1918-04-17

SECRET SESSION OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The House, in conformity with a resolution, agreed to on motion of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on Monday, the 15th day of April inst., went into secret session, until the House should otherwise order.
At the conclusion of the secret session, the following report of its proceedings was issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker.
"The Prime Minister, on a motion to go into Committee of Supply, made a full statement surveying the present war situation. treating of the military position, the

supply and production of foodstuffs, and the problem of merchant shipping and the submarine, with especial reference to the man-power position of the British Empire and the Allies.
"He stated that the Government, being impressed with the desirability of giving to t'he House the fullest possible information had communicated to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom its intention to move for a secret session and had requested from Mr. Lloyd George a statement of the present position which might be made known to the House. Mr. Lloyd George's message in response to this request was then read.
"The Prime Minister then presented other information and considerations' bearing on the situation. The military position confronting the Empire was explained in detail. The enemy had clearly disclosed his intention to make a supreme effort to destroy the British army on the western front as an effective fighting force. To this end he had adopted measures placing every man in the German Empire between the ages of 17 and 60 at the disposal of the Government, reducing the age limit for military service, and re-organizing his formations in the field. His forces and reserves for striking at the western front had been enormously increased by the withdrawal of Russia from the war. The employment of Landwehr and Landsturm formations for the defence of the eastern front, the use of these formations to supply individual men as drafts to replace casualties in France and Flanders, their places being taken in turn by the youngest recruits for purposes of training, the cessation of war wastage in the East, and the transfer in addition of large numbers of Austro-Hungarian troops-considering all these factors, the Russian withdrawal had increased the potential enemy strength on the western front, including 'Italy, by possibly -as many as 1,600,000 men without taking into account the reserves which would otherwise have been necessary for the Russian front.
"France had made already enormous sacrifices, and she would continue her heroic and glorious effort to the end.
"The Government of the United Kingdom had accordingly initiated the most drastic measures for maintaining their effective forces and providing the necessary reserves for the future.
"The military effort already made by the United Kingdom, France and the Dominions
was shown by means of detailed confidential information as to the strength of the forces which have been raised by each.
"As to the position confronting this Dominion, it was apparent that an attack upon the Canadian Army -corps in full force must be expected. No one could say when, but in view of the strategic value of their position there could be no doubt they must be prepared to meet any attack launched by the enemy and the country must be prepared to provide the reinforcements to make good all losses. The Government had been in communication with the overseas military authorities, and as the result of the most careful consideration the clear conclusion had been reached that if the Canadian Army corps- was to be maintained as an effective fighting force, additional measures must be taken. The Canadian Army corps must be maintained; no one -could question that. There was therefore no other alternative before the Government but to propose further measures for recruiting the needed reinforcements. These measures had been formulated and announced.
"With regard to the shipping situation, the Prime Minister pointed out that allied and neutral ocean-going tonnage, estimated at 33,000,000 tons at the beginning of the war, had been reduced at the end of 1917 by a net loss of 2,500,000 tons, that is, about 8 per cent; while British tonnage, considered separately, had suffered a reduction of 20 per cent, the tonnage being 18,000,000 tons at the outbreak of war and the net loss, taking into account new construction as in the other case, being 3,500,000 tons.
"The strain on British shipping was illustrated by a citation of the very large proportion which is devoted to the special war services of the army, navy, the Allies and the British Dominions. The result was a very serious reduction in the amount available for supplying the United Kingdom with its essential foods and materials and the sacrifices imposed upon the people of Great Britain could not be overstated. The shipbuilding programme of the Empire and the Allies was explained. The important question of the world's food supply was reviewed and the House was made acquainted with information pointing to the vital neoessit-y for stimulating increased production.
"In conclusion the Prime Minister urged that it must be recognized that the position was one of extreme gravity. In view of the issues involved Germany must be defeated. There could be no other alternative. And to this end Canada must provide all the
[Stage Direction]


assistance in her power. We must supply the men necessary to keep our divisions up to full strength no matter what casualties were suffered, and we must so organize our remaining human power as to maintain and if possible increase our agricultural production.
"Following the Prime Minister's statement a brief discussion ensued, those who took part in it being Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Sam Hughes and General Mewburn.
"The memlbers of the Senate attended the session, that House having adjourned for the purpose."
And at five minutes past five of the clock in the afternoon, the House having so ordered, the doors were opened.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen, (Minister of the Inertior), Bill 39, to amend the Yukon Act, was read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill 32, respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, was read the third time and passed.

Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved:: Third reading of Bill No. 51, to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duty.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers) . It is provided by the Bill that Government employees of each province shall be treated the same as ordinary employees, coming within the Employers' Liability and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The 'question arose yesterday as to how we should designate the Crown when we desire to bring an action and desire to summon the King. The summons is in the name of the King, and it will be the King summoning the King. I would suppose that if a man worked tor the Public Works Department the fact of his bringing an action against the Public Works Department would be sufficient without any service. Could the Minister of the Interior explain as to that?


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: It was suggested that the Governor in Council might by regulation determine the title of the defendant and what should constitute service on the Crown. It would then be within the

power of the Governor in Council to say that the department concerned might be the defendant. The reason I did not see fit to recommend that the suggestion be followed was that there might well be injuries sustained by employees who could not be said to be employees of any department, but still were employees of the Government of Canada,


Mr. BUREAU:: It is all left with the Governor in Council. Suppose a man is injured on a public work, where will he serve the King? Will it be the Department of Public Works?


Arthur Meighen: That is covered by the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: I think the Bill is a step in the right direction, but the way in which the King ought to be summoned and the place where he should be served ought to be designated in this Bill. It is a question of procedure, and the provision should be in the statute so that we should not have to go to the official Gazette, or write to the Clerk of the Privy Council, to get a copy of the order, to determine by what procedure this law is to be put in force, or in what way the King can Jae summoned or where he can be summoned. A few words added to the Bill would make the required provision. However, iif it is going to delay the passage of the Bill, I am willing to drop the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: After the discussion last night, it was thought wrell that a clause should be inserted .giving the Governor in Council power to 'say on whom the service should be made.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have allowed some laxity in the proceedings to-day, in order that the hon. member might obtain the information he desires, but. the minister, having moved the third reading, he has exhausted his right to speak.


Jacques Bureau: I want to explain


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has also exhausted Ibis right to speak.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigoucbe and Madawaska):: I desire to endorse the views expressed by the hon. member for Three Rivers with reference to this Bill. Hon. gentlemen can imagine for a moment an attorney conducting a case for a certain client, having to write to the Department of Justice, or to the Clerk of the Privy Council, for information as to whom he should address himself in presenting the

petition .in the name of his client. It would only require the insertion of a few words in tlhe Bill. 11 understand this Bill is in aid of .all parties who receive injuries on Government works, and I understand the provisions are ini line with the compensation Acts oif the different provinces. Under those Acts, attorneys or solicitors are limited .in their costs; they simply draw up one petition, and address it to the court, and then the Judge sets the case down for hearing. But under this Bill we have to hunt around and find to whom we should address ourselves, .and how we should obtain information as to the proceedings. Of course we should endeavour to save costs, in the interests of those seeking compensation. This matter should be definitely provided for in the Bill, and make it a precedent for all time.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill 54, to amend the Railway Belt Act was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Issue of patent for land held by deceased settler.
Jacques Bureau: Is the object of,this Bill to make the regulation, whether in the Railway Belt or elsewhere, conform to the amendment that we passed''in the Dominion Lands Act the other night.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. We amended the Dominion Lands Act this year, so as to provide that where the patentee died before the issue of the patent the minister would have power to have the patent issued in the name of the deceased person, the intention being to avoid the necessity of seeking out the heirs entitled to the real estate of the deceased. It is particularly applicable to provinces where the heirs are entitled to the legal estate of the deceased, and where the administrator is not entitled to it, and where the department would not be justified in having patent issued to the administrator. The railway belt of British Columbia and the Peace River district is particularly the place where the need of this amendment is most felt, because by the law of British Columbia we cannot relieve ourselves of responsibility by issuing a patent to the administrator of a deceased patentee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
53*
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers (Minister of Labour) Bill No. 48, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Perhaps the minister
might give a brief sketch of the proposed amendments.


Mr. CROTHERS:: The amendments do not propose any change in the principle of the Bill, but are suggested with a view to increased efficiency in the working out of the intentions of the Act. The amendments will explain themselves as we come to them. Tnere is no opposition to the Bill so far as I know; the working people are in favour of it.
On section 1-employee or employer not to cease to be such for lockout, strike, etc.:


Jacques Bureau: What change is there from the old Act?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In several cases it has been held by courts that as the Act provides for an investigation of disputes between employers and employees, immediately there is a strike that relationship no longer exists. If a number of men went on strike yesterday, for instance, and applied for a board to-day, under this decision of the courts they would not be entitled to a board because the relationship of master and servant, had ceased. This amendment aims at placing them in a position to apply for a board even after they have gone on a strike or lockout.


Jacques Bureau: Under the old law they had to apply for the board before they could call a strike. The object of this amendment is to allow the men to apply for a board even after they have gone out on strike, and to extend the same privilege to the employer?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is the idea.


Jacques Bureau: The amendment is for
that object only?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Minister to- appoint boards on application:
Jacques Bureau: Have any special cases
not covered by the old Act been drawn to

the attention of the minister, and if so, what is the nature of those cases?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The first subsection
of the old Act has been somewhat altered to give us authority to appoint a Board of Conciliation even in cases affecting Government railways, for instance, under the Industrial Disputes Act, in a case of that kind proceedings would have to be taken under the Conciliation and 'Labour Act. These proceedings were very circuitous and unsatisfactory, and as the Industrial Disputes Act is very much .more direct. I thought it would be an advantage to have the Board of Conciliation appointed under the latter Act rather than take proceedings under the former. Referring to subsection 2, cases often arise where applications are made for a board by people who are not lawyers. The officers of a labour organization for example, would* send an application from Vancouver, we will say, and it would take it a week to reach Ottawa. Perhaps you will find, if you examine the application very carefully, that some of the provisions of the Act have not been strictly complied with. I take up these applications, and, if satisfied that in substance the requirements of the Act have been met, I establish .a board, although there may be some technical objections to them because it would require another week to send the forms back to Vancouver, and a third week to get them back here again. As my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) knows, working people during his administration, as well as during mine, have often objected to what they call delay in having these investigations made. They insist, and very properly so I think, that the inquiry should go forward just as soon as possible after the application is made. I have found that employers in many cases where an application is made -written out by workingmen who are not lawyers and perhaps do not strictly comply with the provisions of the statutes-go to a court and ask for an interim injunction. An interim injunction is granted ex parte for a week or ten days, and then the matter comes up and is further adjourned perhaps for three months. In that way the object of the Act is entirely defeated. Now I think it would be a great advantage if employers, or employees* either, were not permitted to go to court .at all to determine whether or not the application justified the establishing of a board, and that they should have no power to question the boards procedure. Lawyers

do not appear before these boards; they are supposed to hear the evidence and .act upon common sense principles, and settle the matter, if possible, in a manner satisfactory to both parties without so much regard to legal forms.
Hon. gentlemen will notice that in the section as it formerly stood it was declared that the finding of the minister should be final, but notwithstanding that courts have held that they have a right to inquire whether or not the facts warranted the establishment of a board. I am now proposing to make the Act so strong as to prevent any interference. It is a matter, I think, which may be safely left to the Minister of Labour as to whether the circumstances warrant the inquiry provided for by this Act, and personally I feel very strongly that it is a very proper provision. We have several examples of similar legislation. In substance the findings of the Board of Railway Commissioners are not to be reviewed by judges.


Jacques Bureau: Are they not reviewed, by the Governor in Council?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Well, practically they
are not.


Jacques Bureau: Is there not an appeal
on questions of law to the Supreme Court?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Only in certain cases. Speaking generally, the findings, of the Board of* Railway 'Commissioners are final, *and are not reviewed by any court. Furthermore, in my recollection, there has not been a change made by Order in Council during the last .six or seven years. In certain cases., as I already said, an appeal imay be .made to the Supreme Court on points of law, but, speaking generally, there is practically no appeal from the board's findings. The Workmen's Compensation Act in the province of Ontario contains a somewhat similar provision to* what is proposed here. There is no appeal from the decisions of the boards those decisions are final, the courts have nothing to. d*o with. them.. That was thoroughly threshed out when the recent Workmen's Compensation Act was before the legislature of Ontario, and I think the legislature was unanimous in reaching the conclusion that it was not .a case for any appeal, but that it was very important that decisions should be made promptly, and that the decision of the board should be final.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. McCREA:: Whilst the Bill may appear to be drastic I do iiot think it is quite drastic enough. At this particular time when the Government is passing Orders in Council very easily, and perhaps with good reason, I think it would be well advised if it passed an Order in Council, as' a war measure and operative during the period of the war, making it an impossibility either for men to go on strike, or for employers to force a lock-out. Now just to emphasize what I mean: At the present time when there is a scarcity of labour and an urgent demand that every man should make himself useful, the idea of tying up a business because somebody is- dissatisfied with his pay or with the conditions of his employment, is altogether wrong. I do not mean to say that the labourer should he compelled to continue working at his present wages if he is dissatisfied, but it is open to him to make application for redress to the board appointed to deal with these matters if he thinks fit, and in the meantime

he should be compelled to continue at work. As a further illustration of what I mean let me say that I was in Fort William on the first of last October when six or eight hundred elevator men went on strike. I asked some of those interested what was the cause of the strike. They told me: There are thousands of oars of grain standing to-day on the siding here, waiting to be loaded or unloaded, which cannot be released owing to this strike. Tnere are also some twenty vessels tied up at the docks waiting to be loaded and yet nobody can be got 'to do anything. Now at a time when carriers are hampered in the effort to give satisfactory transportation to the public, whether by water or by rail, it is a very serious matter to tie up thousands of cars which should be in operation and performing that service which is urgently needed. It is a very serious matter to tie up the sendees of fifteen, twenty or more vessels simply because a few hundred men are not satisfied with their working conditions. I think the Government will be well advised if they would pass one of these Orders in Council, which 'seem to be very handy, making it a criminal offence for men to go out on strike or for the operators to lock out. These differences can be settled: If the employers or the labourers are not satisfied, 'let them apply to the board; let them get a ruling from the board, and meanwhile keep on doing business. It is in the interest of the business of this country that strikes be one of the things we must not have during the war.


Air.   D@: I do not approve of the contention of my hon. friend (Mr. McCrea) on this subject. I think that labouring men should be free to make their reques/tq iand that perhaps it would be better that the employer should measure up to the present situation and be forced to pay to labour what is due for its work. I think that would be the proper remedy in this time of stress. Labour should he protected, and the point of my hon. friend, in my opinion, is not well taken. I believe that the Minister of Labour should provide all the law necessary to protect the labouring man. They deserve it. I think, therefore, the suggestion of the horn gentleman from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) should not be accepted.
Mr. LEM1EUX: Let me say to both hon. gentlemen who have just spoken that, "if they will look at the Act itself, they will find exactly what my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) wants. There is a pro-

vision in clause 56 of the Act prohibiting all strikes and lockouts prior to or pending reference to the board. There is a penalty provided for violation of this prohibition by either side to the dispute. I understand my hon. friend from Sherbrooke referred to a matter of grain transport. Well, that is a matter of public utility which comes under the operation of the Act, and there is a penalty provided in the Act against any one striking without first submitting the difficulty to a board.


Jacques Bureau: According to the present Act, I see that the minister is the final judge as to whether or not an application is in due form, and also as to whether such application does not relate to a dispute which is the subject of a reference under the provisions concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act. Those words do not appear in the section as amended by the present Bill. May I ask the minister if there is any particular reason why these words were left out?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I tried to explain that a few moments ago by pointing out that the provisions of this Bill are more direct and more convenient for the investigation of such disputes than those of the Conciliation and Labour Act. If my hon. friend had the Act before him he would see that the procedure is very circuitous and unsatisfactory.


Jacques Bureau: The amendment then
would cover all cases of railway and other disputes?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Additional matters may be referred to board.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister give a case in point? #


Jacques Bureau: What necessitates the addition of that subsection?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The men, when making an application for a board, set forth the grounds upon which it is based, the grievances and so on. During the inquiry carried on by the Board of Conciliation, it may appear that there is some other question which ought to be determined at the same time, and the suggestion here is that the minister should have the power, if such circumstances should arise, to direct the board tg go on and hear other matters more or less directly connected with the grievances set forth by the men themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 5-Publication of reports- additional matters upon which minister may require opinion of board:
Jacques Bureau: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Act as it now stands requires that the whole report of a board shall be published both in the Labour Gazette and in the annual report. If it were published only in the annual report, they would have to wait a year for it.


Jacques Bureau: I did not say that it should 'be published only in the annual report; I *was inquiring why the annual report should be cut off.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 'Sometimes these reports are very voluminous. Not long ago a man who was very fond of talking and of writing was chosen by the two parties to act as chairman, and he wrote out a great many pages containing a discussion of -the whole question of capital and labour and all kinds of suggestions for the determining of disputes between, employers and employees. If I had strictly followed the 'statutes, I should have published all this matter, but I say frankly that I did not. Many reports concerning questions that arise between operators and miners involve considerable' detail, with page after page of particulars as to the pay of individual men, and so oil. The present proposal is to confine the publication to the Labour Gazette, and to avoid any repetition in the annual report. The Labour Gazette is sent out every month to all labour organizations, the members of which have an opportunity of reading the reports of these boards. On the other hand,- if the reports were published in the annual report only, members of these organizations would not obtain (them until the end of the year. We are endeavouring to economize in printing, ,and

it seems to me that to publish all these awards month after month both in the annual report and in the Labour Gazette *would be a waste of time and of paper. The suggestion is that the minister have power to publish the substance of the report, so that such matters as I have referred to, which have nothing to do with the report, may be omitted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there was an appeal from .the decision of the board, I would suggest that the report be published in *full, if it is not too bulky. Many labour organizations are interested in those reports. Moreover, I receive many -letters *from people in the United States and elsewhere, who think that I am still Minister of Labour, inquiring about the operation of this law, which is followed with a great deal of interest by universities in the United States and other countries. I agree that when the report is too bulky, a fair summary could be handed to the editor of the Gazette and published as the report of the board. My hon. friend might, perhaps, amend the section to provide that the summary shall be submitted to both sides and agreed upon. I know that no better man than Mr. Acland, the deputy minister, can be found to prepare the summaries of these reports. He has had large experience in journalism and in literature generally, and he is so familiar with the operation of the Act and so conscientious and painstaking in its administration that I should have no hesitation in entrusting to *him the preparation of such a summary.


Jacques Bureau: The minister puts me in the position of insisting on more printing being done and more expenditure being incurred. That was not the idea I had in mind. He has put in this amendment a provision whereby he may determine what matter shall be printed-whether the report shall be published verbatim, or in the form of a summary. I do not object to the word " summary," but the information I want is this : The idea is to. create a bureau of statistics to facilitate access to any information desired by the public. If the decisions of the board are published only in the Labour Gazette you have to go through twelve publications in order to find them, and they are more difficult of access than if they were published in the annual report. If the minister desires to curtail expenditure by summarizing the reports, why should he not compile them in one volume, so that access may be readily had to them? In this way he will get the same amount of economy, because whether the decisions are published
in the Labour Gazette or in the annual report, everything may be omitted that is not required to give an intelligent statement of the decision of the board. I call the minister's attention to this so that he may not be at variance with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose idea is to facilitate access to all information which may be desired by the public.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Labour Gazette is bound in one volume every year, so that my hon. friend would not have to look through twelve separate volumes.


Jacques Bureau: There is a good deal in the Labour Gazette that is not published in the animal report.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section G-minister may in certain cases, with or without application, order a board or recommend an inquiry:
Jacques Bureau: Will the minister explain why these subsections have been added to the original -section?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 63A is intended to meet two or three sets of circumstances. For instance, there is the case where feelings become strained between employers and employees, but neither apply for a board, of conciliation. The proposition is that if a strike or lookout takes place in any .municipality, and neither party applies for a board, the municipality itself or an official of the municipality may apply to the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour may-he is not obliged to do so- on such .application, establish a board. If neither of the parties, nor the municipality, nor an official of the municipality, applies for a (board, the minister may of his own motion constitute a board of concilation. That condition confronted us in Vancouver island some years ago. Another object in view ds, where there are a number of workmen, perhaps all belonging to one organization but working for five or six or eight or ten employers, to enable us to provide that a conciliation board may be appointed to deal with the situation. Under the old Act, a conciliation board could not be appointed in such a case, unless .all the employers consented to have one man act for them, because each employer would be entitled to have a representative on the board. We had -a case of that kind in Thetford Mines, where there was a considerable disturbance. Another case was in the Co-balt district, where there were -forty different employers with a large number of men, all or the majority of whom belonged to one

labour organization. We were unable, as the Act then stood, to appoint a conciliation board under the circumstances. This subsection is intended to meet a case of that kind.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed .at eight o'clock.
On clause 6

Minister may in certain cases with or without application order a board or recommend an inquiry:


Mr. JACOBS:: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was about to explain that I was in favour of the principle of this amendment and would go further and extend its scope. The clause reads:
"Where in any industry any strike or lockout has been long continued."
I do not like the expression "long continued." The word "long" is liable to cause a good deal of misconception and misapprehension, and should not be used in this connection, because it is too indefinite and elastic to suit the circumstances. In dealing with a subject of this kind, full explanation should interpret what is meant by "long" or "short." Iu the case of a lock-out the employer might consider the time was very short, while the employee, who is locked ou't and who probably is starving, might consider the time very long. I move to strike out the words "has -been long continued, and in the public interest or for any other reason." It would then read:
Where in any industry any strike or lockout it seems to the Minister expedient.
And so on. I understand the minister only interferes in cases of this kind where he is invited to do so, but it seems to me it should be his duty, in case of strike or lockout, to exercise his authority forthwith. The scope of the Act ought to be enlarged in such a way that the minister could really do some actual and tangible work in the matter of seeing that these strikes or lockouts are brought to an end within the shortest possible time. At the present juncture in our history, as hon. gentlemen know, labour and capital, must come together more closely than they have ever done in the past. We know in England the labour party practically controls the entire situation, and it is right they should1 do so. We heard the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) state this afternoon, if I may he permitted to refer to- it, that a very large majority of

the men enlisted belong to the labouring classes, and we ought to see that the men belonging to such class are given all the protection possible. That also enures to the benefit of capital. It should be the duty of the minister to put an end to these strikes, if it is within his power to do so. At .present we permit the strikes to continue as if they were diseases, we allow the fever to. spend itself. The minister by this amendment only asks that he be permitted to interfere with matters of this kind when a strike has "long continued." Why "long continued?" Why not have .him act at once? If he is capable of doing anything *at the end of the chapter, why not have him do it at the beginning, or, in any event, make an attempt to do it? I am sure the duties of that department are not so onenous that the minister could1 not give his attention to. matters of this kind as soon, as the trouble develops. We know that when strikes occur bitter feeling is provoked at the beginning, and' it continues until, towards1 the end, very often we have riot and bloodshed. If the minister were to obtain power to at on-ce endeavour to bring the various factions togetner, it would he a splendid thing for both parties and would be an excellent thing for. the community in general. 1 nerefore, I move that the section be amended in the way I suggested.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It would not be put quite in that form. The hon. member desires the section to read in inis way?
Where in any industry any strike or lockout has occurred.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend has not read the whole section.
.Mr. JACOBS: I think I have.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then I do not think
the hon. gentleman has comprehended it. It is- not confined toi a strike or lockout at all. It sayis:
Or for any other reason.
The minister does not require to wait for strike or lockout. He may do this of his own motion at any time. That appears in the sixth line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that not governed by the words "has been long continued?"


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The clause says:
or for any other reason it seems expedient to the Minister, the Minister may on the application of any municipality interested, or of the Mayor, Reeve or other head officer or acting head officers thereof, or of his own motion.

He does not require to wait for any one. However, I have no objection to the amendment proposed.


The CHAIRMAN:: The motion is to
strike out the words "been long continued" at the beginning of paragraph six, and insert in lieu thereof the word "occurred."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, and amendment read first and second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to aid and encourage the organization and co-ordination of Employment' Offices, and for these purposes to appropriate and pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada during the fiscal year 191S-19 the sum of fifty thousand dollars, during the fiscal year 1919-20 the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, and' during each succeeding fiscal year the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and to provide that the moneys appropriated for each year shall be allotted and paid to the government of the respective provinces in the proportion which their expenditure for the maintenance of employment offices bears to the total of the expenditures of all the provinces for such purposes, but in no case shall the allotment to a province exceed1 the amount expended for the maintenance of employment offices by such province ; and, further, that the payments shall he conditional upon agreement between the Minister and the government of . the province and subject to the approval' of the Governor in Council; and that such officers as are required to carry out these purposes may he appointed under the laws relating to the Civil Service, and their salaries and expenses paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Explain.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: These labour exchanges are of several kinds; for instance, there are national, provincial, municipal; private, philanthropic and semi-philanthropic exchanges, Five of the provinces-Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-have already established labour exchanges, but their operations are confined entirely to the particular province. It has been thought well that their lalbour exchanges should be linked up with a clearing house at Ottawa, and that we should contribute to the expense of establishing and maintaining them. The object of this legislation is to encourage the provinces in establishing these exchanges, and to assist in co-ordinating the work of the several
provinces. No other country in the world that has established a national system of labour exchanges is at all situated like Canada. In England, New Zealand, and, perhaps, some of the smaller countries of Europe, there is a national system of labour exchanges, but on account of the vast extent of this country it has not been considered wise to establish a national system here. Sometimes interprovincial questions will arise in connection with having labour transferred from one province to another, and it was thought that if we had' a clearinghouse at Ottawa to receive reports from the clearing houses of the several provinces we should here be able to get a bird's eye view of the labour situation in Canada, and could issue bulletins so that the people throughout the whole country would know exactly what labour conditions were in each locality.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The House will expect a fuller explanation on the second reading of the Bill, but the principle of the resolution will, I think, commend itself to the judgment of the House. Upon two different occasions-last session and the session ibefore -I moved1 a resolution with the object of having my hon. friend introduce legislation similar to this. I do not know whether be was in fear of a certain lady who was very active in the proposed organization of labour bureaus, but he certainly was not very responsive to the requests which I then made.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: She has disappeared since.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am told that the lady in question, much to the relief of my hon. friend and possibly of the Prime Minister, is now in the employ of the Department of Labour tin Washington. I 'certainly think the minister is taking a proper step in introducing this legislation. National labour bureaus were first started in England where they have met with very great success, as shown by statistics which I have given to the House on two different occasions. Labour 'bureaus have also been established in Australia and New Zealand, and to-day they are perfecting their organization in the United States. I am quite sure that in Canada, especially in view of conditions that will prevail in this country when demobilization takes place, and when the munition factories will be idle and the works of peace begin again, such bureaus will be absolutely needed in order to open the necessary channels for labour, and particularly for our returned soldiers. I am quite sure that when we have had

an opportunity to examine the provisions of the Bill it will commend itself to the judgment of the -House.


Mr. FIELDING:: From the terms of the resolution I -would understand that it is not contemplated to have any Ottawa organization, -hut that this money is to be appropriated entirely to the provincial governments.
'Mr. CROTHERS:	These particular
sums are to go to the provinces, but the Bill will provide for the establishment by this Government of one or more clearing houses.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution says
that the moneys appropriated for each year shall he alloted and paid to the provincial governments. I take it that it is intended to give them $50,000 the first- year, $100,000 the second year, and thereafter every year, without limitation, $150,000. There is no limitation so far as I can see; it becomes a permanent grant.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is the proposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a limitation based upon the expenditure by the different provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: But the resolution
does not seem to me to provide for expenditure in any other way than by the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the Object of distributing this money to the provinces and having them pay it o-ut?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The object is to encourage each province to establish these labour bureaus. In Quebec to-day there are three or four of these labour bureaus -one at Montreal, another at Sherbrooke, and there may be two or three others. In Ontario there are eight or ten. Our object is -to have these labour exchanges established through all the provinces.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should not this department handle the matter direct?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This country is so very large that it would be a great undertaking for the Government to establish labour exchanges throughout the country to see that men were sent, eay, from Halifax to Vancouver. We thought it better to assist the provinces, as five of them have already engaged in this work.


Samuel William Jacobs: If I remember correctly, some years ago the Government were op-

posed to handing over various sums of money to the provinces for the building of highways, on the ground that the central governments should handle that imatter themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. genlem-an is mistaken; if he looks up Hansard he will find a different story. I think the idea of this legislation is this: The provincial governments have already established labour bureaus in many of the provinces, and it would be an unwise thing for the Federal Government to duplicate that endeavour and establish labour bureaus themselves. They cannot interfere with what has been done by the provinces. On the other hand it is desired to encourage the movement. Therefore, following a conference with the provinces on the subject, it has been decided to give them this much assistance for the purpose of extending the movement within each-province.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand then the Government has changed its policy in connection with the payment to the provinces of 'sums of money out of the federal treasury?


Robert Laird Borden: No. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Agricultural Aid Bill which was passed some time ago, he will find that this is precisely along the same lines.
Resolution reported, read the first and -second -time and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Crothers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57, to Aid and Encourage Ithe Organization and Co-ordination of Employment Offices.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the -adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. O. C. Ballantyne (Minister of the Naval Service), for third reading of Bill No. 49, respecting the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act 1911.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not intend to oppose this Bill, far from it, but -simply to explain w-hat is involved, to some of the members of the House rvho appeared a little nervous as regards the power given by thi-s Bill to the various navies of the Dominions. I think if Was my hon. friend from Bro-m-e (Mr. McMaster) who said the other day that he did not accept with great complacency the idea that our own. men

should be court-marti ailed in time of peace by, say an officer of the Australian navy. I am bound to say that for my part I am pleased that this legislation is at last brought before Parliament. It is in my judgment a vindication of the policy inaugurated in 1910 by the late Laurier Administration, and I am surprised that the Bill was not introduced long before. I congratulate the minister for having brought forward this measure, which is -simply implementing the resolutions adopted by the Imperial Conference of 1911. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that in 1909 the Canadian Parliament unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the establishment of a Canadian navy, and the following year the then Prime Minister introduced a Bill based on that resolution by which the principle of a Canadian navy was launched, which, in cases of emergency, was to be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty. The Bill, for reasons which I need not explain now, was opposed by those who favoured the very principle of that legislation. However, the Bill was passed and the Canadian Navy was created in consequence of that legislation. During the summer of 1911 an Imperial Conference was held in London, and at that conference the Prime Minister of Canada- was present accompanied by the late 'Sir Frederick Borden, and the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur. I have before me the precis which deals with the regulations which were adopted concurrently by the Imperial and the Dominion .authorities as regards the organization of the Canadian Navy. I make bold to say, Mr. Speaker, that this policy, agreed upon by the Imperial Government and the Governments of Australia and of Canada, was the most progressive, and let me say the most wholesome, policy that has ever been adopted as between the Imperial authorities and the Dominion authorities. At that conference it was decided that the naval service forces k>f Canada and of Australia would be exclusively under the control of their respective governments, and the second paragraph of the resolution on the navy deals precisely with that discipline of the naval forces of the dominions which this Bill regulates. It reads:
The training and discipline of the naval forces of the Dominions will be generally uniform with the training and discipline of the fleet of the United Kingdom, and by arrangement, officers and men of the said forces will be interchangeable with those under the control of the British Admiralty.
And, iMr. Speaker, here is another paragraph which is also very interesting for us Canadians:
The ships of each Dominion naval force will hoist at the stern the white ensign as the symbol of the authority of the Crown, and at the jack-staff the distinctive flag of the Dominion.
I have read on many occasions in the Ottawa Citizen and elsewhere that Canada had no flag, and that it was preposterous to assert that she had one. Well, the Imperial authorities think otherwise because it is declared that "the ships of each dominion naval force will hoist at the stern the white ensign as the symbol of the authority of the Crown, and at the jackstaff the distinctive flag of the dominion." I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this arrangement was a most progressive one and should make every Canadian proud of the navy which was then created. At that same conference, for the first time in the history of Canada, the British Government conceded to the Canadian Government the point that our navy would have charge on the Pacific ocean and on the Atlantic ocean of certain zones which are now before me on the map annexed to the report of the proceedings of the conference in question. We remember how the modest beginnings of the Canadian navy were treated. We remember how our friends on the other side of the House, some, not all of them, spoke of the tin-pot navy.


Mr. R. H. BUTTS (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: What is the meaning of the term "jackstaff"?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought my hon. friend came from the Maritime Provinces, and that, after speaking as a naval expert the other day, he knew what the "jackstaff" was. I was pleased when the Minister, of Marine and Fisheries said that the Niobe and the Rainbow had been exceedingly useful during the present war. If the policy adopted by Parliament in 1910 had been carried out by the succeeding Administration possibly the coast cities of British Columbia would not have had to depend for protection upon the Japanese navy when the war broke out. Be that as it may, I am pleased to learn that the Minister of Naval Affairs has cheerfully accepted the legacy of the Laurier Administration, and is living up to its policy; a policy so 'Canadian and at the same time so British, and so sanely Imperial as was the Laurier naval policy. The Bill which is about to be read the third time simply carries out the policy

arrived at at the Imperial conference of 1911, and I shall support it cordially.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time.



SALARIES ACT AMENDMENT-INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden moved second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Salaries Act, and the provisions for preserving the independence of Parliament.
Jacques Bureau: Before the motion carries I wish to tell the Prime Minister that I do not exactly agree with the principle of multiplying departments and handling salaries as has been laid down by the Government. Two or three new ministries have been created, leaving aside various commissions that have been appointed, some to work in conjunction, some under the control of, and others apparently absolutely independent of any department of the Government. We understand that the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is created for a purpose. It is created for all time, but I hope that the existing conditions which make it a necessity, or if not a necessity, at least an expediency, to multiply the number of departments will not exist forever. Another new department has (been created by the subdivision of the Department of the Interior, which already had a slice taken out of it when the Mines Department was cut off and placed within the Secretary of State's Department.


Robert Laird Borden: It was formerly under the Inland Revenue Department.


Jacques Bureau: The Department of
Mines?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Then I was mistaken and I accept my hon. friend's correction. But, after it was taken away from the Inland Revenue Department, the fact that it is being merged with the Customs Department would not be a sufficient reason at the present time, because, before the Inland Revenue Department was merged with the Customs, this branch of the Inland Revenue had been taken away and put under the Secretary of State, if I am correct in my facts. I read the other day a statement made in the British House of Commons on the eve of the Christmas adjournment, wherein the ex-Prime Minister, Mr, Asquith, commenting on the situation in replying to a review that had been made by Mr. Lloyd George, said that there was one great

danger in the multiplicity of departments, that this policy tended to over-centralization. I believe we have had an example of that tendency here; we have had more than an example, we have seen it in operation. With the multiplicity of departments, the heads of departments attempt to take authority from the Governor in Council in matters which ought to be submitted to it, and to put themselves in the place of the Governor in Council, constituting themselves judges of final resort or sole arbitrators in cases which heretofore had to go before the Governor in Council. This over-centralization is gradually taking away from the representatives of the people the privileges which it is their duty to exercise in this: House. As a matter of principle, on the score of expediency there may be justification for the creation of these departments. I do not know but that one of them could be dispensed with. Referring to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, I believe that the best authority to deal with any matter concerning soldiers is the Department of Militia. Since we have taken away from the Minister of Agriculture the control of food, and given it to a commission under his direction, which, however, I understand, reports to him still, I do not see why it would not be as well to have a commission directly under the supervision of the Minister	of	Militia and Defence to
deal with these military matters-I mean the Minister of Militia in Canada, not the minister for the British Isles, nor the minister for France, if there is one; there may foe, I do not know. For these reasons, Mt. Speaker, I want to put myself on Tecord .as being against overcentralization, the multiplicity of departments, the assumption of the rights and privileges of Parliament, even of the Imperial Parliament, by the passing of certain Orders in Council, which I hope it will be my privilege to'discuss further ini this House.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mt. Speaker, I wish to endorse what my hon. friend from Three Rivera (Mr. Bureau) has said with regard to the principle involved in the creation of so many new departments. But there are two other principles' in this Bill to which I also object. One of these is the selection of new ministers, and the payment of salaries to members of Parliament, without submitting these members to re-election, It is the constitutional theory that any man who is selected as a new adviser of His Majesty must have his choice ratified by the people, through the

electors of the (particular constituency *which he represents in this House. I think that is a sound principle, and I do not 6ee why there should be a deviation from this safeguard and guarantee of popular representation and of the sovereignty of the people. This is being done as a war measure, but I do not see how the fact that a minister is to be exempted from having his selection ratified toy his electors is a step which conduces to the winning of the war. Another principle to which I object is that contained in section 2 of the Bill, which provides not only that new departments are created toy Parliament, but gives to the Prime Minister authority to appoint new ministers without any department having been provided for'by Parliament. The Prime Minister on his own authority will have the right to select one or more ministers not exceeding three, and to pay salaries to these ministers. Of course, this will be done by Order in Council, but the point is that it will not be provided for by Parliament. Parliament must remain supreme in a matter of this kind. Departments must be created by Parliament; the business which will be transacted by these departments must be. provided for by. Parliament, and surely we should not deprive ourselves of our rights in that respect and appoint the Prime Minister as the real dictator of the country. The Executive must not be the masters of Parliament but must remain its servants. I think there is a very bad principle involved in section 2 tof the Bill, and for these reasons I object to the second reading.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say just a few words chiefly in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe). I would call his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was appointed on the 12th day of October, 1917, and he since has been elected to this Parliament. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization was appointed on the 12th day of October, and he since has been elected to Parliament. The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is a member of the Senate, and, unlike the unfortunate mortals who are members of this House, he does not require election.


Jacques Bureau: Might I be allowed a [DOT]question?


Robert Laird Borden: Two.


Jacques Bureau: We are not taking particular exception to the present ministers. But supposing the Prime Minister desires to appoint another one? That is one of our reasons for objecting.


Robert Laird Borden: We will get through with the present budget and then come to the other matter in a moment. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment was previously the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence. He simply changed from one position to the other. My -hon. friend is aware that under the provisions of the Act respecting the Independence of Parliament, and the Act relating to the salaries of ministers, if a minister resigns in one department and within thirty days accepts office in another, it is not necessary in that case for him to be re-elected. That is as to the present. Now, as to the future. It does provide, in Section 2, that:
-one or more otlher Ministers, not exceeding three, Members of the King's Privy Council for Canada who may be named by the Governor in Council, may be paid such salaries or other remuneration as Parliament may from time to time provide, and they shall not, by reason of anything contained in the Acts mentioned in subsection two of section one of this Aot or in any other statute or law, or by reason of being paid or receiving the said salaries or remuneration so provided by Parliament, be ineligible as Members of the House of Commons, or disqualified to sit or vote therein. [DOT]
It is provided that this section shall continue in operation only during the present war and for one year thereafter. It is purely a temporary provision, designed, as I explained when I made a further motion in Committee not long ago, to cover the case of the present Acting Minister of Finance (Hon. A. K. Maclean), who is ViceChairman, virtually Chairman, of the Committee on Reconstruction and Development, end who in that position has imposed upon him duties just as arduous and important as those imposed on any minister of the Crown. Senator Robertson is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labour Conditions, and, in addition, is Chairman of the Canada Registration Board, which is undertaking the task of accomplishing a registration of all the men and women of Canada above the age of sixteen. In the capacity of Chairman of the Subcommittee on Latoour Conditions, Senator Robertson has already given value to the country ten thousand times greater than any salary that is involved, by his indefatigable efforts in bringing about agreements between employers and employed in very important industries. Of course, the arduous duties imposed upon him as Chairman of the Canada Registration Board will last only a few months. So the purpose of this legislation is plain enough. We have not any leisured


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went- into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1, subsection 1-salaries:
Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that it is Senator Robertson's duty to act in labour matters which affect returned soldiers?


Robert Laird Borden: No, he is chairman of a sub-committee on labour. The Order in Council appointing him as such and defining the duties of the position has, I 'think, been laid on the Table. Senator Robertson has been associated -with labour organizations all his life, and has had a great deal of experience in composing disputes that have arisen from time to time between employers and employed. Before lie was a member of the Senate and long before he was a member of the Government he rendered very valuable service- about two years ago, I t'hink-in settling a very difficult and important dispute between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and its employees in western Canada. Not very long after that, in the autumn, he was appointed a member of the Senate, and when the new Government was formed in October last he was made a member of it, as specially representing labour organizations. Later a sub-committee of the: Reconstruction and Development Committee was formed, upon which it was intended to place men who would be in close touch with labour, men connected with labour organizations, in order that the Government, and especially the Department of Labour, might be in closer touch with organized labour throughout the country. Senator Robertson's work has been in connection with that committee and is carried on in perfect harmony and in the closest consultation with the Minister of Labour.


Jacques Bureau: 
Robert Laird Borden: No, none whatever.


Jacques Bureau: I do not understand what the powers and duties of Senator Robertson are. This afternoon we gave the Minister of Labour carte blanche to do anything to improve conditions of labour, to make inquiry into them, to^revent and to settle strikes, to try to bring employer and employee together whenever occasion required. If Senator Robertson has the same duties, this would appear to be another case of duplication. Of course, I do not say that there is anything wrong in it. Not knowing the extent of the duties of Senator Robertson, or the exact work of the particular board of which he is going to be the head, I do not want to be understood as criticising his ability, qualifications or capacity. I am simply discussing the principle of this double authority. The Prime Minister says that there will be no overlapping, but there must be a perfect union of mentality and aspirations on the part of the two. Ministers of Labour if they are going to act in absolutely the same field, come into contact with each other every day and at the same time not have any, I shall not say friction-this is no time for friction-'but overlapping of authority in the scope of their duties and rights under these Acts.


Robert Laird Borden: I can assure
my hon. friend there is no overlapping. For example, one purpose, out of a great many that might- be suggested, would be this:	The Minister of Labour might, in
respect of the last section of the Bill that was passed here to-day, refer to the committee which is studying labour problems

and the relations generally between employers and employees, the question as t-o whether he should intervene, under the power of that section, in relation to some particular labour disturbance.


Mr GANNON:: In subsection* 1 is mentioned the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What are the exact duties of this minister? Canada is a colony and all our international or diplomatic affairs must be transacted through the Imperial Government. .Have we a new standing or a new arrangement with the Imperial Government whereby we can deal with such matters directly?


Robert Laird Borden: I might refer
my hon. friend, if he desires full information on the subject, to his leader who some years ago established that department by a statute which is available to any person who may desire to read it. It was established long before 1911. The Department of External Affairs is concerned with all matters of (communication fwith the Government of the United Kingdom or with the Governments of other countries. It deals also with communications with thei other Dominions. I suppose that, during the past three years, seven or eight thousand telegrams have annually passed through that department in respect of external affairs of one kind or another. Everything that relates to the external affairs of Canada passes through that 9 p.m. department. It gathers up, for example, from all the other departments any matters on which they are required to report, to express their opinion, to make a recommendation, and which have relation to the external affairs of this country. The appointment of consuls in this country which is subject to tire approval of the Governor in Council, communications with the British Embassy at Washington-all these are dealt with in that department. Under ordinary conditions the work is not, of course, so great as it is at the present time. During the past three and a half years it has been onerous and exceedingly comprehensive.
Subsection 1 agreed to'.
On section 1, subsection 3-ministers not ineligible to be members or sit in House of Commons:


Ernest Lapointe: Subsection 2 of section 2 should be added to this section also, that is, that the provisions of this section shall only continue in operation during the present year and for one year thereafter.
As subsection 3 of section 1 stands at present, those gentlemen who will be appointed as (Secretary, of State, Minister of Immigration and Colonization and Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment will never have to be re-elected.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon.
friend mean that those officers should be temporary?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Jacques Bureau: When we were making
our argument, the Prime Minister told us that we need not worry for the future, because this Act would be for the war and one year thereafter.
Sir ROBERT BORD'EN: I was speaking of section 2.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, if, after the war, he should choose to take a member of the House for one of the positions named in this subsection, that such minister should not go before the people to have his position ratified in accordance with the existing law for preserving the Independence of Parliament?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Jacques Bureau: The restriction applies
only to section 2?


Robert Laird Borden: I thought I
made myself fairly clear with regard to the matter. I shall try to do so again. The office of Secretary of 'State for External Affairs is not. a temporary office, it is a permanent office. 'The position of Minister of Immigration and Colonization is not a temporary office; it is a permanent office. As regards the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Parliamentary Secretary of that department, I explained to the House, when the resolution went through, that while these are not intended as permanent positions, nevertheless it is impossible at the present time to define any period within which they should cease to exist. I- pointed out further that, under an Act 'which has passed this House during the present session, it is possible to dispense with them at any time, or to amalgamate that department with some other department.


Jacques Bureau: I think the Prime Minister does not understand the objection.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN:	Perhaps I do
not.


Jacques Bureau: I shall try to make it
again. The answer made to my hon. friend

from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) was that this Act would be only for the war and one year thereafter.


Robert Laird Borden: That applies
only to section 2.
(Mr. BUREAU:	And at any time after
the war subsection 2 and subsection 3 of section 1 will he in force.


Robert Laird Borden: Subsection 1
will be in force certainly.


Jacques Bureau: Subsection 3 says:
Nothing in the Dominion Elections Act or in the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Can'adia, 1906, chapters 6 and 10 respectively, or in any other Statute or law, shall render ineligible any person accepting or holding any of the said offices of Secretary of State for External Affairs,-


Robert Laird Borden: I think I understand what is in my hon. friend's mind. He thinks this provision is destined to prevent the necessity of an election.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, after the war.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not do anything of the kind.


Jacques Bureau: What does it mean then?


Robert Laird Borden: It means simply that men appointed to those positions in October last need not he elected again, because they have already been elected. But if any gentleman in this House was appointed to one of those positions in the future, he would have to go before his constituents for re-election.


Mr. CANNON:: The subsection says
" accepting or holding." The argument of my right hon. friend would apply to the ministers who are holding office at present, but not to those who will accept office later.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, it does not disqualify a minister from accepting or holding office, otherwise he would not be in the House of Commons; but when he accepts one of those offices he must go back to his constituency and be elected, the same as any other minister.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. minister who is holding this position at present disappears, and a new man is chosen, this section would apply?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: And the new minister would not have to be elected?


Robert Laird Borden: He must go hack and be elected.


Lucien Cannon: He would not have to.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not disqualify him>
'but he must go back and be elected.


Jacques Bureau: If it does not disqualify him from sitting in the House, he need not go back for re-election. Under the old law, when a man accepted an office in which he received money from the Crown, his mandate from the people ceased, and he Was no longer a member of the House. This section says:
Nothing in the Dominion Elections Act or in the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1906, Chapters 6 and 10 respectively, or in any other statute or law, shall render Ineligible any person accepting or holding any of the said offices.
Under the old law, if he accepts a position where he receives emoluments from the Crown his mandate as a~representative of tjie people ceases, and he must go back to be re-elected. But this section provides that nothing in these Acts shall hereafter disqualify him, if he occupies one of the specific positions mentioned in the section. Then we have the saving clause as to the time the Act will continue in operation. My impression of the Act is that after the war is over if you choose to appoint a members of this House to one of the positions he is relieved by this section from the necessity of going before the electors to have his selection ratified.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand that such is the meaning.


Ernest Lapointe: The old law used the same words with the following: " Whenever elected while holding the office." This would read as follows:
-shall disqualify (him from sitting or voting therein whenever elected while holding the office.
That is the law as it exists to-day, and those, words do not -appear in the present clause.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no intention to -make iany change in that respect. The Bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel, -and I do not understand that the clause -has the meaning my hon. friend suggests. If it 'has it should be amended, but it was not the intention to make (any such change.


Jacques Bureau: Leaving aside the fact that the Bill was prepared toy the Parliamentary Counsel, if other members of the House agree with the interpretation given by my right hon. friend, I am willing to submit,

and I will slay there must be something wxong with my interpretation of the English. I do not rise to criticise at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Let it stand.
Section stands.
On subsection 4-'salaries to be paid from first appointment:


Jacques Bureau: I think the same objection applies here.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


Jacques Bureau: The last paragraph says:
And such payment shall not render the persons receiving same ineligible as members of the House of Commons or disqualify them for sitting or voting therein.
After they are appointed they can receive emoluments.from the Crown, and disregard the provision of the statute which says that they cannot do so until they have gone back for re-election.


Robert Laird Borden: This particular section refers in its terms to those who are now holding office. It is not intended that they should be disqualified inasmuch as they have been elected and I do not think the subsection has any relation to any one else except tho=e who now hold office.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should we not insert there the same words that are in the existing law:	" whenever elected while
holding the office "?


Robert Laird Borden: Because we know perfectly well they have been elected.


Ernest Lapointe: But some one else might be appointed to the same position.


Robert Laird Borden: He would not come within the terms of the section.


Mr. DAVIS:: Would the insertion of the word " heretofore " or " hitherto " after the word " persons " in the first line make it clear?


Jacques Bureau: Between the words " person " and " holding "?


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to the insertion of the word " now " between the word " persons " and the word "holding" in the first line of subsection 4 of Section 1, and I move that that word be inserted.
. Amendment agreed to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Should we not repeat the word in line 18, between the word " persons " and the word " receiving "?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the one amendment will suffice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Three additional Ministers may receive salaries if same voted by Parliament.
Robert Laird Borden: I move
That clause two of the Bill be amended:
(a)	toy substituting the words "authorize" and "authorized" for the words "provide" and "provided" in lines twenty-eight and thirty-two, respectively;
(b)	by adding the following clause as subclause two:-
"(2.) The provisions of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twenty-third day of October, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and to apply and extend to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Labour Problems and to the Vice-Chairman of the Reconstruction and Development Committee, and they shall be deemed to have been named by the Governor in Council under the provisions of this section on the said date, and shall each receive a salary of seven thousand dollars per annum." ; and
(c)	by changing the number of sub-clause two to three.


Mr. COPP:: Have only two been appointed?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Government ha3 authority to appoint three.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no intention of utilizing that power at present.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: I would suggest that if a third is to be appointed the Government should create the position of Minister of Fisheries, making it distinct from the Department of Naval Service.


Robert Laird Borden: I will give the suggestion very careful consideration. We have had suggestions along that line already.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would further suggest that he be appointed from Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 1-salaries:
William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps it might be better for the Prime Minister to reserve subsection (3) for further consideration. Amending Bills of this nature are sometimes a dangerous thing, and I think there is something in the contention of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) that the clause goes beyond what the Prime Minister intends. It might be just as well to reserve the Bill for further consideration,



after consultation with the Parliamentary counsel.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend suggests. We do not have it in mind at all that three ministers of the Crown should have this immunity from seeking a new mandate from their constituents. If the section does not mean what we intend it will have to be amended, and I am quite ready to accept my hon. friend's suggestion.


William Stevens Fielding: It is debatable.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be some question about it. As a matter of fact, I am not quite sure that all the provisions of the Bill were necessary. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) points out that in section 12 of chapter 10 there is a provision that,
Nothing: in this Act shall render ineligible any person holding any office .... which is hereafter created, to be held by a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada and entitling him to be a Minister of the Crown.
I do not know whether the attention of parliamentary counsel was directed to that particular feature of the Act relating to the Senate and the House of Commons. Some of the provisions of the Bill seem to be possibly superfluous. I am quite content to let the Bill remain in committee and we can deal with subsection (3) of section 1 on some future occasion.
Progress reported.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Agriculture) Bill No. 56, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, was read the second time, and the House -went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Compensation for slaughtered animals increased:
Mr. CRERAR:: I beg to move that section 1 be amended by substituting the word "seven" for the -word "six" in the first line thereof; it is an error in the printing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
[Mr. Fielding. 1

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Militia and Defence-Allowance Active Militia, $50,000.
["Let us adjourn now,\nwe have done a good day's work.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. J. D. REID the House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.\nThursday, April 18, 1918."]
Jacques Bureau: Before we proceed with these estimates, may I ask when we may expect to receive the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report which is supposed to contain the detailed expenditure of the Department of Militia?


Major General MEWBURN:: I cannot answer with respect to the Auditor General's Report, but a memorandum on the organization of the whole department, which was spoken of the other day, when the Militia expenditures were referred to, is in the bands of the printer and I understand will be available at the end of this week or the beginning of next.


Jacques Bureau: The Auditor General's Report, containing the details of the Militia expenditure for last year, is what we are asking for. It contains the only data we have upon which to base our criticisms of the estimates for the present year.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman say that the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report has not yet been brought dowm?


Jacques Bureau: It has not been laid on the Table and has not been distributed.


John Dowsley Reid: In that case it may not be available for some time.


Major General MEWBURN:: The report of the Militia Council has been brought down, .and also the memorandum to which I referred. The latter does not contain any data as regards expenditure, but deals more with the organization of the whole department.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the minister give us some explanation of the reduction of $30,000 as compared with the estimates of last year? How is the item made up?


Major General MEWBURN:: As my hon. friend is aware, having been in the Militia, the militia Units in Canada have had very little assistance since the war started. In 1914 and 1915 the Active Militia units were the basis and foundation for the whole Canadian Expeditionary Force, and last year they were pretty well knocked to pieces all over the country. After pro-, viding for organization, allowance for pay, instruction, care of arms, and so forth, it is estimated that we can do with $30,000 less this year than last year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Where are these arms stored?
Major-General MEWBURN:	They are
kept in the armouries of the corps. A very large number of |he Militia units have kept their organizations together, and last year and the year before they were parading and drilling, particularly the city corps, at least once a week and keeping up to their old peace establishment. These units are mainly composed of men who are medically unfit, and they carry on their summer training. This is not so much the case with the rural corps, because they have not been in camp.


Mr. POWER:: Is it the minister's intention to see to it that all militia officers now employed in the active militia are given the opportunity to serve overseas if they wish to?
Major-General MEWBURN:	They not
only have been given the opportunity; they have been urged. In fact, I think the Militia officers who have held commissions since 1914 will probably be a little more than requested tto join the ranks in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Since the Military Service Act came into operation, nc commissions have been given in the active militia, none at all. That clause in the proposed amendment embraces those who did not get to the actual theatre of war, and militia officers within the ages called. In fact, I am glad to say that a very large number of these officers- have joined the ranks.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did I understand the minister to say that a large number of officers in the training corps are still employed training men who are medically unfit to go overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN: No; I said that in several of the city corps throughout Canada the corps have given far more than their establishment to the overseas service. Then, in these regiments, there are still a considerable number of men who were medically unfit or over or under age who still retained their identity with the active militia. These units in many cases have filled up their ranks with other men. For instance, members of Canadian and Rotary clubs joined these militia units at the time of the home guard movement, and have carried on their training without any pay, and have done a certain amount of musketry training on Saturday afternoons in the summer. In this way, many units have ' kept their organization together, and they were very largely the organizations which helped so well with voluntary recruiting.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: A large number of these
militia units could be very easily abolished, and the expense of their training saved. We have in Quebec a composite battalion composed, I understand, of the old 8th and 9th Battalions. I suppose there are some ten or fifteen officers and three or four hundred men. If the men are fit, why not send them overseas? If they are unfit, why keep them in uniform?
Major-General MEWBURN: For the information of the hon. member, so far as the unit he speaks of is concerned, any men in it who are medically fit will go overseas. Those who are not medically fit in all these units-there are some in Quebec and in other districts, some of which are known as . Special Service Companies-we are organizing now what is known as a Garrison Regiment, -which will absorb any of these men who are not required for overseas service. [DOT] I hope that the unit referred to by my hon. friend will disappear off the horizon altogether.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I did not refer to the Quebec unit only. I understand there are a large number of militia units.
Major-General A1EWBURN:	They have
been very materially cut down. There has-been one on the Welland canal, and one at the Soo.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: And one at Lachine canal.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
know. There is one at Sault Ste. Marie, and there is a corps on the internment operations at Kapuskasing and at other points. And there were some that we have relieved and done away with in British Columbia. There is still a corps at Esquimalt and one at Halifax, but these have been practically reduced to nothing.


Thomas Vien: Is the expense incurred by their maintenance under this heading?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No, it is
not.
Cadet services-For pay of instructors, expenses of teadhers qualifying- at (Military Solioois and contingent expenses-$75,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the minister explain
what that item is for and what is going to be done with this money during the present year?
Major-General MEWBURN:	The object
of this vote is to maintain the different cadet units and encourage the cadet services throughout the country. It includes pay and allowances and transportation of organizers and inspectors amounting to

$27,000. The instruction allowances total $47,000; physical training course for school teachers, $600; and 'oonjtingent expenses $400. The expenditure for the year 1917-18 was estimated at $90,000, and this year a saving of $15,000 will probably be effected by a reduction of the instruction allowances It seems in the interest of the country that these cadet corps, which are a very goodi organization all over Canada, should not be allowed to go to pieces.


Mr. OASGRAIN:: How many are in the cadet corps in Montreal?
Major-General iMEWBURN: I would not like to give the actual numbers; I think there are about 150 or 160 corps throughout Canada. Xn some plades they are stronger than in others. They are really run in connection with schools and colleges.


Thomas Vien: The organization- known as the Boy 'Scouts does not come under this vote?
Major-General iMEWBURN: No.


Thomas Vien: Is there any money paid
by the department to the Boy Scouts?
Major-General IMEWBURN: No, there is not. A good many of the Boy Scouts are members of the cadets.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Are these cadet corps
furnished with rifles and other necessary equipment?
Major-General MEWBURN:	A number
of the Ross cadet rifles are furnished to some of them. Of course, these rifles had to- be taken away from the cadet corps to be used for training purposes, but I am glad to say they have been handled back to the cadet corps. They are in charge of the different -schools.


Mr. PEDLOW:: What was done with the Ross rifles taken from the rifle associations? Are they available now? If so, the rifle association of the town of Renfrew would -like to receive their rifles back. There is -a c-or-ps there of 100 members, and they have done good .service. I would like to know if these rifles will be returned to the association.
Major-General -MEWBURN: I would not guarantee that they will. The rifles which had -been loaned to these associations had to be withdrawn, and it may be possible -to give some of these associations the loan of some rifles- this summer.
[Major-General Mewburn.]


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The members of the association have been disappointed because the rifles were taken away from them.
Major-General MEWBURN:	The rifles
-were required and- the Ross cadet rifles also had to he withdrawn from the cadets for training purposes, and there are other reasons which I do- n-o-t think I wrould be at -liberty to give, tout I would -be glad to explain them -to my hon. friend.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am greatly interested
in this question, because I was captain of the association at Renfrew for -many years. Many members of our association enlisted and have done good service at the front. Are these rifles to- be made available again, [DOT]so that the organization may resume its work?


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister could obtain a large number of rifles from the Montreal Home Guard Association, an institutiop which was stifled in its birth. My rifle is available if my hon. friend wants it.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The rifle that the home guard were using is not at all suited for active service.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not useful for target practice?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is not very good.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is called the Savage rifle-the name is rather significant. While the Ross rifle Mark I/II was not so efficient for actual service at the front, it was very useful for target practice.


Lucien Cannon: Who is inspector of cadets for the district of Quebec?
Major-General MEWBURN: Major Pa-quet.


Lucien Cannon: What is Major Paquet's military record? Has he been overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN: I understand that he was declared medically unfit.


Lucien Cannon: Was he not in command of an overseas battalion a few years ago?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I am informed that he was in command of an overseas unit at one time, but that he did not proceed overseas because of his being medically unfit.


Lucien Cannon: Did his battalion proceed overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN: In drafts, I am informed.


Lucien Cannon: If he is physically unfit, how can he hold this position?

Major-General MEWBURN: He is only a cadet instructor, drawing no pay or emolument.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is any school or college throughout the Dominion that makes application entitled to allowance in respect of cadet corps?
Major-General MEWBURN: Any school that has a cadet corps officially organized and authorized can get the allowance.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who authorizes the organization of the cadet corps?
Major-General MEWBURN: It is recommended in the usual way to the Minister of Militia and Council and approved here.


Arthur Bliss Copp: By the Minister of Militia or the department?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have seen the boys training at Mount Allison University in my own town, and I have wondered whether they were receiving assistance from the Militia Department. What is the extent of the allowance?
Major-General MEWBURN: One dollar per cadet, and fifty cents each for those in excess of fifty in each corps.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That applies to any cadet corps properly organized, which makes application in the usual way to the Militia Department?	*
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who is inspector of cadets for the Alontreal district?
Major-General AIEWBURN: Aly deputy -informs me that there is none at present.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it the intention of the department to have one?
Alajor-General AIEWBURN: I understand that one of the staff officers of Alilitary District No. 4 is temporarily carrying on.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is there an inspector of cadets in New Brunswick?
Alajor-General MEWBURN: I think there are eleven inspectors altogether, one in each military district. New Brunswick now constitutes Military District No. 7; it formerly formed part of Alilitary District No. 6-New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.


Lucien Cannon: Is there any truth in the report that some of the cadet corps have been deprived of their rifles?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Alark III
cadets rifles were called in all over for use
in training in the C.E.F. We have taken [DOT]steps to have these all replaced. The cadet corps only were not deprived of rifles; the rifles were withdrawn from all militia units throughout Canada for the same purpose.
Militia and Defence-departmental library,


Jacques Bureau: Are the honorary colonels admitted to the library?
Major-General MEWBURN: The library may be open to all respectable citizens of Canada, but I am not aware that any honorary colonels have ever taken- advantage of the opportunity of studying military law.


Jacques Bureau: The minister's answer
prompts another suggestion. Since we are in the midst of a multiplication of departments and boards, would it not be well for the minister to appoint a board to make -what shall I call it?
Some hon. AIEMBERS: A cleaning up.
Major-General MEWBURN:	Grading.


Jacques Bureau: No, I would not grade
them; I would clean up a few hundred of [DOT]them. This board might inquire whether [DOT]these honorary colonels are going to continue to parade round the country without rendering any military service.
The reason I say this is that I do not think it is fair to those men who are real, genuine colonels, who devote themselves to the defence of this country and who work for the country, who have other men, who are only honorary colonels, graded with them. I do not mean to say that the honorary colonels are not honest citizens; I do not mean to say they do not deserve the rank they have been given, but I do not like to see a man who hasi never opened a law book in hie life proclaimed Doctor of Laws by a university. It is not fair to those who have studied law, and1 I am sure the minister, who has been before the courts, hammering away at law practically all his life, will agree with me. The same thing ought to be true with regard to the genuine colonel and the " Turkish rug " or " parlour carpet " colonel. It would be a good move to appoint a board of examiners and have a clean-up of these honorary colonels.
Militia and Defence-engineer servioes and works, $430,000.
Major-General MEWBURN:	There has
been a reduction of $135,500.


Lucien Cannon: Will this include any
work that might be done to the walls of the city of Quebec?

Major-General MEWBURN:	Yes. The
item covers ordinary repairs and works; Halifax defences, Quebec defences, Esquimau defences and so on. The upkeep of the Quebec defences is estimated to cost $26,000.


Mr. PARENT:: How is the work done?
iMajor-General MEWBURN:	By day
labour.


Pius Michaud: Was any money spent
at St. John?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
think so.


Thomas Vien: Why is it that those repairs on the Quebec defences amounting last year to $50,000 were carried out by day labour instead of tenders being called for?
Major-General MEWBURN: As ,we have our own engineer services in charge of the work, probably that is the cheapest way in which, so far as the Government is concerned, it can be done. It is probably cheaper than having a regular contract.


Thomas Vien: Is it not the general policy of the Government that, for any work amounting to over $5,000, tenders must be called for and contracts let? Is there not an Order in Council to that effect?
Major-General MEWBURN: I do not think this $26,000 is for one particular piece of work. It is for all the work on the permanent defences.


Thomas Vien: I understand that every year ' a certain amount, exceeding $10,000, is spent for repairs on the walls. Why was that work not given by tender and contract? Is the minister not of the opinion that it would save the Government a great deal of trouble and the public
10 p.m. a great deal of expense if the policy was adopted of letting all that repair work by tender and contract instead of having it done by day labour?
Major-General MEWIBURN: In some instances, owing to military exigencies, it is necessary to have work done in a hurry, and it might be quicker to have it done by day labour, and I am informed that in ordinary repairs more economy is shown by having the work done through the engineer services. I quite agree with' my hon. friend that in the ordinary course work ought to be done by tender and contract.


Thomas Vien: I am not aware of what goes on in 'other cities, but during an election campaign, for instance, on the. day imme-

diately preceding an election, I have seen an army of labourers working on repairs to the walls of the city of Quebec, and the very day after fee election the repairs were stopped. If the minister looks into the matter, he will find out from the accounts of his department that my statement is correct.
Major-General MEWBURN: I shall be very glad to look into the matter, but probably some of the work belongs to another department. Is my hon. friend referring to general work?


Thomas Vien: I am referring to the work done on the fortifications of Quebec.
Major-General MEWBURN: I thought my hon. friend was referring to general work.


Thomas Vien: No. I could make the same remark as regards the Marine and Fisheries Department or the Public Works Department, hut I am now referring to the fortifications of Quebec. I do not object to the labouring classes of any city in Canada getting work during an election or at any other time, but it would be good policy to see that such work is not used as a political bribe.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am. rather surprised that this work should be done in Quebec during the election. I thought work of this kind was done only in doubtful constituencies.


Thomas Vien: I see in the details of this item that ordinary repairs and works will amount this year to $269,000, as against $345,500 last year. Will the minister give us some explanation as to this item?
Major-General MEWBURN: These estimates are for ordinary repairs and works in Military District No. 1, $10,000; Military District No. 2, that is Toronto, $23,000; Military District No. 3, $12,000; Military District No. 4, $20,000; Military District No. 5, $40,000; Military District No. 6, $10,000; Military District No. 7, $5,000; Military District No. 10, $14,000; Military District No. 11, $6,000; Military District No. 12, $4,000, and Military District No. 13, $5,000. Those are the estimated requirements of the various districts. The amount has been cut down to what is estimated as the lowest possible minimum.


Thomas Vien: I wanted to get ffom the
minister the details of the items that come under that title.
Major-General MEWTBURN:	I have just
given them...

(Mr. VIEN: The hon. minister has given the expenditure in each district.
Major-General MEWBTJRN:	No, the estimated expenditure that would 'be required.


Thomas Vien: I would like to know what
is meant by " ordinary repairs and works " What work, and what repairs?
Major-General MEWBTJRN:	I am more
familiar with military district No. 2, and I may say that we have repairs to ar-moAies, Stanley (barracks, and such as that. There are many armouries where local repairs are performed by engineers. Some of the main repairs, for instance putting on a new roof or anything like that, would be chargeable to Public Works, but the 'engineer service has the care of all the armouries throughout the various districts, and the expenditures has been much heavier particularly while the war is on. This year they can be reduced considerably. One or two armouries have been fitted up with bunks, and so on, which has been done by the engineer service.


Thomas Vien: Would that include roads?
For instance the road from Quebec to Val-cartier camp?
Major-General MEWBTJRN:	No. When
we speak of roads, the only road I know of, off hand, is the road at the barracks at Kingston. I think there was work done around there.


Thomas Vien: I think the same remarks
I made a minute ago, as to the defences, apply to those repairs and works. Will the minister be prepared to say that no repairs or works involving an expenditure of more than $5,000 has*been done by day work, and that such works have been carried on by tender, and contract?
Major-General MEWBTJRN:	My experience in the districts is that any expenditure over $5,000 has always been awarded by contract, we have always had three independent valuations.


Thomas Vien: Will the whole item of
$269,000 be expended?
Major-General MEWBTJRN: I would not say it would all be expended. Where we have the engineers in the camps and sapper labour, a good deal- of the work can be done much more expeditiously by them.


Thomas Vien: The small works could be more expeditiously or properly carried out by day labour, but when it comes to any amount over $5,000, I think the House
would like to have assurance from the minister that no expenditure will be authorized before tenders are called for.
Major-General MEWBTJRN: I can assure the hon. member, so far as my knowledge goes, that I think-I will not say positively, because I am not speaking with perfect certainty for the past-that in all cases of $5,000 or over contracts have been let. Where a contract has not been advertised, there have been at least three independent valuations, which have been submitted to headquarters, before being accepted, and the job has been done by day work as a rule. But while the war is on there have been many matters of an urgent nature which come under the engineer service. I know of many urgent cases, such as the fitting up of military hospitals. Take the case of the Exhibition Camp in Toronto; the work has been done by the engineers and sapper labour, and we simply bought the material. If we had let the work by contract, it would have cost more money, and would not have been done as rapidly.


Thomas Vien: I suppose the repairs to public works at the Engineers' Camp at Levis come under that item?
Major-General MEWBTJRN: I think so.


Thomas Vien: Could the hon. minister tell me how much was expended last year on that camp?
Major-General MEWBTJRN: I have not that information before me.


Thomas Vien: I will cite that case to my hon. friend. Almost every year several thousand dollars are spent at the Engineers Camp at Levis. I do not complain of that, but I complain of the fact that it is always done by day work.
Major-General MEWBTJRN: The hon. gentleman thinks it had better be done by contract?


Thomas Vien: Surely, and I think that is the policy to be adopted for every expenditure coming under the control of the department. We are at war, and are spending tremendous amounts of money lavishly for all sorts of things. I know for a fact that in various instances money has been badly spent, and works have been constructed that had to be torn down. I am quite sure that if a proper supervision of the expenditure had taken place hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved, and I think the Empire would be just as safe, and Canada would be better off. I submit to my hon. friend that in

future this policy should be carried out. Can the hon. gentleman tell me whether any of these expenses, amounting last year to over ?345,000, covers any expenditure concerning the Eoss rifle in Quebec?
Major-General MEWBURN: Not at all.


Thomas Vien: Or repairs to or changes in the building?
Major-General MEWBURN: No.


Thomas Vien: I understand some expenditure was made in connection with the Ross rifle. Can the hon. gentleman tell me under what vote it comes, and if it is shown in the estimates.
Major-General MEWBURN: I know of nothing in the estimates except that we have an inspection 'branch in the building, the expense of which is charged to the appropriation, but nothing in these estimates.


Thomas Vien: I know the Ross rifle in Quebec has been discarded to a certain extent, and they 'are now used at the barracks by the men. UndeT what head in the estimates come the expenditure incurred in connection therewith?
Major-General MEWBURN: That is a war appropriation estimate-nothing to do with this.
(Mr. POWER: I understand that in connection with these engineering works the department is obliged at times to make certain purchases. I presume that they would have to purchase pickaxes, shovels, paint brushes and that kind of thing. Will the hon. minister express the laudable intention of some the other ministers, notably the Minister of Marine .and Fisheries (Mr. Bal-lantyne), 'and tell us whether ox not in his department he intends to abolish the patronage list? I know that for many years in Quebec they had patronage lists, and when any purchases were to be made by the Militia Department certain men were asked for tenders. On looking over the Auditor General's Report this year, I am sorry to find the same principle seems to obtain. For instance, all the plumbing was done by one man, and almost all the painting toy another mian, and so on. I would like to suggest to the minister that he give a similar statement to that made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that in future all patronage whatsoever will be abolished.
Major-General MEWBURN: I will go a little further and say that when I took

office 'as Minister of Militia on 12th October last, I did abolish all patronage, and I intend to 'follow out that poilicy as long as I have the honour to be in office. As far as I am aware those purchases were made through the War Purchasing Coimmiseion. And I may say, not only with regard to the purchases, but with regard to any other matter in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence, I certainly will hold up both hands for the abolition of patronage, and I intend to always carry out that policy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I was referring to the small purchases made in the various districts. I understand these are made, as a rule, by the engineering officer in command of the district, or at his suggestion.
Major-General MEWBURN:	That may
have 'been some time ago, but not now.


Thomas Vien: I am sure hon. members and the country will he glad to hear of the minister's declaration. When day labour is employed who selects the men? For instance, when repairs are made to the defences of the city of Quebec and the work is not done by contract, who employs the men? I know for a fact that everybody who applies cannot get work. There are foremen who have to abide by the list of the candidate or a friend of the Government.
Major-General MEWBURN: That is not the case now.


Thomas Vien: Yes, absolutely. Only a few weeks ago day labourers in Quebec could not he taken on unices recommended toy the ex-candidate or a friend of the Government. I am sure the minister is sincere in his wish to abolish patronage, and I mention this case to make more clear the necessity of doing work that involves a considerable expenditure by way of tender instead of by day labour. Who selects these day labourers?
Major-General MEWBURN: Work of that kind is left entirely to the engineer in charge. Surely we have to have confidence in our officers. If any patronage list is being used in my department it is news to me. I am heartily in agreement with my hon. friend as to the principle. As regards employing day labourers, the engineer in charge ought to be, and I think is, a responsible officer, not tied down by any patronage lists. I am not aware of any such lists and if my hon. friend will give me the details I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.


Thomas Vien: Has the minister given instructions to his engineers in the different districts?
Major-General MEWBURN: There was a general instruction given out some time ago that there should be no patronage in the department at all.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When was that given out?
Major-General MEWBURN: It has been given out on several occasions, from the Militia Council and other places. I have never given any written order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Was it given out before or after December 17?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I think it
was before the election in many cases'. I determined when I took office I would have nothing to do with patronage.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Evidently the officers of
the department in some parts of the country did not understand the intentions of the minister. I know a returned soldier who lost his job the day after the election for voting for me, and I only cite that as an instance of the lack of strict compliance with the instructions given by the minister.	-


Thomas Vien: I hope the minister does not follow in the steps of his colleague (Mr. Reid), the Minister of Railways, who in a letter stated that Liberals and Conservatives who had supported Union Government would be equally provided for.
Major-General MEWBURN:	There are
no Liberals or Conservatives as far as I am concerned. The lowest tenderer gets the contract, no matter what his politics are.


Thomas Vien: Did I understand the minister to say that no written instructions were given to his. officers?
Major-General MEWBURN: I never gave any written order.


Thomas Vien: Does not the minister think that a written instruction would make his intentions more clear to the local engineers?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I shall be
very glad to take that suggestion into consideration.


Lucien Cannon: I notice in the Auditor
General's Report that a man by the name of Samson, of Levis, received $415 for removing snow from the road leading to forts in Levis. Was that work done by tender?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I am informed that it was.


Lucien Cannon: I would suggest that the country might save money if this work was done by defaulters or fatigue parties.
Major-General MEWBURN:	While they
are in camp?


Lucien Cannon: Instead of placing the defaulters in a cell, why not make them work on the roads?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Every bon. member must appreciate the laudable determination of the Minister of Militia, but it is regrettable he does not implement it. Instead of simply making a declaration that he is opposed to patronage in his department he should go a step further and instruct his inspectors and engineers and those in charge of the different works of the department throughout the Dominion that all public works must be done without any patronage or pull. The minister, of course, is responsible for all work done under his department and he should see to it that the course he has determined on himself is pursued by his subordinates throughout the Dominion. I see that the first item of this vote refers to ordinary repairs and works. Has a very large amount of money been expended during the past year in repairs to different buildings throughout the Dominion? I have in mind particularly those buildings that are used temporarily as barracks for soldiers in training or waiting at different points in Canada for transport. Is that expenditure included under this item?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No, that
comes out of the $500,000,000 war appropriation.


Air. FAFARD:: How many of the engineers have graduated and how many have not graduated?
Alajor-General MEWBURN: I cannot say offhand, but all the officers of the Canadian Engineers are qualified1-every one of them, and at least two-thirds of the rank and file are technical engineers.


Air.   D@: Referring to the question of patronage, I think the minister should state that he intends to write to all his officers or overseas, to all those men who have been in the habit of following the system of patronage in their district or city, that this practice has to be discontinued. I am sure that the minister means well, that his intentions are good, but we on this side, knowing how these things are done, are sure that the patronage system will not be discontinued until the minister issues strict orders to his

officers that there must be no more of this system within their district. It is no use for the minister to tell us to-night that if he has the opportunity of meeting one of these officers he will inform him that the patronage system no longer exists in the department. That does not constitute a general order, and it would be more satisfactory to the House if formal instructions in accordance with the minister's well-meant intentions as expressed here to-night were issued by his department putting an end to the system complained of.
Major-General MEWBURN: I might say that I took occasion to have a conference in this city with all the officers commanding military districts in Canada, and with the members of the headquarters staff here, and I laid down the principles upon which I propose to carry on the Department of Militia and Defence. The patronage- system was one of the strong points I took up at that time, and I made it clear that, as far as T was concerned, all patronage was abolished and I would not entertain the continuance of the system for a minute. There may have been some cases where the old system has been followed, but if so, I have no knowledge of it' I shall be very glad to take the advice of hon. gentlemen at any time for the betterment of the service.


Thomas Vien: From the answers given in reply to several questions to-night, it is quite apparent there is confusion between what items come under the estimates and what items came under the war appropriations. I should like to know from the minister what class of items come under the one heading and what class come under the other. There must be a clearly defined line between them, and to enable us to thoroughly understand what is done I think this dividing line should be clearly explained.
.Major-General MEW-BURN: All expenses pertaining strictly to what is known as the Canadian Expeditionary Force-that is troops proceeding overseas, and all the work done in connection with them, for instance, the fitting up of barracks, which my hon. friend was speaking of a few minutes ago, and accommodation for troops, except in a few items where minor repairs are being done on the military -buildinge-are all charged to the war appropriation of $500,000,000.


Thomas Vien: What about the permanent barracks?
Major-General MEWBURN: The repairs to permanent barracks, like Stanley bar-

racks and other similar buildings are charged to Militia account here, hut expenditures on temporary build|ings-for instance, there have been a good many armouries erected all over Canada that were fitted up temporarily for the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the housing of troops where shower baths and other such conveniences have been installed, and special hutments constructed in camps- I understand these have' all been charged to the war appropriation. Minor repairs to buildings are charged to the Militia Department, but large repairs, as I said before, are charged to the Public Works Department.


Thomas Vien: Are there any expenditures
charged to the -war appropriation covering salaries for payments made to em ployees of the department?
Major-General MEWBURN:	The salaries of temporary employees in connection with the war, that is all. There is one item, which I shall explain later on, in connection with the -permanent force which is chargeable here. That is on a different basis.


Robert Hamilton Butts: There are one or two matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia, in connection with naval affairs, not by way of criticism, but in order to afford the minister a little information. We all remember with a very considerable degree of regret the disaster which op-ourr-ed in Halifax in December last. Naturally, that disaster occasioned a lot of talk, as would - naturally be expected, and some things were revealed with respect to Sydney harbour that, perhaps, would- not have come out had it not- been for that disaster. . Doubtless it is just as well that the minister should know this. Some short time after the Halifax disaster I was travelling on a train with a naval officer who spoke so familiarly with me, addressing me by name, that I did not care to ask wh-at his name was. He told me that if the people round Sydney harbour had known of conditions as they existed during the past summer they might have felt very uneasy. Hon. gentlemen know those fellows that come around wearing brass buttons and that play tennis and attend five o'clock teas-. They are not the men to look after a harbour, because in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred you cannot import men from across the oSean to look -after conditions on this side of the Atlantic. Those " haw-haw " fellows, those " Geordies," as they call them down in our country, those " gaiters," to use an-

other term, do not know anything about our conditions down there. Such men, for instance, as this man Pascoe, who has been down in Sydney for some time has no more right to be in charge of Sydney harbour than il have to be in charge of the Allied forces over in Flanders.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I am very sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I fear that his remarks apply more particularly to the Naval Department. If he will bring this matter up when the naval estimates are under consideration it may prove very interesting to the members of die House.


Robert Hamilton Butts: It is purely a marine matter.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: We are not now considering the marine estimates, we are dealing with the estimates of the Militia and Defence Department.


Robert Hamilton Butts: These are Militia estimates?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Wliat I have to say relates to the naval service and to defence.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have ruled that the subject introduced by the hon. member is not in order. I certainly will not take back the ruling, but the hon. gentleman has the right to appeal to the House if he does not wish to submit to it.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking now of militia and defence.


Georges Henri Boivin: Well, we will hear what the hon. gentleman has to say about militia and defence.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Yes, and I was going to speak of defence particularly, and I think it would be well that my hon. friends the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Marine-for I have no doubt that they have some interest in defence-should know some of the facts that I have here before me; and it is purely a matter of defence that I wish to sipeak on. As you, no doubt, know, Mr. Chairman, from Sydney harbour-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Harbours have nothing to do with the Department of Militia and Defence. I have already given my ruling. I hope that the hon. member will respect the ruling of the Chair.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that the whole item covering the $430,000 is being considered?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There are one or two items in the $430,000 that I want to refer to. I would like to ask the Minister of Militia in regard to the Connaught rifle range-i-when this work was undertaken, in what condition it is now in, and the amount that has been expended so far, and how much will be required to complete the range?
Major-General MEWBURN: I understand there was nothing paid on the Connaught rifle range in connection with its1 completion during the year 1917. I am informed that the $40,000 voted last year was' not spent at all, and that a similar amount was put in this year in case it might be needed, but the department is not sure that it will be.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the range been completed?
Major-General MEWBURN: No, it has not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How much land was purchased for this range, what was paid for it, and how much work has been done up to the present time on the range?
Major-General MEWBURN: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to move for a return; I have not the details here to-night.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Possibly the minister will allow the item to stand, and bring the information down when his estimates are again before the committee.
Major-General MEWBURN: I shall be glad to bring it down if you Want to hold this item up.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to get this information, Mr. Chairman. It is important, it seems to me, to have the information.
Major-General MEWBURN: Will it be satisfactory if my hon. friend discussed this matter under the war appropriation, when I would bring the information down?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would as soon have the
item stand. I may want to discuss it.
Major-General MEWBURN:	Will the
hon. member discuss it on the war appropriation? I understand some money was paid out of that appropriation in connection with this range.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to have the opportunity of discussing it.
Major-General MEWBURN: I think some items in connection with it may come up in connection with the war appropriation.

Grants to Associations and Bands-For grants to Artillery and Rifle Associations, military bands and military institutes, $25,000.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Would the minister explain how this amount is divided among the various associations?
Major-General MEWBURN: This vote has provided for grants for maintenance of civilian rifle associations and for efficient bands of the active militia, and also for military associations of the different arms of the active militia, and for grants to Dominion and provincial rifle associations. The civilian rifle associations have been practically all disbanded temporarily, so that no payments will be made to them. Bands of the active militia have also been very much reduced in number, few grants having been made during the past eighteen months. For the same reason, grants to associations, such as the Dominion Artillery Association, Dominion Cavalry Association, etc., have been discontinued. Grants have been made during the past two years to provincial rifle associations, such as the Ontario Rifle Association, when the organization has been kept up. These also have been much reduced. The .above estimate is based on the actual expenditure for the past two years, having been reduced from $50,000 to $25,000, which is the amount that may be needed.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the minister to say that it might be possible to reorgan-, ize the rifle asociationsi during the current year.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I hope so.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If that is so, I would like to get busy on it.
Major-General MEWBURN:	We would
be glad to have the hon. member help it along.


Lucien Cannon: We have in the city of
Quebec a most excellent military band attached to the R.C.G.A. Last year the band remained in the eity during the summer months, so that public concerts coold be given on the Terrace. But in former years, for some unknown reason, this band was withdrawn from the city at the very season when the concerts were usually given. I would call the attention of the minister to this fact and ask him if it is possible to see that these band concerts are kept up. The soldiers, I understand, are compensated to a certain extent by the city authorities. On account of the peculiar situation in Quebec city with the great number of tour-
[Major-General Mewburn.]
ists, soldiers and sailors there in the summer, I think it would be a good thing if the Militia Department arranged that the band shall remain in Quebec this summer.
Major-General MEWBURN: Was it not taken to Petawawa last summer?


Lucien Cannon: No, not last summer.
Major-General MEWBURN: I oan quite appreciate the feeling of the hon. gentleman. I was under the impression, on account of .all the artillery having been concentrated at Petawawa, that the band had gone there last year.


Lucien Cannon: It was there the year before.
Headquarters, Divisional and District staffs -For pay and allowances of the staff at Headquarters, and in the Divisions and Districts, $225,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There has been a good deal of criticism throughout the country with regard to the headquarters staffs. Ever since the war broke out members of headquarters staffs in the various military districts have paraded, particularly on Sunday, in staff cars. One of the greatest grounds for criticism, however, and the one of which we have heard the most, ie that a large number of the men on these various staffs have not gone to the front-indeed have never set foot outside of the country so far as military service is concerned- whiie returned men who are quite capable of filling these positions axe not called upon and are given no encouragement whatever to undertake such work. I quite understand that staff work is of a peculiar character, but it seems to me that it should not require more than five or six months' training to equip a man for looking after the staff work of an ordinary military district. Such training could easily be given to some of the returned men who have earned the right to wear the red tabs and gold buttons of which the member for .Cape Breton South (Mr. Butte) spoke.
Major-General MEWBURN: He was re ferring to the naval service.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They are prevalent also in the military service. What is the policy of the minister with regard to these staffs?
Major-General MEWBURN:	M.v hon.
friend, who is one of the fortunate ones who got over the top and got back again, must know that a large number of officers were retained in Canada against their will, *by superior authority, on the assurance that they should be enabled to proceed overseas. These officers, who have been prevented

from going overseas through no fault of their own have done dog's work in organizing, training andi sending reinforcements overseas. It has been no nice, comfortable, pussy-footing job, as some people think. I do not say that that applies to ail staff officers, but it does apply to the large pro-pcrtion of them. The magnificent work done by members of headquarters staffs is shown by the results attained by the units which have gone overseas. These officers, as I said the other day, are entitled to consideration; it is their misfortune, not their fault, that they have not gone overseas. I have laid down the policy, and I am endeavouring to carry it into effect as rapidly as possible, that returned officers, non-commissioned officers and men of other ranks, having regard to efficiency, shall in every instance get the preference. Of the officers appointed on the depot battalions which are being raised in each military district to handle the .men under the Military Service Act, over seventy-five per cent are returned officers, who have seen service overseas. Appointments of other than returned officers throughout Canada are being made only temporarily, with the distinct understanding that when a returned officer is available, the temporary incumbent must relinquish his position. With regard to the district staffs, there has been a good deal of replacement in some of the districts-not in all,-but I hope in due course there will be a large preponderance of officers who have seen service. I am out for efficiency-I think tha/t members of the Committee will back me up in this- and simply because I have an efficient technical officer fwho was Wot fortunate enough to get overseas-in many cases they have been medically unfit,-I do not think any one would suggest that I should kick him out and put a returned soldier in his place. I am however, trying to carry out the policy which I have laid down, having due regard to fairness and justice to all concerned.


Thomas Vien: Of those specially employed on headquarters staff 'at Ottawa during the war, how many >are officers of the militia and how many civilians?


Major General MEWBURN:: There are no civilians except those temporarily employed, sudh as stenographers and so on. Clerks do not come under this item.


Thomas Vien: How many of the .headquarters staff officers are regularly employed and how many specially employed during the war?


Major General MEWBURN:: I understand that some eighty-two are permanently employed on headquarters staff and in the various military districts.


Thomas Vien: How many on headquarters staff at Ottawa?
Major-General MEWBURN: Thirty-two.


Thomas Vien: How many are specially employed through pressure of work on account of the war?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Between
seventy-five and one hundred, I understand; I have not the exact figures here.


Thomas Vien: These are temporary employees?
Major-General MEWBURN Yes.
iMr. VIEN: How many clerks, stenographers, and under-employees?
Major-General MEWBURN: Some 3,200.


Thomas Vien: These are attached to the headquarters staff?
Major-General MEWBURN: In the different branches of the headquarters of the department at Ottawa

Assigned Pay and Separation Allowance, Records, Estates, Pay, and so on.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Sometime ago it was decided that no officer should be appointed permanently to any of the staffs or permanent corps. Has that order been carried out?	[DOT]
Major-General MEWBURN: No permanent appointments have been made since I came into office.


Thomas Vien: Of the 3,200 employees mentioned a moment ago by the minister, how many are male and how many female? I want- to know if among those 3,200 employees there are many who come under the provisions of the Military Service Act, and who should report for duty.
Major-General MEWBURN:	After the
Military Service Act came into force, every employee within the ages of those liable to be called out, had to report for service and undergo medical examination. I understand that in the whole (department seven exemptions were allowed, and those were only temporary exemptions, and there will not be a single employee of military age who will not enlist.


Lucien Cannon: Were any officers of military age exempted in the city of Quebec?

Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
know that any officers in Quebec were liable to service as privates.	x


Lucien Cannon: I could name a few.
Major-General MEWBURN:	Who are
liable? Who ought to go?


Lucien Cannon: Who will be liable to serve under the Military Service Act if they do not take advantage of the clause exempting them from military service as being militia officers. Has there been a change in the military command of District No. 5?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes. General Fages was temporarily holding the command while General Landry was overseas. General Landry, on his return, has resumed command of the district.


Lucien Cannon: Is General Fages still on the force?
Major-General MEWBURN: He has been retired on pension.


Lucien Cannon: Full pension?
Major-General MEWBURN: Having completed thirty-five years' service, he is entitled to his full pension.


Lucien Cannon: Has he been retired and is he receiving his pension now?
Major-General MEWBURN:	General
Fages has had thirty-five years' service. He was given leave of absence until the first of July when he will go on full pension.


Lucien Cannon: Did he ask for leave of absence or was he given it?
Major-General MEWBURN: There was no place to put him, and in view "of his long and faithful service, he was considered entitled to leave of absence.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to thank the Minister of Militia for the statement he made of his policy, but at the same time, I should like to ask him if it would not be possible to have some means of enforcing it. At the present time, we have, on various staffs, certain men. I presume, as soon as they see an officer who has returned from the front, they will not forthwith resign their position and say: " Here, Bill, take my job." Would the Minister of Militia . make some arrangement whereby the returned officer would have the advantage, if not of being-offered the position, at least of being made awrare of the fact that his particular qualifications would be taken into considera-
11 p.m. tion if he applied for a position at the time being held by some

one who had not yet been overseas? While I quite airpreciate -the great services rendered to the country and to the Empire by those who remained here to train the troops, there is undoubtedly, in the country and in this House, a feeling that those who went overseas to continue their training in the trenches are probably more entitled to consideration than those who remained behind. For those reasons I would ask the minister to be more specific in his declaration of policy.
(Mr. CURRIE: Hon members from Quebec perhaps have a certain hesitancy in asking this question. Is it true that the son of the Premier of Quebec has been in khaki since the beginning of the war and has not gone to the front? Is he on the Quebec staff, and, if so, how long has he been on that staff and why has he not gone to the war?
Major-General MEWBURN: * I am informed' that he is in one of the infantry regiments in the city of Quebec, that he has not yet gone, .but that he is going soon with the next draft.


Mr. CURRIE:: How long has he been
in khaki?
Mr. LEMiIEUX:	A year last January.


John Allister Currie: Are the sons of the late
officer commanding in Quebec, General Fages, in khaki, and, if so, how long have they been in khaki without going overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I believe
he has a son who has been in khaki for some time and who has not gone overseas.


John Allister Currie: Who is he?
Major-General MEWBURN:	General
Fages.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In case my hon. friend would insinuate that the son of the Premier of Quebec was not in earnest, I might say, for his information and for the information of the committee, that he joined the forces with my own son a year ago last January.


Samuel Hughes: More than that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He had an accident whilst on service in Quebec and he was operated on in New York. I came back with him from New York a few months ago, and I know he is ready and willing to go, and he will go soon.


Samuel Hughes: I might say, in justice to this young lad, who is only a boy, that he was very keen. I know while I was minister, he was here trying to get his

training, but owing to his youth and other circumstances he was not allowed to enlist.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He had not finished his studies in the college at Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: He was just a boy.


John Allister Currie: The reason I ask this question is simply this, that I have received a large number of letters from the city of Quebec in regard to the riot there, and all my correspondents, some of whom were anonymous and others not, laid at the bottom of the trouble in Quebec the fact that the military staff there was packed full of young aristocrats who had gone into khaki and had been holding down " cushy " jobs since the war began, and my correspondents could not see why they should be drafted while the " higher-up " officers did not go. I am glad of and accept the excuse given by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) for Lt. Gouin.


Jacques Bureau: It is not an excuse, it is the plain fact.


Samuel Hughes: It was my endeavour while I was Minister of Militia to get- a number of these sons of what might be called well known families to enlist. I never found a particle of hesitation on the part of one of them. The son of Premier Gouin is a mere boy. When he first tried to enlist he was so young that he could not be taken.


John Allister Currie: What about Armand La-vergne? He was one of the leaders.


Samuel Hughes: Everybody know-s I have a very high opinion of Mr. Armand Lavergne in many ways, and I am not going to turn from it here. So far as my association with himi is concerned, it is this:	He
has always, from his point of view, taken the constitutional aspect of the case. He took the ground in the nationalist campaign that, until Quebec had a voice and vote ,and say in the declaration of war and the making of peace, they could not, constitutionally, be sent overseas or volunteer to fight. Armand Lavergne has since that time repeatedly asked me, while I was Minister of Militia, to put him on, or order out the militia, for home service, so as to get over the difficulty of his breaking his faith with his fellow countrymen, and, once he was in uniform, to send him overseas. I pointed out that I could not do that under the law. I could order him out for home service, but I had no authority, until the present Act was passed, to send him overseas, and I pointblank refused to do so. I pointed out that he would have to volunteer of his own accord. He was anxious to
go' overseas. I am not prejudiced against Armand Lavergne. If what people say he has said is true, he should be treated in a different manner.	,
I have never yet heard, or never found any evidence-and I tried to get it-that he said anything except what might be called shooting off sometimes, when he got excited, and said things that were not absolutely constitutional. I have reason to believe that the young fellow, if he got an opportunity to-day, would go to the front and fight. I have a high opinion of him. I think he deserves credit, rather than condemnation, for his conduct in Quebec.


John Allister Currie: Is there a gentleman named Paquette and a Captain Durocher, who are on the staff in Quebec, who refused to go overseas?
Major-General MEWBURN: I could not answer offhand.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Aime Durocher, of whom we heard considerable last week, I understand did very great service for the Government during the recent riots-at least reports from him were read to us, and we were told he was a very good character.


Samuel Hughes: There was a Duroche. over to the front.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is there yet.


Samuel Hughes: Do not confuse the men.
Permanent Force, $2,575,000.


John Allister Currie: Might I ask the hen. minister if the same policy is being pursued with reference to the members of the permanent force fighting in France, with respect to salaries, as has been adopted with respect to the men in the other departments? That is to say, a man belonging to the permanent force in France is paid according to permanent force scale. He is given certain allowances.
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes.


John Allister Currie: I understand an Order in Council is about to be passed that will make every man at the front dependent entirely on his military pay, without any additional pay from the Crown. Does that apply to the officers on the permanent force?
Major-General MEWBURN: That is the Civil Service.


John Allister Currie: They all belong to the Civil Service.

Major-General MEWBURN: It does not include the members of the permanent force.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not catch what
the hon. member said. I saw in the paper the other day that an Order in Council had been passed the effect of which would deprive those members of the Civil Service who had joined the force in 1914 in the First Contingent, of certain pay. I have m mind the case of my own secretary, Major Verret, the Assistant Deputy Postmaster. He joined the force in 1914 and went abroad. I am speaking of civil servants who joined the force in, 1914 on the understanding that they would get their salaries as civil servants, and their military pay.


Samuel Hughes: With a guarantee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: An Order in Council
was passed to that effect at the time. Major Verret was decorated by His Majesty the King on the field of battle. He received his pay as colonel. If I mistake not an Order in Council was passed a few days ago denying him this double pay. Is that a fact?
Major-General MEWBURN: I think there were several scales of pay. I am not quite positive. I think the men of the Civil Service-and this had nothing to do with the .question brought up by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie)-who went overseas with the First Contingent in 1914 were to draw both military and civil pay, and I understand that there was a subsequent arrangement when men went over, I think in 1915 who got either their civil or military pay, whichever was the greater. I understand, if an employee in the Civil Service, is drawing, so much in the service, and his military pay is less, he gets the higher pay of the two, but not double pay. I understand the large bulk of the men who went over in the First'Contingent returned. They get the greater pay now. If the military pay is less than the civil pay, the difference is made up to them.


Samuel Hughes: I was just going to raise the point mentioned by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). Remember, when a man joined the service there was no condition whatever arranged. The Government and the various departments arranged the matter of their own free will, and an Order in Council was passed providing that these men should get certain pay. I must say it is rather strange to drop off now the few that are left, especially when wm see the separation allowance

granted to the wives and families of officers who have never seen France, who stayed in Canada. Some of these men could not be induced to go to France, and others were anxious to go, but I understand the separation allowance is now paid to the wives and families of men in Canada who have never seen the ocean.
Major-General MEWBURN: These men in France all get separation allowance.


Samuel Hughes: I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of the waste of money. (If it is a question of saving money on the one hand by cutting off the pay of the civil servant, or spending it on separation allowance to those in Canada on the other hand, I do not see why we should save money in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not say that I approve of the first Order in Council, giving the salary plus the pay.


Samuel Hughes: I never did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But as a matter of fact an Order in Council was passed, and the men left with that vested right, that they would draw their salary and get their pay.
I have just mentioned the case of Col. Verret. I have another case in mind, a namesake of mine in Montreal. After having raised two companies, he left with the first contingent on the understanding that he would get his salary, as he was in the Post Office Department, Outside Service. He went to Europe and was made a captain. He married a Canadian nurse over there, and is there yet. He has been there four years with that understanding-that vested right. Is it right that the Government should now pass another Order in Council, and say to that man: "While it is true you left on that understanding, we have now changed our minds, and you will get only your single pay." I do not say from the beginning I would have given the double pay, but, as the Government had done it, it does not seem right to withdraw it.


John Allister Currie: 
Mr. P. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I am very much surprised to learn that such a state of affairs exists. If there is anything this Government cannot afford to do, it is to break their pledge to the valiant men who are fighting for them. If it is a case of saving money. I think it would not be hard1 to find many places where you could pare off the small amount of money that would be saved! by breaking faith with these men. I think it is an absolute-I was going to say, disgrace-that the Government after giving a pledge to these men who went over there voluntarily to fight for this country, should now go back on its pledge after the men have gone "over there."
Major-General MEWBURN:	I do not
think there are many of them, but what the hon. gentleman says certainly has my sympathy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are quite a number of them "over there" yet, and it seems to me that the minister should delay final action on the question until it has been reconsidered1.
Major-General MEWBURN: Perhaps this might better be discussed by the Premier under the War Appropriation vote. I certainly think the proposal should be reconsidered.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not only Eatons who are continuing to pay their employees, but many of the banks as well. If you go into the Bank of Montreal to-day the clerks are all girls, and the young men who have left the bank to go to the front are still being paid a large portion of their salary. If private institutions can do that, surely the Government, which has given its pledge to these men, should not go back on them.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the present Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) receiving hi3 salary
as a Cabinet Minister and at the same time drawing his salary as a colonel in the overseas forces?
Major-General IMEWBURN: I am informed on very reliable authority that he has not drawn any military pay.


Samuel William Jacobs: He is relying on his salary as Postmaster General?
Major-General MEWBURN: I could not say as to that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In the permanent force of Canada there were a large number of n.c.o's who went overseas at the outbreak of the war and through good conduct on the field have won promotion. What is the policy of the department with regard to these men when they return? It would be extremely difficult for a man who was a corporal in the permanent force before the war, and has since become a major or colonel in the C.E.F., to return to his position as corporal, and I think it would be well to set the minds of these men at ease by a statement from the minister.
Major-General MEWBURN: No policy has been determined on yet. I do not know myself what, is going to be done, but it is a problem that is confronting us and has got to be given very early consideration. There may have to be a complete reorganization; in fact, I fancy there will have to be a reorganization of all the forces. To-day we have the Canadian expeditionary forces, the overseas military' forces, the permanent force, and the active militia, and at the present moment it is doubtful what the status of a good many of these men is. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration, and I am thinking of appointing a committee of different officers who are now out of the service, and who have a thorough knowledge of the old militia, to go into the whole question. I hope that some of the old militia units in Canada with a history behind them will not be obliterated. No definite policy has been worked out, because other more pressing matters are engaging my attention at the moment. No harm will be done to thesh-chaps, however.


Thomas Vien: Are the members of the Permanent Force who are now with the Canadian Expeditionary Force still being paid by the Permanent Force?
Major-General MEWBURN: That is one of the items I referred to. The men in the government corps are being paid out of what is known as the permanent corps vote, except the field allowance and the difference-



in-rank pay, which they get from the overseas paymaster.


Thomas Vien: They just get the difference from him?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes.
Salaries and wages, $260,000.


Thomas Vien: What comes under this item?
Major-General MEWBURN: This vote is to provide for the salaries of caretakers of armouries, clerks, charwomen and messengers. Additional help of this kind employed since the war has been paid out of the war appropriation vote. The increase of $10,000 is accounted for by an increase in wages to some of the caretakers. I can give my hon friend the details if he desires them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item be carried?


Thomas Vien: No, Mr. Chairman do not
let. us be in too big a hurry.


Georges Henri Boivin: No one is in a hurry, but if no honourable member rises, the Chairman must declare that the item is carried.


Thomas Vien: I will ask the Chairman to be a bit more patient and to give us time to consider the items that come up for our consideration. I would like the minister to state whether any of these items have reference to the Ross rifle?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No.


Thomas Vien: Under what item of the estimates does the Ross Tifle come?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Under the
war appropriation.


Lucien Cannon: Is Mr. McBain still the
caretaker of the camp at Valcartier?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Samuel Hughes: I d'o not know who the caretaker of Valcartier Camp is, but McBain is a very honoured name. It is enjoyed by the descendants of Major McBain who fought at the capture of Quebec and settled at Valcartier. Ever since that time the name' has been an honoured one in the locality. I do not know the caretaker of Valcartier camp, or whether the oflice is filled by a McBain, but if it is the gentleman comes of a good family. Let me tell the committee that Colonel William
[Major-General Mewburn.]
McBain is a gentleman who has done yeoman service for this country since the war broke out. He has saved the department hundreds and thousands of dollars, and Canada, and the city of Quebec in particular, owes him a deep debt of gratitude.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Speaking of Valcartier
camp, did not this Mr. McBain make the expropriations of land there?
Major-General MEWBURN: It is not the same man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have the expropriation cases all been settled?
Major-General MEWBURN: I understand that all but three or four cases have been settled.


Lucien Cannon: How much does Colonel McBain receive?
Major-General MEWBURN: The officer in question is not Colonel McBain, but Captain A. E. McBain, and as camp superintendent he receives a salary of $1,320.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member (Mr. Cannon) asks what Colonel McBain receives. He does not receive anything.
Major-General MEWBURN: I beg the ex-minister's pardon. I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cannon) to say the superintendent.


Samuel Hughes: Let us be accurate about it, he said Colonel McBain.
Major-General MEWBURN: At any rate Captain A. E. McBain, .superintendent of Valcartier camp, receives $1,320 a year salary. That is not one and the same person as the other McBain.


Samuel Hughes: Now you have got it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He belongs to the same family.


Samuel Hughes: He belongs to the province of Quebec, and to a prolific family.
Transport and freight-Transport of staff, $20,000 ; transport of permanent force, $1.5,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Transport of the staff is estimated to cost $20,000, Whilst transport of the active militia is estimated at $15,000. The staff cost $20,000 for transportation and the troops only $15,000.. These items appear to be funny, because surely there are more troops than staff to be transported?


Thomas Vien: I understand that every time a staff officer travels he receives a requisition for transportation on the railway. Is that paid for dn the item under consideration?

Major-General MEWBURN: That is all charged back to the department and has to be paid for out of this vote.


Thomas Vien: Is payment made to the Government railways for the transportation of officers?
Major-General MEWBURN: To all railways.
Training: Areas-Purchase of land for training areas in the various districts, $50,000.


Thomas Vien: Will the minister tell us
what lands he intends to purchase for training areas?
Major-General MEWBURN:	There is
about $10,000 still to be paid on account of Valcartier camp. There are three or four small parcels of land to be purchased in Nova Scotia for defence purposes, probably costing between two and three thousand dollars. There are, therefore, at the present moment some $15,000 needed to meet existing engagements on account of land purchases, and a vote of $50,000 will leave $35,000 for any additional purchases that may be required during the year. It is possible that the negotiations for the purchase of the outstanding properties at Valcartier camp will be completed this year,-and the payments consequently met from current appropriation. Nearly all these cases, however, are before the Exchequer Court and it is quite possible that court may not render its decisions before the expiration of the fiscal year, and therefore the Department of Justice advise that provision had better be made in next year's estimates for the payment of the compensation dlue.


Thomas Vien: Can the minister give some
details as to the expenditure of the $200,000 voted last year?
Major-General MEWBURN: That all appears in the Auditor General's Report.
IMr. CANNON: According to the Auditor General's Report, much to my surprise, I see that Mr. Arrnand Lavergne has received a certain amount for legal services. ' Is he retained by the Militia Department?
Major-General MEWBURN:	He may
have been employed by one of the people whose land was taken, and judgment was given and probably this relates to his costs. I have no knowledge of his being employed by the Militia Department or any other department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He is evidently on the
patronage list.
55J


John Allister Currie: Are there any payments for camp Borden, in this vote?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No, that
comes under the war appropriation.


John Allister Currie: One of the members for Toronto wished to know if the Borden ' camp matter was likely to come up, as he desired to make some observations with respect to it.
Major-General MEWBURN:	It will
come up under the war appropriation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let us adjourn now,
we have done a good day's work.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. J. D. REID the House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.
Thursday, April 18, 1918.