be given the right to vote? I appreciate very much the Premier's action in bringing this measure forward. It is a Dominion measure, not a provincial measure. It has been suggested 'by several members on the other side of the House that this is a question for the provinces to deal with; I do not agree. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) has spoken of some of the western provinces, and he thinks it quite right that [DOT]the women in those provinces should have the franchise. Well, if he is consistent, why should not the women of all the provinces have the franchise? He should he consistent and say: Give it to the women of this whole Dominion; they are as well qualified to vote as are the women in the western provinces.	_
Mr. E. D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (translation) : Before confiding to the House the few remarks I wish to make on the important question which forms the subject of this debate, I would like to cite an instance to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) which will prove that his statement is not true when he claims that the province of Quebec always gives proof of narrowmindedness. I shall cite an instance which has to do particularly with the county which I have the honour of representing here. I wish to inform him, should he not know it, that on the suggestion of the great Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin, beaten in his own province, was elected in the county of Rimouski, the most beautiful county of the province of Quebec. I cite this incident 
[DOT]to show that it is not always right to arouse popular passions and prejudices, and on all occasions to strike at the back of Quebec in an effort to prove that we are behind the times and that we are shortsighted people.
The hon. member for Peterborough said also, in the,course of his speech,that we, of the Opposition, we, the members from Quebec province, had no mission from our women, nor from the women of the country generally, to come here and oppose this legislation.
I might say the same thing to him and ask him if delegations of women came to him begging that he would champion this measure.
Mr. Chairman, for my part, il would believe myself guilty of a serious lapse of duty 'towards the voters who did me the honour of electing me as their representative, if I were not to submit to the House the reasons which prompt my opposition to the present Bill.
I am entirely aware of the sentiments of my constituents towards woman suffrage, and I know perfectly well that the women of my county haven't the least desire to vote at Federal elections.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not beat around the bush. I am opposed to this legislation, on principle, because I believe it to be radical and inopportune. By obliging woman to take part in our political contests and quarrels you are forcing her out of her own noble role. Woman's place is not at political rallies, on election committees or in the polling-booth.
The ideal spot for woman is the family fireside. Isn't she, in all truth, the angel of the hearth, which she has helped to establish and of which she is the most beautiful ornament?
The application of the law of woman suffrage will necessarily contribute to the destruction of family unity and to the decrease of that respect which man must have towards woman. What quarrels we will witness, and how many interminable disputes; all of which will be the result of our own deeds, if we adopt this Bill which gives to the women, of this country the right to vote.
I am surprised, I find it strange, Mr. Chairman, that a Government which calls itself a Union Government should bring up this legislation which is foreordained to cause disunion in most of our Canadian homes. And I wonder what respect men will have for the woman voter, the woman organizer, who lend themselves to all sorts of low machinations so as to favour such and such a candidate or such and such a political party.

If we wish to safeguard for woman that respect from man which is her right, let us not, by granting her the franchise, deprive her of that dignity and daintiness which make of her the most delightful and most exquisite of creatures.
In my humble opinion, I believe I can assert that woman suffrage is immoral and that it Will, of necessity, result in regrettable and irreparable disasters.
-So, let us leave our women beneath their own roof with their husbands and their children. There they will fulfil their true function, that of rearing noble and valiant defenders for their Canadian fatherland.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of those who have spoken, especially to those I was able to understand. One gentleman, whose name or constituency I do not know but from somewhere in the East, stated principles with which I most heartily agree, and I wish to take him at his word at that particular point where he said he would advocate a policy of education, of enlightenment, of instruction, study and research, or words to that effect. I think that is right, and permit me to say that for a generation at least that very policy has been in operation among the women of this country, to such an extent and with such a result that from the spot where we now stand to the Pacific ocean there is not a foot of ground which is not hallowed with the presence of a political atmosphere that recognizes no distinction of sex. The women of the West have given a great deal of study and attention, to this question, and so have the men, with the consequent result that, in the provinces west of the Ottawa river, without exception, the women have equal privileges with the men. We have in each of the two extreme western provinces a woman sitting in the local legislature. And why should not women sit there? In one of those provinces, from which I have the honour to come, there is a woman in the local legislature. Her husband was formerly -an ornament in that legislature, and was a member of the provincial cabinet. If 'I mistake no-ti she has given three or four sons for the defence of her country, and at the voice of her fellow-citizens she accepted a nomination, and obtained a majority of some 3,000 over her male icompetitorsf. '-She was iaecorded a most hearty welcome in the provincial House, which House she graced -as an ornament, not merely because she is a woman, but because of her capacity to discuss provincial and other questions. And why
should this not he so? I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments and statements of the members of the Opposition on this question. Why should there be a distinction between man and woman in the sole item of franchise? Men and women equally recognize the law and obey the law; there is not -a law prohibiting certain crimes which -applies -only to man and exempts women. But, when we come to the door of the -polling booth, in the -past women have -been prohibited from entering because of their -sex, although in mental capacity -and general ability they are fully the equal of men. Why should they be debarred from the expression of their convictions at the polls? They have -a right to express themselves because of their services to society and their contribution to the intellectual -and -moral wealth of the community and of the State.
I have listened also to the address of the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) who has spoken of himself as one of the deans of the House. I had listened to his remarks up to this stage with a very great deal of interest, but I confess that to-night I was disappointed, lit may be because of my parliamentary youth. Why, Sir, I believe this is the year 1918; we are not in the last century. If reference be- made to the action of celebrated -British statesmen and their deliverances in the latter half of the last century, why not go back a little farther? For, if we do we shall find equally celebrated British statesmen unwilling to grant the franchise to men. It is only in comparatively late years that a practical manhood suffrage law has been in force in England. They have grown. But why go back to that date in English history when to-day we find that in England the franchise has been extended to women? They have grown, they have widened, they have seen the obligation resting upon them as citizens and they have granted what the women in England have asked for and what the most advanced conviction of English manhood believe to he their right to enjoy.	,
One other argument advanced by the hon. gentleman was that women were unfitted for military service. I felt like hanging my head when that statement was uttered. Look at the state of affairs in England to-day. Look at the countless thousands of women who are working their full time and every day for the defence of the realm. Look at the women who are taking the places of men in, as far as I know, every avenue of life, every avenue of manual labour-working on the farms,

driving motor cars, acting as conductors on tramways, taking their places in the munition factories by the tens of thousands. Is any one justified in saying that these women are unfitted for military service? Does military service simply mean taking your position on the firing line? Hon. gentlemen on the other side have been telling us that there were men in their provinces who were engaged in agriculture and that that was a form of military service. I grant it. But is it not a form of military service to supply the men at the front with the munitions and the materials of war? Surely military service is not confined to pointing a gun?	-
The records of the past will show that in all forms of active national service in the history of mankind woman has taken her place and done her full share. There is no question in regard ta that. Military service is such a broad term that I take it that every man and woman who does his utmost for the Empire, for the protection of society and for the great principle for which we are all striving is deserving of the qualification of being fitted for military service.
Another point spoken of by my hon. friend -and I hesitate to state it here at this hour -^was the necessity of preserving our chivalry towards women. I endorse that most heartily. But, Mr. 'Chairman, let us remember that we cannot preserve our chivalry while we allow women to remain under this injustice. We cannot have them retain our respect, and we cannot secure and hold' their respect, if we are unwilling to do the right thing 'by them. It is certainly at this hour in the world's history, the right thing to recognize their equality in the realm of active life, and the only way to secure and preserve their respect and confidence is to grant them the privileges which we as citizens enjoy and not condemn them to inferiority because of the accident of sex.
My hon. friend to whom I first referred showed his true manhood, I think, in his closing words. His remarks seemed to me to suggest a political argument. He argued against woman suffrage, but I noticed that when he came to the conclusion his bigness of heart shone forth and his manhood expressed itself when he said that he hoped soon to see women in the position in which this Bill seeks to place them. If I understood him correctly, that was his concluding remark. That is characteristic, I 'believe, of men all over. Many talked against this reform, and I would fain think that if there are men on the other side of the House who talk against it it is because they are in Par-

liament. They feel that to grant women the franchise is the right thing to do and when it comes to the vote, and to the decision I trust they will not act against their better convictions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat late in the evening to attempt to say anything new about this very important Bill. But there are, perhaps,-some observations which can be made on it with regard to features which have not been touched upon before. There are two objections to this Bill generally. There is a great deal in favour of the Bill, but I will first mention two general considerations against woman suffrage. The first general objection is that it may possibly create a certain amount of friction at election time if the husband belongs to one political party and the wife to another. I think that is an objection which should be considered, although I do not believe it is strong enough-to offset the good features of the Bill, The main objection to the measure is that which John Bright found to a proposal for woman suffrage towards the end of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Woman suffrage is not a new proposal in British countries'. It was about 1873, if I mistake not, that John Stuart Mill introduced into the British House of Commons a Woman Suffrage Bill, and it was defeated, but received a surprisingly strong support at that time. John Bright on that occasion voted in favour of the Bill; but subsequently, he voted against the Bill, and the reason he gave for so doing was that it would enormously increase the power of the church in politics both in Great Britain and in Ireland. Now, we are all, I take it, anti-clericals. None of us want to have the church trench on the state; none of us want to have either priest or minister suggest, dictate or exhort from the pulpit what attitude his flock should take on a political question. And there is no question but that at the beginning of woman suffrage it may increase the power either of the priest or the minister of religion. We Liberals in the province of Quebec have for years and years stood out against clerical interference in politics. There is an interesting case in the law reports of our province where an election was set aside because a parish priest had unduly endeavoured to influence his flock to vote for one candidate rather than another. We have set our faces against that. For forty years and more the Liberal party in Quebec fought against that attitude of mind on the part of the church, and we stopped it. And, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen

in other provinces, as well as in Quebec, have got a work to do along these lines in regard to the ministers of other churches, because in the last election we had a very sad condition arise. We found that ministers" of the Gospel did not confine themselves to advocating principles, but they stood up on the Sunday before election day and told their floeks for which party they were to cast their votes. Now, I am no enemy to the Christian church; I hope I am a humble member of that body. I remember on the Sunday morning before election day that in a church in the county in which I was running a certain circular letter-a mandement we would call it if it came from a bishop in our province-came from a certain committee on social and moral reform of a very great church in this country, and those ministers who read it exhorted their flock to vote for one political party rather than another. That happened on the Sabbath morning. I did not go to church that morning; I thought there was going to be something like that, and I thought I would rather not hear it or he tempted to walk out, as a number did do on that morning. In the evening I went to church, and there the minister prayed the Lord for guidance for the people that they should vote in the way that their conscience and mind dictated, and you could not tell from his sermon whether he was going to vote for me or for my adversary, land I do not know which way he voted. That was the proper attitude for a clergyman to take. This question of clerical interference in politics touches very closely the subject we are now discussing, for women are more religious animals than men are, and are more likely to be affected by either the priest or the minister. Now, I trust that we shall have no more of this in Canadian elections. I trust that the ministers and the priests of all churches will see to it that they render unto Caesar the things that.are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
Now these are two points against woman's suffrage on the surface; I do not think they go down to the foot of the matter. I am in favour of the principle of this Bill. The husband and wife may disagree even if one of them has not got the vote. The fact that both of them have the vote may lead the husband to endeavour to convert the wife. It will he worth while, for she will have a vote. And the wife, of course, will not cease her efforts to convert the husband. The unbelieving husband may be saved by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife
may be saved by the believing husband. And, as regards clerical domination, it is just as well foy women to have the vote, because that will raise them in their own self-respect and it will make them in time less prone to take political direction from their husbands, or their ministers, or anybody else.
What are the arguments that can be, and have been, brought forward against giving women the vote? There is the argument that woman is queen of the home. I often think she is more really queen of the dish-pan or of the washtub. The idea that a woman sits regally enthroned by the fireside is very pretty, but it is not according to facts, because, as a rule, women have to work longer hours, go through greater drudgery, and enjoy fewer holidays than men do. The idea that women are going to be in any way lowered by mixing in politics does no credit to the political atmosphere of this country. If our political atmosphere is low we must endeavour to raise it to make it worthy of the women we are admitting to our ranks to-night. It has been suggested that women will have to go to political meetings. Of course they will. I will say that they go to political meetings already; (they ,certainly do in the county which I have the honour to represent. So far as the children are concerned, I have seen a grandmother come along with a daughter, accompanying the father and with a tiny baby who was placed on the schoolhouse desk and who slept peacefully all through the meeing.
An h-on. (MEMBER: Small families.
Mr. MdMAiSTER:	Small families, my
hon. friend says. Political meetings do not come 'along at all times. Most women do their own work, and are very busy, but most are able sometimes to get out to church even in the country districts. They are able to attend social functions at times, and there is no reason why they should not attend political meetings when i'hey wiant to. lit is for us to see that political .meetings are conducted with isuch fairness and decorum that it will be an honour for women to attend them. I believe that their presence always tends to make debate more moderate. And let me say this, Mr. Chairman, politics will not become less hitter when the ladies come into it. -We saw that very plainly in the last election. The ladies are often prone to bring a personal element into a discussion which men do not. But that is possibly due to their training; possibly after they have

been vo'ting for some time they may tend to view matters from not .s>uoh a close personal point of view.
Now, I would not like hon. gentlemen opposite to think that because certain of us from the province of Quebec are not in favour of woman suffrage we are any less gallant than the rest of the country, because that is not so. The reason for it is that in the province of Quebec the woman in the family occupies as high a position and is as much looked up to-more looked up to-than anywhere else in the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. MbMASTER:	I will say as much;
we won't make any invidious distinctions. What I mean is 'this: I believe that the inhabitant of the province of Quebec is as prone to consult his wife, and to he guided by her opinion on every important transaction in life as people are anywhere else in the Dominion of Canada. I think that perhaps one reason why there has been no demand among the vast majority of the women of Quebec for the vote-and that is absolutely true, there has been no great demand from the women of the province for the vote-is because they have had a very large influence in politics and in social life through the simple fact of their position as wife and mother. There is no place in the wide world where family ties are stronger, where father and mother receive more affection and more respect, than in the province of Quebec. The .law of that province creates' a partnership between, man and wife. All the movable property-the personality, as you would say in the Englieh-law provinces-which either of the consorts, owned at the time iof marriage goes into the partnership fund. All real estate which they acquire during .the marriage falls into the community property; that is, generally speaking, there are exceptions.. During the marriage the .husband controls that community property, tout when he dies, he can. only will half of it away; the wife who survives the hus-toand becomes immediately the owner of half the joint acquisitions which have been .made during the lifetime of the husband, the theory of the law being that the wife toy her work in the house and by her prudence and, economy does just as much to build up the family fortunes as the man does by his work. There is a statement of law in the province of Quebec that the husband is the "seigneur et maitre," that is, lord, and master, of the community. .But, as our professors told us in college,

that is only a legal fiction; the husband is not lord and master of the community; he <is the 'joint partner-the senior partner perhaps only in name, because he has to consult the junior partner all the time. I make this explanation because I do not want hon. gentlemen from other parts of the country to have the impression that we of the province of Quebec wish to keep the women in a place inferior to ourselves. Those gentlemen, who have spoken out against the Bill are interpreting in a large measure the views, of the women of the province of Quebec who are not anxious [DOT]for the vote. But m.y contention is that there are women in the .province of Quebec who wish to have the vote, and even if the majority do not want to- have it, that is no reason for keeping the vote away from those who- want it-and there is no law to compel people to vote who do not want to dO' so. (I am, therefore, in favour of the principle of the Bill.
. But I wish to direct the attention of the committee to section. 2 of the Bill, which reads as follows:
2. This Act shall be construed! as one with the Dominion Elections Act, chapter six of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and The War-time Elections Act, chapter thirty-nine of the statutes of 1917, and in each of the said Acts the expression "person'' or "male person," or any similar expression, shall include a female .person, unless a different meaning' is required by the context or by the terms of this Act.
It was with deep regret that I observed this clause in the Bill, because it seems to indicate that the Government propose to keep on the statute book an Act which I consider to be a blot on the fair name of Canada, that is, the War-time Elections Act. This Act was described by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) thfe other evening as having been passed for certain purposes. I read as follows from his remarks, found on page 404 of Hansard:
As I say, we lhad to face-
"We" apparently was the last Borden Administration, as distinguished from the present Union Government.
As I say, we had' to face an adverse vote in Quebec and in the West, and men like myself realized that if the Government had gone to the country without first adopting the War-time Elections Act, the control of the country would have .been lost to anti-British-
With that statement, of course, I do not agree in any way; there are no anti-British people in this country. We all desire the success of the Allies; we all have affection and respect for the Motherland, and al-

though we may differ as to the best means to a given endi, that dioest not give hon. gentlemen opposite the right to infer that we are anti-British or anything of that kind. (Reading):


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. OURRIE:: The control of this country would have been lost by the iBritsh element and handed over to the anti-British element for the next twenty-five years.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I rise to a point of order. The hon, gentleman is quoting from another debate^ which is not allowed by the rules of the House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If I am not allowed
to quote further from the debate, I certainly will not do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: A member cannot
quote from a previous debate during the same session but reference to a previous debate by way of illustration only, would be considered in order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 'That is to say, I may rely on my memory, but not on the written words. Well, my memory is that the member for North Simeoe stated in very emphatic terms that this Government owed its election to the War-time Elections Act; that without it, this Government would have been defeated. Moreover, the hon. member justified the War-time Elections Act on the ground that without it the country would have passed into the control of anti-British people. That is what he said- I do not agree with him. What I would not hopefully, hut very respectfully and very earnestly, ask the Government to do is to strike out from this Bill any reference to the War-time Elections Act. Why should a woman from Switzerland or some other part of Europe whose language is German, but who is a true Canadian woman, not have the right to vote? Under the WaT-time Elections Act a man who came from a country at peace with us, hut whose native language was German, lost his vote. I do not wish to go into this matter at length, hut I know that other gentlemen sitting opposite think with me that the War-time Elections Act is a blot on the fair name of Canada, and should be removed. We do not wish to see the conferring of the franchise on women tarnished by the restrictions on their voting which are imposed by the War-time Elections Act. The other day Mr. 'Asquith addressing his constituents at Cupar, Scotland, said that he felt sure of the success of the Allies in this war because the great spiritual forces of .righteousness were fighting for us. The
War-time Elections Act was morally wrong; it took away from people who were as loyal to Canada as any of us the right to vote just because they happened to come years ago from countries with which we are now at war. Bohemians, Ruthenians, people who had no sympathy at all with our enemies, were deprived of the right to- vote. It was not right; it may have been expedient, but I belong to the school of political thought which believes that honour, justice and righteousness are stronger than expediency.
I believe that we .shall be on the side of the great spiritual forces fighting for righteousness if we, the common people, in Parliament assembled, see to it that ' in granting the franchise to women, we take away the stain from the Canadian shield and escutcheon by wiping off the War-time Elections Act.


Samuel Francis Glass: In rising to say a few words in this debate, I do not presume that I shall he able, at this late hour, to contribute any new thought or add to the arguments in favour of granting the franchise to women. But if I did not place myself on record as being in favour of woman suffrage, I feel I should not be doing my duty to the noble women of the district which I represent, who have rendered such splendid service to the nation during these four years of war. I have listened with some interest to my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), and, for a moment, I was hardly able to understand whither he was drifting. He gave two outstanding objections to granting the franchise to women, first, that it would create friction at election time, and, secondly, that it would enormously increase the power of the church. If his opinion in that respect were correct, I am at a loss to understand why he drifted to the other angle later on. I am reminded of >a homely story which, while it may be an old one, is very apropos. A couple of tramps travelling through the country arrived at the gate of a farm where a large collie dog, in his happy, or, as it might have been, unhappy way, was wagging his tail, and at the same time growling and showing his teeth. These men wished to go to the farmer's house so that they might get something to eat. Henry was a little in advance, and Pat was a little in the rear. Pat said to Henry, "Go on, he will not bite you; he is a good-natured old fellow; can't you see he is a-waggin' of his tail." "But," said Henry, "he is also a showing of his teeth, and blest if I know which end to believe."

During a period of many years women have been more or less engaged in election contests in the province of Ontario, and 1 cannot agree with my hon. friend that the granting of the Dominion franchise to them is liable to cause family friction. I would respect and honour my wife quite as much even if her opinion differed from mine. My hon. friend refers to the pgssibility of the wife trying to convert the husband and the husband trying to convert the wife. I suppose, under such circumstances, if they were pulling apart and were settled in their views, neither one could be converted. I am reminded of an incident of a public man, a politician, who was on one occasion accosted by a suffragette and asked for his opinion on woman suffrage. He was very ready to answer her question. He said, "Yes, my dear lady, I go further than believing in woman suffrage; I maintain that men and women are equal in every respect." The lady's reply was, "Now, Professor, are you not bragging?"
I have found, in the activities of our women during recent years, that woman has measured up in her powers and capacity for assuming responsibility in every respect equal to man. Let me give an illustration to show the quality of intellect and the capacity of women even amongst the girls of our schools. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the .Greater Resources Committee of the province of Ontario, in which it is attempted to show how the boys and the girls in that province assisted in the great work of production last year. In connection with that work a competition was held amongst the schools in the different counties. In each school where the competition took place there were offered first, second and third prizes. The object of the competition was to have the boys and girls write an essay showing the best way in which greater production could be assisted by the co-operation of boys and girls. I find that in one competition, out of the three prizes given, a girl won the first and a girl won the third. I was interested enough to look into the pamphlet further, and I found that in the schools of the province in which the competitions were held, of the first prizes won, 96 went to the girls and 50 to the boys, and out of the total number of prizes, first, second and third, 206 went to girls and 180 to the boys. Some time ago the Canadian Municipal World bad an article written by Miss Agnes Chesley, in which she was answering the arguments of Dr. James Murray, who, amongst other points of opposition to 
woman suffrage, brought forward the following: First, that when the franchise had been extended to women they had not shown an interest in the work; second, that they had not recorded their votes in the proportion that was expected of them. Miss Chesley went on to show that this argument was not borne out by facts. She said:
In New Zealand', according' to the latest returns, 82 per cent of the women voted as against 84 of the men. In Australia 57 per cent of the women voted as against 68 of the men. Practically all the women registered, and the percentage of women voters was higher in the settled districts and1 lower in the unsettled; as might he expected'. It is not difficult to understand, in places where the voters have to travel, that it is easier for the men to go than for the women.
She stated further:
In Wyoming, SC to 9<0 per cent of the women vote; in Colorado 15' to 8'5 per cent vote; in Utah, 8'5 to 90 per cent. In Washington 85 to 95 per cent; in California, a splendid' percentage, 90 to 9'9, and so on through the list. Statistics show conclusively thiat where women have the vote they do use it.
Mias Chesley at that time undertook to make a report as to the conditions in the province of Quebec, to which my hon. friend has referred. She said that at the civic election held at Montreal previous to the writing of the article-that is, at the last election-the Montreal Local Council of Women undertook to get out the women's vote. She continues:
So successfully did they accomplish their big undertaking that the percentage voting was very high, in one ward reaching 90 per cent. I wonder if any ward would show such a high percentage of men voting! At one civil election in a ward of this city, 25 per cent of the men voted. Talk about the apathy of the women! The women of Montreal are vastly more interested in municipal affairs than the men.	*
If women in that part of the province have manifested such an interest in municipal affairs, it is only natural to conclude that they will manifest a similar degree of interest in the larger sphere of provincial and Dominion affairs. There will be all the more reason as the years go by for the influence of the women in our public affairs, because many of the things on which the provinces will have to legislate go very closely home to. the people. The article goes on:
Suppose we now examine a few more of Mr. Murray's preposterous statements and see if they are also based on ignorance. "Even in matters affecting- the lives of women and children, the women voters1 have shown little interest," he says. This is the apotheosis of ignorant dogmatism. The very smallest enquiry into facts would have stopped any pen

from making such a statement. I can go over country after country where women have the vote, and the unanimous testimony of the wisest and best is that the women's vote has invariably been used for his very thing:-the betterment of the conditions under which women and children live. Judge Lindsay writes, "We have in Colorado the most advanced laws of any state in the union for the care and protection of the home and1 the children, the very foundations of the Republic. We owe this more to Woman Suffrage than to any other one cause." Turning to our own British Empire, Sir John Cockburn writes, after an experience of nearly twenty years in Australia: "It may be safely affirmed1 that the inclusion of women in the electorate has greatly facilitated the passage of laws safeguarding the welfare of children and women and removing temptations from the path of men."
It is not necessary to quote such statements, because we have other evidence. No statesmen dare say on the floor of the legislature in those provinces where the franchise has been extended to women that it was a mistake. I believe that giving women the vote will raise politics to a higher plane-to a plane which as my right hon. friend has said, w'ould justify women taking a more, active interest in public affairs. If our country is growing better, and we think it is growing better from day to day, every move that has been made for a higher civilization and better ideals of citizenship has been due, to a large extent, to the influence of the women behind it. The moral laws, the laws of right, the'laws which provide for better care and protection of the home and for better citizenship, have been largely the result of women's influence.
I congratulate the Prime 'Minister on introducing this Bill at this time. Some hon. gentlemen think this an inappropriate time, but in view of what woman has done for the state in this crisis, in view of her activities and the real serviceable work which she has done, and which has meant so much, I think this House dare not longer deny her the right which, in my opinion, should have been granted many ; ears ago. T believe that in supporting this measure, as I propose to do, I shall be unanimously endorsed by the electors whom I represent.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: I am unequivocally in favour of the principle of this Bill. Among the many reasons I have for supporting this Bill, the first is that my mother was a woman, my wife was a woman, and the old Queen Victoria was a woman, and so was Queen Elizabeth; and if there are any two individuals on the earth who have [DOT]demonstrated the fact that women can exercise public functions wisely it is these two great queens who have given to their several
eras their names-so that we speak of the Elizabethan period and the Victorian era.
I think there is no question as to the capacity of women to exercise the functions which the franchise will confer on them. Slavery always degrades, and woman has been a slave in this country, in a political sense, until the western provinces gave the franchise to women. Giving the franchise to women will develop public spirit, on the same principle that it developed public spirit in the non-property owner. I am surprised at some of my hon. friends telling us we ought to go back and listen to what the French people andi the English people did away hack in the night of time. We need not go back to the night of time. It is only a very few years ago that the Roman Catholics in this, country and in all the British possessions did not have the franchise.
There is another thing I want to point out. If you give the franchise to any section of the Dominion, it does not follow that the women have to' exercise the franchise. The greater includes the less. It is not as if we were taking something away from them; we are giving something to them, which they can use if they like, and if they don't like they can stop home. There is nothing compulsory about it. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier), I think, made use of a fallacy. He was afraid the birth rate would decline if we gave the franchise to women, tout at the same time he told us that in old France they did not give the franchise to women. I am speaking of this to show that giving or withholding the franchise has nothing whatever to do with the birth rate. The people of old France, in my judgment, are the first and the only people who have solved the great question of modem civilization in regard to the birth rate. The people of Quebec have followed quite a different policy; they have been increasing their birth rate while the French in the old country have decreased theirs; and there were political reasons for that, and not only political reasons but scientific and national and social reasons.
I say that the great French nation, so far as civilization is concerned', stands ahead of every nation in the world. People of this country do not seem to realize thalt our present civilization and our present democracy are absolutely new. Why, the world has only been fit to live in for about fifty years as a matter of fact. The reason we have this democracy and this civilization is [DOT]because of the ^relief of the congestion of
0C3

the populations of Europe by the discovery of America, and the giving room for the people, and giving them time to think. The man who is pressed against the limit in the matter of subsistence cannot become civilized. The man who gets up in the morning and looks for a snake for his wife's breakfast cannot become civilized. Our present civilization depends upon our present democracy, and our present democracy is absolutely the result of immunity from pressing want. But what has happened? What induced this war? This war is more or less the direct result of over-population. The Empire of Germany in my time-and I am not a very old man-and in' the lifetime of nearly every hon. gentleman sitting in this House has doubled its population. Since the Franco-Prussian War, 40 odd years ago, their population has doubled. Now, remember the population increases in a geometrical ratio. I am using that term in contradistinction to an arithmetical ratio. Take Germany as an illustration. The German population in forty years rose from forty millions to eighty millions. In the next forty yeaTs it will be one hundred and sixty millions and the following forty years it will 'be three hundred and twenty millions. What about the forty years following ! It would be six hundred and forty millions. North of the boundary between the United States and Mexico, at the beginning of this century, we had one hundred million people, in Canada and the United States. In thirty years that population will be doubled, and we will have two hundred millions; in sixty years, four hundred millions; in ninety years eight hundred millions. Given peace, plenty and immunity from epidemics, and there will be nearly twice that many, if Quebec keeps at it at the present Tate. According to Malthus, the population of the Anglo-Celtie people, given peace, plenty and immunity from epidemics, will double itself every twenty-five years. Get to work with your pencils and paper and figure out what that means, arrd think of what the future has in store for the civilized nations of the world. At the same time, remember that I am not discouraging the increasing population. I do not want to do that; Canada is a new, great country, almost illimitable, in one sense of the word, and the first duty of Canadian statesmen is to occupy that land, and make it a white man's country. Another duty we owe, and especially we owe it to the people of this country immediately after the war, is to get as many people in here as we possibly can, so that they will divide up the tremendous public debt, and thereby 
lessen the debtb per capita, otherwise, we will all have to go out of the country. These are little suggestions, but I should like the House to sit up and take notice, and look to the future, because, as a matter of fact, we do not want to live on a smouldering volcano and not know it is there.
There are some other little points made. Some gentlemen said that women were not the equal of men. Why 'is that? Simply because they have not the franchise. If you give the women the franchise, I venture to say that in twenty years they will have just as much public spirit as the men, and be just as capable of exercising the franchise, because there is nothing like freedom, nothing like liberty, and nothing like giving people their rights, if you want to develop their character, but you must develop it along lines of self-reliance and not make slaves of them, because slavery always degrades.
Speaking about the influence that the church will have upon women, give them the franchise, and that will obviate the very difficulty that my hon. friend feared; because once the women get the franchise, they will develop the same as the men. It is because women have been driven out of public life and out of faking an interest in the affairs of the country, that they have been driven to patronize the theatre matinee and the five o'clock tea, when they would be a great deal better out of such places. At the same time, I want to draw the attention of the hon. leader of the Government to a principle which I think he would be well advised, and the Government be well advised, to recognize, and that is they should not be showing too many red rags to a bull. The Quebec people are sensitive; they are 'as fine a class of people as there are to-day in Canada, or any part of the world for that matter, but they are sensitive, and when they see a measure before this House, whether it is a conscription Bill, or Woman's Suffrage Bill, at an inopportune time, they necessarily think that it is aimed at Quebec, particularly if it has that colour. That is what it looks like to a good many of my friends*. They feel this, legislation is aimed primarily at the province of Quebec, because they dto not happen to have women suffrage or for some other reason, il am not going into the generic reasons, because you will recognize the situation as well as I do. That is one of the principal reasons why hon. gentlemen on -this side of the House criticise the Bill more severely than they would if my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition had introduced

it. I want to warn the Government to be careful and not irritate any class' of people in this country. _ The truth of the matter is this is a young country, and the inhabitants are not homogeneous. But they will become so if you leave them alone. And another thing, if you want to crystallize certain- things that you think are evils, persecute the people, because persecution defeats the very end the persecutors have in view. You cannot get a better illustration of that than Old Ireland, where the southern part of Ireland has been, persecuted


Georges Henri Boivin: I shall have to as-k
the hon. gentleman to come nearer the -subject-matter of the Bill.
- Mr. JOSEPH READ: This is very apropos <of the Bill. We will leave that alone, however. I was speaking about the Bill and -the feeling that my friends on this aide of the House have towards it. They feel that -it was aimed primarily at the province of -Quebec. Let us do away, as far as possible, with this irritation, and I am satisfied the -Bill will pass if put to a vote. I do not know that it is worth while for me to speak -any further on the subject. I could take up -a great many other subjects touching this Bill, but I am anxious to see the Bill become law. However, it is all right to stop -at this late hour.


Mr. CAHILL:: Mr. Chairman, I have
never been a believer in the divine right af kings, nor am I a believer in the divine right of men to the franchise. I think women hav-e just the same right to the franchise as -men ha/ve. It ha.s always been my belief that when Ad-am gave his rib for the creation of Eve he lost the best rib he had and possibly a good deal of his backbone with it. We are going to give women the franchise. We have no right to withhold it fro-m them and never had. The only fault I have to find with -this franchise Bill is that it is a -sort of -ski-m-milk proposition. It is -siamesed with the Wartime Elections Ac-t, an-d I think that phase of it is objectionable. I think that is practically the -Only objectionable feature to my hon. friends on -this side of the House, or the other side, -because there w-as just as much objection to that phase of it from .the other -side, when it was last in committee, as there hias been from tbi-s side. J would like to call attention to the fact that the best speech made in French in favour of the Bill to-day was made on this side of the House by a Quebec member, and I think the'best speech in opposition to it was also -made on this side. My hon.
lessen the debt per capita, otherwise, we , favour of the Bill; so are any number of gentlemen on this side. The ho-n. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) was not justified in suggesting -that the opposition to the Bill was actuated by a political motive or in talking about eighty- . five members on -this side of the House defeating a hundred and Ifilfty members on the other side. That was only talking to the gallery, or the press, or his constituents. There is no good reason to my mind why wo-men should not have the franchise. They are just as intelligent and as capable of voting as men are. The women of the constituency which I represent polled a very large vote in the last election.
I g-o-t more votes in the last election than the combined votes of the candidates in the previous election; so that the women must be voting intelligently. That is another argument that is- very much in favour of woman -suffrage. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member from East York (Mr. Foster) when he was explaining the inner workings of the Tory mind and suggesting that it was a good thing to offer -the women this inducement.
I am .satisfied that the women, being honest and honourable, will naturally turn to the ho-nest party in the country -and of course this measure mus-t be of great benefit to the Liberals o-f Canada.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's, Montreal) (translation):: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I heard the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) express his astonishment that the province of Quebec should he opposed to granting women the franchise. I appreciate his position-which is of a very particular nature-and if the hon. member fails to fully grasp our objections to this Bill, it may result from the fact that he is in the very midst of his honeymoon.
Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to women obtaining the vote in the other provinces; on the contrary, we believe their mind to be ripe for this reform, as folks are pleased to call it. And if we are opposed to this law it is not because we consider the women of Quebec less intelligent than those in the other provinces; on the contrary we are convinced that they are just as well able as any one to judge political -questions at their true value and will use their ballot with both enlightenment and intelligence. But we are opposed to this law because we fail to see, clearly, in what way, from a social point of view, it will improve the situation in our province.

We may well ask ourselves, in the first place, whether or not the women of Quebec have any desire to be admitted to the voting-booth. To this question, Mr. Chairman, we are in a position to give an exact reply, because we have just come from meeting with our constituents in every county of the province, and we may state, in full sincerity, that all the women of the province are strongly opposed to being saddled with the responsibility of the ballot, a burden which they find too heavy for their delicate shoulders.
During the last election campaign we had the opportunity to ascertain whether or not the franchise does improve woman's status, socially. Well, what took place? When the Patriotic Fund was organized, in the very first days of the war, it had been understood that the Fund, which was subscribed to by all the citizens of Montreal, irrespective of race or party, would in no way interfere with forthcoming election contests. That is to say: the Patriotic Fund was entirely neutral in the matter of politics. Now, what happened? At the December elections we saw women, who belonged to this organization, soliciting votes for the Government; we even saw them go from door to door and some of them went so far as to offer money. More than that, Mr. Chairman, on the very day of the election, they organized, a Unionist masquerade. In the district of St. Henri-Westmount we saw a certain group of women, who were entitled to vote, spend nearly the whole day in the different polls so as to prevent citizens from voting, bv making them believe that the polls were overcrowded with people awaiting their turn to mark their ballots.
Such, gentlemen, are the results of the first trial o,f this granting to women the privilege of the ballot. Now, we are opposed to this proposal of woman suffrage because we find that it is contrary to the character and the temperament of our women in the province of Quebec.
We believe that the sentimental side of their nature is so developed that this would expose them to many dangers.
I will cite only one instance to show that the sentimental side of woman can often be at fault. Last winter, I believe it was, we witnessed an association of women, moved by the imperialist spirit, decreeing, after due deliberation, that an honest citizen, who was exercising his right of free speech,-that is what iMr. Armand Lavergne was doing,-should be thrown into prison.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you, was this young man, in taking advantage of his free-

dom to express his opinions, doing anything else than these women themselves?
He was their best friend, and they wanted, at the time to encroach on his liberty. I wish to draw their attention to the fact that the principles of Armand Lavergne were their own principles in 1911, that he has always been consistent in his manner of reasoning and in 1918 continues to profess the opinions he expressed in 1911. Which all goes to show that nerves are at times unduly influenced and that it is not prudent to grant them a privilege like the franchise.
Now, we are told, as an argument, as a reason, that this is being done all over the world, that it is a well-established current of opinion, in a word, that we need something new in this country. I will admit that we do not require novelty; but, at this time, when thousands of our Canadians are falling on the fields of Flanders; at this time, when those who return to us are disabled, mutilated or contaminated, it is at least strange that we should be presented with this, proposal of replacing the family spirit in our country by the spirit of the hustings.
No, Mr. Chairman, it is not by making speeches, it is not by writing articles in the newspapers, nor with lectures, nor with poetry, that, under the present * circumstances, the family spirit, which iis certainly the most precious for us to nurture, can be replaced.
I must draw your attention to the fact that in the province of Quebec we are not relying on immigration to increase our population; besides I find this hope unfounded even in the other provinces. I must tell those who hear me, that at the present time the gates are closed against immigration. It is not the United States who, after the war, will allow their subjects to come and colonize a depopulated Canada; it is not France nor England assuredly; and still less, devastated Belgium and ruined Serbia. No, Mr. Chairman. Moreover, a barrier will surely be established in this Dominion.
We have a last hope: the immigration of the yellow races; but we fear the yellow peril. If our friends in the other provinces are hankering after this immigration, that is their own affair; but, for our part, we are opposed to having this race enter the country. We claim that the French Canadian cannot be replaced by a Chinaman; and neither can the English Canadian be replaced in this Dominion by a Chinaman.
Mr. 'Chairman, I will not go on very long, as the hour is late and a number of speakers have eloquently dealt with the subject;

but I must say that, to my mind, politics and the home are two incompatible things.
By granting the franchise to women we will, in a way, oblige them to become well-informed so as to cast their vote in an enlightened manner; in a way we will force them, in order to gather this information, to read all sorts of things; we will oblige them to desert their homes and go to clubs in search of information; we will oblige them.to be present at meetings; and we, who have the habit of considering our women with the greatest respect, will be pained to see them set off, bound for those common meeting-places where, perchance, they will leave a little of their reputation.
I do not shaTe the opinion of the English philosopher, Stuart Mill, who maintains that the role of woman throughout her whole life is to drag the chains put on her by her husband, for this opinion is absolutely false.
However, <1 do not .say that such a thing could not happen amongst those who are not really married.
This Bill is presented to the House in the shape of a reward. I do not see, Mr. Chairman, how we can accept this reward when it means the imposition upon woman of a heavy responsibility which will force her to leave her home to go to rallies, to leave her family, to leave her household duties, so as to fulfil a duty which is far too arduous for her character, her habits and her delicate temperament.
Now, if I understand aright, this Bill is presented to the House as a reward or as a token of gratitude for the services rendered by Canadian women to the divers organizations having for their object the relief of our soldiers and of their families during the present war.
I wish to point out to the hon. Prime Minister that, if such be the end he has in view, there are other means of proving his gratitude to the women of our province, means far more effective than the ballot, which will never dry the tears of so many bereaved mothers, nor soothe the deep wounds left in their hearts by the absence of their sons on the firing-line. This franchise will not console our old men who, because their sons have gone, are forced to bend their backs to labour so as to earn, by the sweat of their brow7, a bit of miserable war-bread. No, Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister wishes to reward the devotion of our Quebec women to patriotic undertakings, let him give them back their sons, the object of all their tenderness and their sole interest in life. I may assure him that
this form of reward from the .Government would be much more appreciated by them.
So I say, in closing, that I am opposed to this Bill, first because it is against Nature, and next because it turns the established social order upside down. Each tree must bear its own fruit and no otheT. The mission that woman is called upon to fulfil is absolutely incompatible with the r61e which this Bill seeks to foist upon her.
I make bold to hope that the observations made against the Bill will be accepted in good part by the Government. As regards myself, I am convinced that the province of Quebec is not ready to accept this change. Things may be different in the other provinces and against that, we, in the province of Quebec have no objection; but we maintain that it is for the provincial governments exclusively to decide this question. To them belongs the privilege of preparing the voters'1 lists; and when the province of Quebec is ready to adopt such a radical change she will not fail to take advantage of this privilege, which will put her on the same footing as the other provinces. For the time being, I do not hestitate to say that this Bill shows a very bad policy and constitutes an abuse of power, since it takes a prerogative away from the provinces and gives it to the central authority.
Mr. J. E. ILiESLAGE (Hochelaga): Mr Chairman, it was not my intention to say anything on this subject, but I think it is a dtity to my constituents to express my opinion on the Bill. There have been many arguments for and against this measure which have their value and deserve great consideration. I do not think it is necessary to cover the subject as thoroughly as many of the preceding speakers, but I merely want to call attention to certain details, and to explain the reason why I am against this Bill. This question of franchise, if you will look at it in a political way, may suit some localities and certain persons, but I do not think you can advance any reason which will modify in any way the nature of women. I have seen in the United States women elected on school boards. I can very well understand the reason for that, but there I think you will admit they were elected by the people as mothers, not as politicians, in order that they might come in closer contact with the children in the schools. I understand that in that sphere they were very useful following up the work which they had begun at home. In all ages we have found women in hospitals as nurses; we find them in this war taking care of the wounded soldiers at the front, but always

as women, not as politicians. It was within their sphere to follow these, different occupations and to perform work appropriate to women. They have done more. It has been mentioned here that they have taken the place of men in the field and in the factory. I can understand' that very well. It was the duty of everybody to do what was possible to help win the war. The women did it willingly, they are still doing it in many places, hut I am very sure that it was more because of the compulsion of events, and that they will he glad to be relieved when their duty is over and to return where they belong, in the home. It is all very good, 'Mr. Chairman, -to talk of privileges and to bring forward the argument that, because they have done so much for the country, they deserve the right to vote. I believe the natural franchise which belongs to them, and the only one for me is the franchise at home. One hon. member has told us that politics stirs up passion and emotions. The two go together. I believe that if politics leads to these ends, we had better keep our wives at home and the passion there with them. In the province of Quebec, I know very well, as has been stated here, there has not been any particular movement or demand for this franchise. I am sure that the women would exercise it in that province as well as they would anywhere else. But there is one thing sure: if men feel political life to be a burden sometimes, and find that it is a sphere in which one goes deeper and deeper, if you give women the privilege of voting and deciding upon political questions I am much afraid that the privilege will expand a great deal further than it is supposed to do, and I think there will be a revolution in our ideals which will be incompatible with ideals of home life. And that is one reason why I do not agree with the principle of this Bill. I remember that a candidate in one of the counties in Quebec in a certain election was very surprised at being defeated, and all his friends toldl him after the election: "We loved you so much that we wanted to keep out at home." I love the women so much that I want to do likewise. Allow me to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in my business I am in close daily contact with them; I know that they want to be respected, and that they should be respected, and1 I believe I would vote against the Bill, to keep them at home. I have nothing more to add; but, as the hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMaster) stated, as an argument for the Bill, that the emotion was so great at one time in his last 
campaign that even women with little babies came to political meetings, I am of opinion that that is an argument against the franchise. I do not believe that common decency would allow that as an argument for a Bill. There is a limit to everything. It shows an abuse that should be corrected. I do not think that women, enjoying all the rights and) privileges which they do, should1 expect to have the right to vote at this moment.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: I promised the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) that I would see him next.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The only reason I desire to speak is that reference has been made to me this evening


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Mr. Chairman, I will be 'brief. The reason I rise at this late hour is 'because I come from a province where the women may rightly be termed electors. At the time of the last election, I want to point out to the 'Government these women in the province of Saskatchewan and ,in the constituency which II have the honour to represent who had been privileged to exercise the franchise in June of last year and were denied that privilege in December of the same year, do not feel very kindly toward the Government who put them in that position. I notice that the hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMaster) attached some significance to the fact that in clause 2 of the Bill there is a reference'made to the Wartime Elections Act. Personally, I am content to accept the- statement made by the Prime Minister the other day about this matter in connection with the War-time Elections Act. If I thought that by endorsing this Bill I was in any way endorsing the War-time Elections Act, my vote would certainly be registered against it.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I come from a province where the women have the franchise in the provincial sense at the present time. I was struck with the remark made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). He said that if .a candidate in the province of Quebec could be sure of the support of the women he would be all right. That remark carried some little significance to my mind; that the hon. gentlemen to the left of you, Mr. 'Chairman, who have been opposing this Bill are not in the happy position of commanding the support of the women of the province of Quebec. But my

mind was disabused of that thought by the explauation given to the committee by the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), who showed us that in his constituency the women had been enfranchised to a considerable degree, and that they used the franchise.
The women of Saskatchewan-I speak only for those in my own constituency-are looking for just such a measure as this. To my mind they are entitled to it in every sense of the word, and should have had it at the last election, if, for no other reason than as a reward for good citizenship, proof of which we have seen ever since this great war began. As evidence of the unfairness of the enfranchisement of some of our women as against the enfranchisement of all, I may point out that nearly all the women of the small village in which I live who have given their time to war work have no sons to send overseas. They worked hard; they burned midnight oil, doing all they could in the way of Red Cross work, knitting soc?ks, and so on; but they were not permitted to cast their vote in the election of last December, while those who happened to have sons overseas and were not in a position, perhaps, to do so much war work, were enfranchised. These things brought home to fair-minded men and women the unfairness of the War-time Election Act.
Some at least of those who oppose this measure must do so from a selfish motive. Often when a man marries a woman he expects her to bury her individuality and merge it with his. But we cannot build up a strong citizenship in this Dominion by building up one-half of our people; we must build up all classes in order to make the development complete. I am guided in my support of this Bill by the old axiom, " Equal rights to all; special privileges to none," and I believe that hon. gentlemen who have opposed the Bill have not been acting in the best interests of the whole of Canada. I hope that when the time comes I shall have the privilege of voting for this Bill, and also of voting to wipe off the statute book of Canada the War-time Elections Act. The people whom I represent have sent me here to do that. Other matters, I have been told, are to rest in abeyance during the war, and I shall not take up the time of the Committee by discussing them now. I am heartily in favour of this Bill.


Mr. MAHARG:: Mr. Chairman, were it not for the anxiety that seems to prevail among a number of hon. gentlemen on the
other side, I should not have attempted to say anything to-night. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, seem to have been living in an atmosphere of terror almost ever since the opening of this session. They seem to dread the effeot of every measure that is proposed, and I wish to attempt to relieve their minds with regard to what they deem to be the probable effects of the legislation which we iare now considering.
In Saskatchewan, women have voted in provincial and Dominion elections, and I have been unable to detect any trace of difficulty. If domestic affairs have been adversely effected by giving women the vote, the difficulty lies not with the woman but with the man of the household. Up to the present time the male electors have been giving the franchise to the women, and if they turn round and create trouble in the household, surely it is their own fault.
The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) laid particular stress on provincial autonomy. I agree that we should have provincial autonomy wherever it is advisable, but there is a point where we must draw the line. II desire to emphasize this fact: in all our provinces there have been cesspools of iniquity for the removal of which the vote of the women is necessary. In this respect, then, the limit of provincial autonomy is reached; the Dominion Government must step in and provide legislation whereby such cesspools may be prevented or removed. Our experience in western Canada is conclusive proof that the extension of the franchise to women has been the means of clearing up some of these cesspools of iniquity. I may refer, in the first place, to the almost entire removal of the liquor traffic from Canada. This movement started in a province where the women had the franchise; to the female electorate of the western provinces must go the main credit for this reform. Had the franchise been fextended to the women of the province of Quebec two or three years ago there would have been no such evasion of the prohibition law of Ontario as has been evidenced by the traffic across the Ottawa river. The Ontario law did prohibit very largely, but a new vessel was created- called the " self-container," I believe- which worked continuously between the two provinces its particular path being across the bridge that spans the Ottawa river. I shall just go a step further, although this may not be very pleasing to the members of the Cabinet at the present time. Had we had women representatives, not only in this House, but in the Cabinet,



this nefarious trafficking in that, I was going to say, damnable stuff-because it is nothing else-would not have been given another lease of life as it was about a month,ago. Recently I spent a week end in an Ontario city where I have some friends who are in business and who require the services of draymen to conduct their business. They told me it was absolutely impossible for them to secure the services of draymen because every possible conveyance that could be secured was being used in the distribution of liquor that had been ordered before the first day of April and it had to be delivered before the first of May. They further told me that the draymen had a full month's business. One of these people had a boy under sixteen years of age who is a particular friend of my friends and who comes of a splendid family. If his people had known in what occupation he was engaged, he would not have been allowed to remain there.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. gentleman to come nearer to the subject-matter of the Bill under discussion. I can understand references to temperance legislation by way of illustration, but I do not think the hon. gentleman ought to go into matters connected with the liquor traffic.


John Archibald Maharg: 
John Archibald Maharg: I shall take it all back. I should not like to get the hon. member in wrong with the ladies. The hon. member said that political meetings were not fit places for ladies.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I never said that.


John Archibald Maharg: That statement was
made by one of the hon. members.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not want it fastened on me.
Mr. MAiHARG: During the recent election campaign, I attended a few political meetings, at practically all of which we had ladies present. At one meeting a gentleman had the nerve to make a silly interjection, and one lady in the meeting silenced him to eueh an extent that he did not open his mouth during the rest of the meeting. If we had had a lady or two like that present at some of the meetings in some parts of the Dominion of Canada, who could have silenced similar interjectors as well as she did1 this one it would have been a good thing. I think the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) stated that in Quebec the men had a partnership with their wives. He put that forward to show that the electors of the province of Quebec had done more for the women than the electors of some of the other provinces. I would inform the hon. gentleman that we have similar legislation in our western provinces. We have our dower lawe there, and the women are very well satisfied with them. Moreover, they did not have to secure the franchise in order to get those laws; they had them before they received the franchise. I will leave the War-time Elections Act- alone for the present_ as there will probably be another opportunity to discuss that measure.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing this Bill, although I have the right if I want to, but I do not desire to do so. I have never been very much enamoured of the granting of the franchise to women, but any doubts I had in my mind have been settled by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Maharg). I am going to support the Bill, but I would prefer to have the franchise come from the different provinces. Some of the provinces, have already granted the franchise to women, and I understand that legislation will be passed by the New Brunswick legislature next session giving to women the vote. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question on section 1.
43J


Georges Henri Boivin: I think it would be better, now that the principle of the Bill has been discussed, to take the Bill up clause by clause, it being well understood that the debate on the second reading is now over, and that we will confine our remarks to the clauses as they come up for discussion.
On section 1-women to be entitled to vote:


Arthur Bliss Copp: In the province of New Brunswick it is not one official, but a board of revisers, of three officials., that makes up the lists. I see that paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 1 says that a woman may vote if she is otherwise qualified and " obtains and presents to the official in charge of the preparation or revision of the voters' lists." If the statement was filed with just one of the officials it might not get before the board of revisers at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I think under the interpretation clauses the singular includes the plural wherever necessary, but we could put in after the word official the words " or officials." I beg to move that after the word " official " the -words " or officials " be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Read: In the province of Quebec the lists in rural municipalities are made up by the clerk of the municipality from the assessment roll and revised by the council sitting as a Court of Review after the lists have been posted for a certain time. We have no enumerators except .by virtue of the War-time Elections Act, and if a woman wanted to get on the roll she would have to appeal.


Robert Laird Borden: I have explained three or four times already what perhaps my hon. friend has- not observed, that so far as the Dominion Elections Act is concerned, we must provide additional machinery, but that is no urgent at the moment; we need not do that at this session. So far as the War-time Elections Act is concerned the machinery is there, but before using the Dominion Elections Act again we must undoubtedly provide the machinery.
Mr. BUREAU; That machinery would apply only to women voters.


Robert Laird Borden: The machinery necessary to enable women to be put on the lists.


Jacques Bureau: I thought it might be as well to put the machinery in the Act that gives women the franchise.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is quite right, except that the Dominion Elections Act will not come into operation before another session, andl therefore we nedfl not trouble about that this session. It would require a good deal of consideration as to how' that is to be -worked out in the different provinces. We may have to embody in the Dominion Elections Act some such provisions as those which are now in the War-time Elections Act. but probably those could be improved and1 simplified. We did not want to cumber this Act, which is designed to affirm and carry into effect the principle of giving to women the vote, with the provision of machinery which will not be necessary until the next session of Parliament at least.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the word "said" at the commencement of line thirty is superfluous, and I move that it be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Bureau: Why would a certificate as to age be required from a judge of a Superior Court? That is the case of a woman who had become a British subject by marriage, or who had become a British subject, her father being an alien, and naturalized while she was a minor. I do not see how a judge would be in a position to decide such a case.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be a matter for the judge to determine, on such evidence as he might hear. We are following the provisions of the Naturalization Act.


Mr. DECHENE:: I understand a certificate would give the lady in question the title of British subject. She is entitled to be considered a British subject, but will not really be one.


Robert Laird Borden: If I correctly apprehend the hon. gentleman, I may tell him that this really provides that women who have been naturalized in one of two ways-that is by marrying a British subject, or by the naturalization of the father while the women was herself a minor- shall not be entitled to vote by virtue of that naturalization until they themselves fulfil what would be required by the Naturalization Act, if they made application in their own right. Do I make myself clear?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Yes, but that is not the point. Take the case of a lady born in Germany coming to this country. She has been here five or six years. She is alone,

unmarried, and over twenty years of age. She goes to the judge and asks for a certificate proving she has fulfilled all the requirements of the Naturalization Act. She gets a certificate that she is entitled to British citizenship, and then stops. She does not go through all the procedure required by the naturalization laws. She gets a certificate, and her name is put on the voters' list. A year or so later she goes back to Germany, or some other country, and subsequently returns to Canada. She has not lost heT first status, and has the right to vote.


Robert Laird Borden: She has not the right to vote in the case the hon. gentleman puts, because she has never become a naturalized British subject.


Jacques Bureau: 
Jacques Bureau: And the necessary requirements are just surplusage?


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me very plain. She is entitled to vote if she is a British subject whether by birth or by naturalization made on her own application. But if she has become naturalized by reason of naturalization of her husband, by reason of having married a man who was a British subject, or by the naturalization of her father while she was a minor, she must conform to the qualifications set forth.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: Before going to the preamble II would like to add a sec-

tion. I move, seconded by Mr. Sifton, that the following section be added to the Bill:
3. Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, it shall not be necessary by reason of any of the provisions thereof, to prepare new voters' lists for the purpose of any byelection to be held before the 1st day of January, 1919, and in the case of any such bye-election any lawful lists available therefor may be used for the purposes of such byelection to the same extent and with the same validity as if this Act had not been passed.
The intention is that this Act shall go into immediate operation, so far as the preparation of lists in the ordinary course is concerned, but inasmuch as there are lists available for by-elections, it was not thought desirable that it should1 be necessary under this Act to prepare new lists for by-elections before the first day of January, 1010. In the meantime, I think, in most of the provinces, new lists will have been made, and the Act will have its operation after the preparation of those lists, but new lists are not considered necessary in the case of by-elections.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of this new amendment?


Robert Laird Borden: If there are lists available for any by-election between now and the first of January, it shall not be necessary to make up new lists for the purpose of this Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the
women would not have the right to vote?


Robert Laird Borden: They would not have any additional right at any by-election between now and the 1st of January.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing new lists were made?


Robert Laird Borden: It merely says it shall not !be necesary to make new lists by reason of anything this Act contains. If they are made in the meantime, well and good, but it shall not be necessary by reason of this Act to make specially any new lists for by-elections before next January.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Suppose by-elections are held in the province of Quebec, the women would not be entitled to vote until January, 1919?


Robert Laird Borden: Except in so far as they are upon the lists now available.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, (Minister -*f Railways and Canals) the House
went into committee on the following resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That It is expedient to provide that an employee in the service of His Majesty who is injured, and the dependents of any such employee who is killed, shall be entitled to the same compensation as the employee, or as the dependent of a deceased employee, of a person other than His Majesty would, under similar circumstances, be entitled to receive under the law of the province in which the accident occurred, and- the liability for and the amount of such compensation shall be determined in the same manner and by the same Board, officers or authority, or by su®h other Board, officem or authority or by such Court as the Governor in Council shall direct; and any compensation awarded shall be paid to such employee, or dependents, or to such person, as may be directed by the Board, officer, authority or Court, who may award costs as in cases between private parties in the province where the accident occurred; and any compensation or costs so awarded may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
John Dowsley Reid: I wish to introduce a Bill, after this resolution is passed, placing not only the employees of Government railways, but all employees in the Government service under the same laws as other railway employees are under in so far as compensation for injury or loss of life is concerned. The Bill will provide that the compensation is to be the same as under the law of the province where the accident occurred.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the object of the resolution is a very proper one. I have no objection to the principle, but I must take decided objection to the manner in which the compensation is to be fixed. It is to be determined
-in the same manner and by the same Board, officers or authority, or by such other board, officers or authority or by such court as the Governor in Council shall direct.
This is another instance in which the Governor in Council is assuming jurisdiction which he should not exercise. The board which is to determine the compensation should be fixed by law. However, it is late and I shall not press the point now, but I shall press it upon the second reading of the Bill.


Ernest Lapointe: If I understood the minister aright, this law will apply only to provinces where they have a Workmen's Compensation Act. I Ibelieve there are four provinces in Canada where there are no such Acts. There is one in Quebec, one in Ontario, I believe one in Manitoba, and one in another of the western provinces. I believe that Nova Scotia and New Bruns-

wick have no Workmen's Compensation Acts.


Robert Laird Borden: There is such an Act in Nova Scotia.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps it is in New Brunswick in which there is no such Act. There are certainly three or four provinces where there is no such Compensation Act.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: What are the provinces which have no Compensation Acts?


Ernest Lapointe: 
Mr. SIFTON:: They have one there under which the amount is decided by arbitration and the real object of this resolution is to provide for the appointment of a hoard in Prince Edward Island instead of submitting the matter to arbitration. All the other provinces have Acts of some kind.


Ernest Lapointe: I was told by a gentleman in one of the labour unions that there are four provinces in which there is no such Act.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: There are four provinces in *which the Acts are practically identical; there are four provinces which have Acts that they prefer; but all the other provinces have some kind of an Act.


Jacques Bureau: The object of this resolution is to bring workmen employed on Government railways under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province. I object to any provision that will require the submission of the case of a man injured on the Canadian Pacific railway to a different court from that to which will be submitted the case of a man injured1 on the Canadian Northern.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That is an alternative only.
Mr. BtJREAU: I object to the alternative. I want the same court to try every case whether the accident happens on one line or on the other. These two lines run parallel in my constituency for about twenty-five miles, but, notwithstanding that, a case affecting a man employed on the Canadian Northern will be tried before a different tribunal from that which will hear the case of a man injured on the Canadian Pacific.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not the intention of the Bill at all.


Jacques Bureau: That is what the resolution says.


John Dowsley Reid: The intention is that the case affecting a workman employed on

a Government railway shall be tried by the same court that will try the case of a man employed on the Canadian Pacific.


Jacques Bureau: If that is the intention it is all right.
Mr. MeMASTER:	I trust that the Bill,
when 'brought down, will contain a saving clause to protect all causes of action which have already arisen from the operation of the Act. I have knowledge of one case which is 'being dealt with by my office. My partner is negotiating with one of the departments to get what we consider an adequate recompense for a widow whose husband was killed. The department had offered just about the amount that they would be liable to under the compensation law of Quebec. We did not think the compensation allowed was sufficient in this case [DOT]and we have been trying to get a larger [DOT]allowance. I would not like our rights, or *the rights of our clients, to be prejudiced by any legislation adopted in a House of which I was a member.
>
Mr. J. D. REID: The railway employees would like a Dominion Compensation Act, but that would take a considerable amount of time and I thought it would :be well to [DOT]simply 'bring in a Bill for this session putting Government railways in exactly the same position as the other railways. When the resolution is passed the Bill will be introduced and it will be printed so that every one will have an opportunity of looking it over. That is the reason I would like *to get the resolution through to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: Will this apply to pending litigation?


Robert Laird Borden: There is no pending litigation.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: There is one point in
connection with this Bill that will have to receive very careful consideration. Disputes have arisen between different classes of labouring .men in the different provinces in regard to interference with common-law rights by reason of compensation Acts. Under the Compensation Act in the province of Ontario, if a workman is injured in the course of his employment lie is brought under the Compensation Act, his Tight to the common law remedy is taken away from him, and his damages are limited to the amount which is fixed by the Act.
Mr. MeMASTER:	It is practically the
same in Quebec.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: There is an Act before the legislature of Alberta over which there

6T9
is the same discussion. Last year, the province of Saskatchewan undertook to amend their Compensation Act along that line, and it was thrown out. My personal opinion is that any Compensation Act w'hich interferes with the common-law rights of the labourer is wrong in principle, because the Compensation Acts fix definitely the amount of damages which can be recovered, and they are fixed in some cases as low as $2,500 in the event of death, and the dependents receiving compensation under that Act are barred from their remedies under the common law. Now, if this Government brings railway employees under the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the various provinces, they should certainly put in a clause which will safeguard to those employees the rights which they have at common law. Until we have the particulars of the Bill before u3, it will be unnecessary to discuss this matter, but I want to point this out to the Minister of Railways, because I feel that, if he takes away the common-law rights from the railway employees of Canada he will be introducing legislation which "will 'be very unsatisfactory to them and will, I think, work injustice.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly my
hon. friend has not quite grasped the purpose of the resolution. I have had the advantage of discussing it with some-not all-of the labour organizations, and they are exceedingly anxious that it should be passed. More than that, this legislation would not take away any common-law right at all; it is not taking anything away, it is giving something. And in g'ving the right to compensation, it has been thought desirable, for the present at least, to follow the same lines which have been established under the laws of the several provinces. There is nothing given away, but a right is conferred.	[DOT]
Resolution reported without amendment and read the first and second time.
Hon. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 51, to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act, Chapter 35 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing that the stores account of the Canadian Government Railways shall be debited with the cost of materials, equipment and stores purchased, and of work preformed and expenses incurred in connection therewith, together with the cost of establishing, maintaining and conducting the railway stores; and shall be credited with the values of materials, equipment and stores as issued and charged to proper appropriations, or otherwise disposed of; and that the balance to the debit of the said stores account shall not at any time exceed six million dollars.
John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Act of 1906 contained a section, No. 20, which reads a3 follows:
Stores accounts as heretofore established in connection with the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway shall, respectively, be debited with the cost of materials, equipment and stores purchased and of work performed and expenses incurred in connection therewith, together with the cost of establishing, maintaining and conducting the railway stores, and shall be credited with the values of materials, equipment and stores as issued and charged to proper appropriations, or otherwise disposed of.
Since that time we have taken over the Transcontinental railway and the International railway, that is to say we have increased the magnitude of the Government railway system. We propose to amend the clause I have just read so that it would apply to the enlarged railway system. Section 21 of the Act reads as follows:
The balance of the debit of the respective stores acounts so established, shall not at any time exceed, for the Intercolonial Railway the sum of one million five hundred thousand1 dollars, and for the Prince Edward Island Railway the sum of one hundred thousand dollars.
The object of this Bill is to increase the quantity of the stores that we can have on hand. Owing to the high price of coal and other necessary supplies, it is an impos-siblity to operate the roads with the quantity of stores which $1,500,000 will purchase, and', of course, under the Audit Act, We cannot purchase without haVing a sufficient credit. For that reason, this resolution proposes to increase the amount which may be invested in stores from $1,500,000 to $6,000,000. Of course, the system now requires supplies from Port Arthur to Sydney. We have to keep a supply of coal at Port Arthur, for instance, and 100,000 tons at that point at $5 or $6 a ton represents in itself a large proportion of the amount we are asking.


Wilfrid Laurier: That explanation seems reasonable enough, Mr. Chairman. I hope the hon. minister at a later

stage will give us some statistics showing why he has selected the amount of $6,000,000 instead of $2,000,000 or $4,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall give a detailed statement showing the stock on hand at the present time.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Minister of Railways and Canals lost the Canadian Northern railway again? He does not mention it.


Jacques Bureau: In the clauses of the Act read by the minister I notice that specific amounts are allocated to the two railways mentioned, $1,500,000 to the Intercolonial, and $100,000 to the Prince Edward Island railway.


John Dowsley Reid: We have now a much larger mileage embraced in the Canadian Government Railway system.


Jacques Bureau: Will a certain proportion of the six million dollars be divided amongst the different roads, so much to the Canadian Northern, and so on?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern railway is being operated under its own charter. This resolution applies only to the railways operated by the Canadian Government and covered by the Railways and Canals Act.


Jacques Bureau: But the Canadian Northern is the property of the Canadian Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only when it comes to the matter of making payments.
Resolution reported without amendment, and read the first and second time.
Mr. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, to amend the Department of Railways and -Canals Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.19 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, April 12, 1918.