1918-04-18

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 58, respecting certain patents of The Dynamic Balancing Machine Company. -Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 59, to incorporate the Gospel Workers Church in Canada.-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate Montreal, Joiiette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Denis.
Bill No. 61, respecting The Toronto, Hamiltqn and Buffalo Railway Company.- Mr. Stewart.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved:: That the special committee to whom was referred Bill INo. 25, respecting bankruptcy, be granted power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to amend the Insurance Act, 1917.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: The purpose of this Bill is threefold. The Insurance Act now provides that British and foreign companies shall maintain a deposit with the Department of Finance at least equal to their total liabilities in Canada. The pur-

pose of this Bill is to require that the deposit shall not only equal the amount of their liabilities in Canada, but shall be in excess of their liabilities to the extent of 25 per cent. The second amendment proposed is to increase the initial deposit required of British and foreign companies prior to the commencement of their insurance business in Canada. The amount required to-day is $50,000, and it is proposed to raise that to $100,000. The third amendment proposed is to section 125 of the Insurance Act, which requires Canadian companies to maintain assets at least 15 per cent in excess of their total liabilities. The Bill proposes to raise the amount of this percentage to 25 per cent.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to amend the Fisheries Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: This Bill is introduced for two specific reasons. The first provision refers to the British Columbia salmon fisheries. Heretofore it has been the custom to have the packages or cases labelled to show that the salmon was caught legally, or that the salmon was caught during the open season and not during the closed season. The department has found that this provision of the law has not worked out as satisfactorily as was hoped, and the object of the Bill is to abolish clauses 22, 23, 25, 65 and 66, as a result of which no one will be allowed to catch fish outside of the areas that are closed during the closed season unless he has a license, or unless the boat is licensed. The Indians have a habit, during the closed fishing season, of catching a considerable number of salmon. While they are allowed legally to catch salmon for their own use, they are *forbidden to catch salmon and offer them for sale either to the canners or the dealers. The object is to prevent any one offering salmon during the close season to any canner or dealer, unless either the boat or the man is licensed.
During the cloee season in Canadian waters it has been the practice of some of the Canadian lobster fishermen, and also of some of the American lobster fishermen, to catch lobsters outside of the territorial waters. It is proposed' by this legislation, concurrent legislation being passed by the United States Congress, to prevent the Canadian and American fishermen from

catching lobsters during the close season outside of the territorial waters.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated toy asterisks).

Mr. EULER:: 1.	On what Government Commissions has R. A. Pringle, K.C., officiated since October 1, 1911, and how much did he draw from each?
2.	Is he still connected with the Price of Paper Investigation? If so, how much has he drawn from this?
3.	What is the total amount drawn by said Mr. Pringle out of the public exchequer since October 1, 1911?
4.	Goes the Government contribute in any way to the rent of the offices at present occupied by the firm of Pringle & Co. in a 'building on Wellington St., Ottawa? If so, how much?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: The question is
answered toy a return -which was tabled today.


ST. NICHOLAS STONE QUARRY.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the St. Nicholas quarry, which was purchased by the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, been worked since 1st May, 1915?
2.	If so, what quantity of stone has been taken from said quarry?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No.
2.	No stone was taken out during this period.


DREDGES AND STEAMERS AT QUEBEC.
Mr. BOURASSA:: [DOT]
1.	Wlhat are the names of the steamers and dredges which were owned by the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec on the 1st November, 1916?
2.	Have said Commissioners sold any of these steamers and dredges?
3.	If so, to whom and at what price?
4.	Did said Commissioners sell direct to the purchasers or was an agent employed to negotiate the sale of the steamers and dredges sold?
5.	Have the Commissioners purchased other steamers and dredges since the 1st November, 1916?
Hon, Mr. BALLANTYNE:
1.	Grain boat No. 1, Dredge No. 1, Dredge No. 2, tug "Aviso Courcelette," tug Diver, Clam Shell Dredge No. 6, launch Gossom.
2.	Yes,
3.	Grain boat No. 1 sold to St. Lawrence Navigation Corporation for $100,000. Dredge No. 1 sold to Compagnie Generate D'Entre-prises Publiques for $185,000.
4.	Both sold direct to purchasers.
5.	No.


PURCHASE OF REMOU-NTS IN CANADA.
Mr. ROSS:: 1,	What amount of money was spent in Canada on purchasing remounts by the Militia Department during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1917?
2.	What amount was spent in purchasing remounts elsewhere, and where were they purchased ?
3 What is the expense attendant thereon in each case, and on what basis was the expense incurred, by commission, or so much per animal allowed to buyer? Or how, if otherwise?
4.	Who were authorized to purchase in Canada, and who outside of Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	*261,042.73.
2.	Nil.
3.	For horses purchased in Canada, a buyer and veterinary surgeon were employed, for which they received *10 per diem for their services, for the period May
4,	1916, to September 23, 1916.
4.	Mr. R. Graham and Veterinary Surgeon
5.	C. Tarnbin, under the supervision of Col. Sir Adam Beck, Amount Commissioner, purchased in Canada.


MR. J. P. JAFFRAY.
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What are the duties of J. P. Jaffray, who is in the employ of the Canadian Trade and Commerce Department, of Philadelphia?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	What are his annual expenses?
4.	Since his appointment what results, if any, have come from his efforts in the position he occupies?
5.	Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware that Mr. Jaffray, since his appointment, contributes to newspapers, articles of a violent partisan nature?
6.	Is the Minister aware of the opinion that results justify the retention of this gentleman in office?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	Mr. J. P. Jaffray is Canadian Government agent and immigration inspector at the port of Philadelphia, and is employed by the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
2.	$2,000.
3.	$1,474.75 for the fiscal year 1916-17. This sum includes rent of office and travelling expenses.
4.	It is impossible to tabulate the results of Mr. Jaffray's work. He is engaged in general publicity work, with the object of encouraging settlement in Canada. The department has reason to believe that Mr. Jaffray has been successful along this line. Prior to the cessation of European travel, Mr. Jaffray inspected a considerable number of immigrants and passengers arriving at the port of Philadelphia, destined to
Canadian points. Mr. Jaffray's office is looked upon in Philadelphia as a general information office on all matters relating to Canada, and his services have been utilized to a considerable extent by The British-Canadian Recruiting Mission.
5.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization is not aware that Mr. Jaffray has. since his appointment, contributed to newspapers, articles of a partisan nature. On July 31, 1917, the Hon. Mr. Proulx made a similar inquiry in the House. Mr. Jaffray was asked at that time for information and he denied, under date of August 6, 1917, having written or contributed any articles of a political nature since his appointment to a position in the Civil Service of Canada.
6.	Yes.


SHIPMENTS OF BREEDING ANIMALS IN QUEBEC.
*Mr. TOBIN:: With reference to the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1917, volume 1, page A-7'2, A. J. Lyster, Kirkdale, Quebec, freight charges on stallions, $43.45.
1.	From what point were the said stallions shipped?
2.	How many stallions were so shipped?
3.	To whom were they consigned and for what purpose?
4.	Were the said stallions used for work in lumber camps?
5.	If so, was this done with the consent of the Government?
6.	Where are the said stallions at the present
time?	-


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Three were shipped from Richmond, one from Ste. Henedine and one from Point Levis.
2.	Five.
3.	The first was sent to the Association Ste. Genevieve de Batiscan. The second was sent 'to the Association at Ste. Marguerite. The third was sent to the Association at St. Georges. The fourth was removed from Association Ste. Marguerite, shipped from Ste. Henedine station to Richmond. (C. N. Lyster's.) The fifth removed from Association Neuville, taken to Richmond (C. N. Lyster's). These' stallions were loaned to the associations for breeding purposes.
4.	No.	*
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	The stallion shipped to Ste. Genevieve de Batiscan is still there. The stallion removed from Ste. Marguerite is now in the province of Alberta. The horse shipped to St. Georges is now at C. N. Lyster's. The horse shipped from Ste. Henedine (Ste. Marguerite Association), has been sold.

The horse shipped from Point Levis to Richmond has been sold.


Edmund William Tobin: In reference to the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1917, volume 1, page A-7 2, C. N. Lyster, Kirfcdale, Quebec, care of bulls and stallions, $1,947.08, freight, $104.10.
1.	To whom was the sum of $1,947.08 paid?
2.	From what point were the said bulls and stallions shipped?
3.	How many bulls and stallions were so shipped?
4.	To whom were they consigned and for what purpose?
5.	Were the said stallions used for work in lumber camps?
6.	If so, was this done with the consent of the Government?
7.	Where are the said bulls and stallions at the present time?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	C. N. Lyster.
2.	One bull from Ste. Christine de Bagot; one bull from Disraeli; one bull from Compton; two bulls from Coaticook; nine bulls from Point Levis; one stallion from La Prairie; one stallion from Matane; one stallion from Robertson station; two stallions from Point Levis.
3.	Fourteen bulls and five stallions.
4.	All with the exception of five bulls were consigned to C. N. Lyster to be cared for and conditioned. These five bulls vere included in a car of eight shipped from Levis consigned to C. N. Lyster at Richmond for resorting. These five were left in the car and shipped on from Richmond to the Point St. Charles stock yards, Montreal, and sold for beef.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Four bulls are in the hands of associations in the province of Quebec. One is a: a feeding station at Ulverton. One is dead. Eight have been sold. Three stallions were sent -to the province of Alberta in 1917 and loaned to associations there. Two have been sold.


MAJOR J. F. BEDFORD.
Edmund William Tobin: *1. Is Major J. F. Belford, of Richmond, Quebec, employed by the Department of Militia and Defence or by the Department of Justice at the present time?
2.	If so, what salary and allowance does he receive?
3.	Was he employed by either one of said departments in the month of November, 1917?
4.	If so, what salary did he then receive?
5.	When was Major J. F. Belford first employed by the Department of Militia?
6.	What amount has been paid to him from that date to the present time on account of,
(a) salary, (b) separation allowance, (c) travelling and 'living expenses, and (d) other d isbursements ?

Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes, by the Department of Militia and Defence.
2.	Pay and allowances of his rank in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
3.	Yes, by the Department of Militia and Defence.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	May, 1916, but did not begin to draw pay until July 3, 1916.
6.	(a) $3,431.75; (b) $964; (cj $528.18; (d) $1,661.76. Recruiting expenses not personal.


GRANBY POST OFFICE.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Post Office building at Granby, in the county of iShefford?
2.	When was the said building completed?
3.	How much has been paid out for repairs to the said building since the first of October, 1911?
4.	Upon whose recommendation were the said alterations and repairs made?
5.	Has the Government been requested to increase the post office box accommodation in the said building?
6.	If so, have any steps been taken to grant this request?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	$27,502.41.
2.	Completed in 1903 and tower clock installed in 1906.
3.	$3,065.83.
4.	Recommended by the Clerk of Works for Montreal District.
5.	No information.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


BREEDING ANIMALS-SHERBROOKE.
Mr. HUNT:: 1.	Has the Government an office in the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec, for distributing live stock for breeding purposes?
2.	If so, in what year was the office established?
3.	How much has it cost each year up to the present?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue this office?
5.	Who is in charge of same, and what salary does he receive each year?
6.	How many persons has he in his employ?
7.	Who are they, and what salary does each receive?
8.	What has been the total cost of said office each year since it has been opened?
9.	What has become of animals bought?
10.	Has the Government many on hand?
11.	If so, who cares for said animals and what price is paid?
Hon, Mr. CRERAR:
1.	The live stock branch of the Department of Agriculture maintains an office in the city of Sherbrooke, in the province of Quebec, to facilitate the general work of the branch in that province, a part of which

is to distribute live stock for breeding purposes.
2.	December, 1915.
3.	The total cost for all purposes is as follows: fiscal year 1915-16 (balance), $1,034,94; 1916-17, $3,790.74; 1917-18, $3,865.50. The cost is not apportioned to the different purposes for which the office is maintained. (Included in these amounts is the salary and expenses of the officer in charge, salary of stenographer, rent, cost of telegrams, telephone charges, etc.)
4.	Yes.
5.	A. W. Giard, present salary $1,900 per annum.
6.	The office staff consists of one stenographer. Mr. Giard has also the supervision of a number of temporary inspectors.
7.	The stenographer, Miss L. Boulanger, receives a salary of $600 a year. The inspectors are paid at the rate of $4 a day for such time as their services are required. At the present time the following are employed as temporary inspectors: G. F. Cowan, Scottstown; J. A. Marion, St. Ed-widge; A. Genest, St. Bernard.
8.	Answered by No. 3.
9.	Animals purchased have been loaned to associations throughout the province and have been left on their hands as long as they were satisfactory for breeding purposes.
10.	Yes.
11.	Animals loaned to associations are cared for by caretakers on arrangements made with them by the respective associations. The terms vary with the districts and circumstances, but all are subject to the approval of the Dominion Live Stock Commissioner. Bulls which are shipped to feeding stations for refitting purposes are paid for by the department, at the rate of $7 per month or 35 cents per day for terms of less than one month.


PATENT MEDICINE STAMP TAX.
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What is the yearly revenue from stamp tax on patent medicines?
2.	How many persons of the Outside Service are employed1 tn connection with the enforcement of this regulation?
3.	What are their names and salaries?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 
GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-PURCHASE OF COAL IN UNITED STATES.
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	How many tons of coal wore purchased in the United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918, by the Railway Department for use on the Government Railways?
2.	At what point or points was delivery of such coal taken?

3.	What price per net ton was paid therefor at the delivery point or points in Canada?
4.	What quantity of such coal was transported from Montreal and delivered to points in Canada east of Montreal?
5.	What was the maximum distance east from Montreal that such coal was transported, and what was the cost of transportation?
6.	What was the average cost of transportation of such coal to points east of Montreal?
7.	What was the price per net ton paid hy the Railway Department to Nova Scotia Coal Mines for coal delivered during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918?


Hon. Mr. REID:: .
1.	508,971 net tons.
2.	St. John, N.B., Quebec, St. Hyacinthe, St. Lambert, Montreal and Fort William.
3.	At Montreal, St. Lambert and St. Hyacinthe: Average price, $6.90 per net ton, f.o.b. cars, all charges paid, including duty and war tax. At Quebec: Average price per net ton, $7.85, delivered f.o.b. cars, all charges paid. At Fort William, Ont.: Prices, $5,351 to $5,501 per net ton, delivered f.o.b. cars, all charges paid. Special purchases made owing to coal shortages:- At St. John, N.B., 9,352 tons at $6.40 per net ton, delivered f.o.b. piers, Port Richmond or Greenwich, Pa. This coal was carried by boats owned by the department. For delivery at Fort William: 80,000 tons at $4.75 per net ton, delivered f.o.b. Mines, United States points-cost delivered f.o.b. cars at Fort William, average price $7.44 per net ton, all charges paid.
4.	32,179 tons.
5.	Maximum distance transported was to Campbellton, N.B., 406 miles; cost of transportation, $1.65 per net ton.
6.	Average distance, 108 miles; cost of transportation, 45c per ton.
7.	$3.79, $4.13, $4.25 and $4.50 per net ton for run-of-mine grade of coal, and 22.4c per net ton additional for screened coal.


DUTIES AND DRAWBACK ON AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What were the total receipts from Customs tariff during the fiscal year ending March, 1917, on the following goods entering Customs ports west of the Great Lakes :-ploughs, traction engines, threshing outfits, self-binding reapers, threshing separators, other farm machinery and repair parts, respectively?
2.	What was the total amount of drawback paid by the Government to Canadian manufacturers of farm machinery, during the fiscal year ending March, 1917, on mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders and attachments for binders?
3.	Are repair parts for mowing machines and reapers subject to the drawback?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Ploughs and parts thereof, $305,132.43; portable engines with boilers in combina-

tion, and traction engines for farm purposes, $874,045.87; threshing machine separators, parts of, including wind stackers, baggers, weighers, and self feeders therefor, and finished parts thereof, for repairs, when imported separately, $118,795.05; harvesters, self-binding, $79,954.35; threshing machine separators, $348,862.28; other farm machinery and parts thereof, viz.: Binding attachments, cultivators, weeders, drills, rollers, harrows, hay loaders, tedders, horse rakes, manure spreaders, mowers, potato diggers, reapers, fanning mills, grain crushers, hay presses, fodder or feed cutters, horse powers for farm purposes, and parts of agricultural implements, $115,818.51.
2.	Home consumption: Total amount of
drawback paid to Canadian manufacturers of farm machinery, on mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders and attachments for binders, $51,666.76. Export: Amount paid to Canadian manufacturers of farm machinery, on all kinds exported during fiscal year 1916-17,	$111,470.16.
Particulars of drawback for export are not classified separately. It would require some time to make the detailed compilation asked for in this inquiry.
3.	Repair parts exported are subject to drawback.



MILK SUPPLY IN LARGE CENTRES.


[Stage Direction]
'Mr PARENT:
1.	Has a contract between the Government and the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, for the purchase of the company's line, been entered into? If so, at what date?
2.	Does said contract include the terminals at Quebec or only cover a portion of the line?
3.	If for only a portion, what portion, and at what price?
4.	If for the whole line, wihat price has been agreed upon?
5.	Has any money been paid the company by the Government for the purchase of said line? If so, how much?
iHon. Mr. REID:
1.	An agreement dated July 25th, 1916, as authorized under provisions of chapter 16 of statutes of i915, and chapter 22 of statutes of 1916, of lines of railway between the city of Quelbec and Nairn Falls, and between Lyster and St. Jean des Chaillons.
2.	Includes (b) a line of railway from and inclusive of its terminals in the city of Quebec extending easterly, etc.
3 and 4. The -agreement 'provides for acquiring as described in statutes mentioned in answer to first question.
The consideration to be paid for each of the said railways to be as provided by section 2, of chapter 22, of statutes of 1916.
5.	No.

[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TOBIN:
1.	Is the Government aware that a large number of applicants for exemption under the provisions of the Military Service Act obtained temporary exemption for a definite period of time?
2.	Is the Government aware that in many cases the local Exemption Tribunals which granted these temporary exemptions advised the applicants that when the period for which the exemption had been granted had expired, they could, if they had sufficient reasons, make application for further exemption, or in other words, have the said delay extended?
3.	To whom should those who have legitimate reasons to ask for an extension of their exemption, make application and submit the reasons why the said exemption should be extended?
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Government has no information on the subject, but if such advice was given it was correct.
3.	To the appropriate registrar, under regulation 76.


MILITARY MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TOBIN:
1.	Is the Government aware that many Local Exemption Tribunals and several Appeal Tribunals have refused exemption to men of military age without obliging them to undergo the Medical Examination required by the Military Service Act?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to
draft said men without giving them the opportunity of undergoing the said Medical Examination?	.
3.	In eases where men who have been refused exemption without a Medical Examination have since been examined and placed in Category B, C, or E, is it the intention of the Government to oblige the said men to report for duty?
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The Government has no information cn the subject.
2.	No. Every man drafted will be medically examined.	_
3.	Not at present if they were placed in category "C," or category "E."


MR. TUCKER.
Mr. PORTER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Tucker, appointed by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, as agricultural representative on the Leave of Absence Board of No. 3 Military District, was in the recent Dominion Election a strong, active opponent of the endorsed Union Government Candidate in East Hastings?
2.	Is it the policy of the Government to appoint such opponents to office?
3.	If the Government at the time of this appointment was unaware of the fact stated in question No. 1, will it now satisfy itself as to the fact and take action? If so, what action?
4.	Was any private member of the Union Government in Military District No. 3 consulted or advised with in regard to this appointment? If not, from what source was the information obtained to satisfy the Honourable Minister who made the appointment?
5.	What were the necessary qualifications the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, by inquiry, ascertained Mr. Tucker possessed for the position to which he was so appointed, enumerating them?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. The policy of the Government is to select the persons best qualified to fill any office or position of trust. In selecting an agricultural representative on this and other Leave-of-Absense Boards the Government endeavoured to obtain necessary information from various sources as to the knowledge, experience and good judgment of the person proposed to be appointed. The Government is satisfied that Mr. Tucker possesses the necessary qualifications

for the efficient discharge of the duties of the position to which he was appointed, and, as at present advised, it does not propose to take any further action in the matter.


MILITIA CENSORS AND DECODERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-boro):: What are the names of all officers at Hazel Hill and Canso, N.S., employed as censors and decoders or in any way connected with said Branch of the Service, and the gross amount paid to each during the calendar year 1917?
Major-General MEWBURN:
Name.	Rank.	Gross Amount Received during 1917.Rice, H. A	Censor	82555 00Hart, Major G. VV..	Asst. Censor	1825 00Self, George	((	1825 00Hambling, T. P	"	1825 00Rutherford, J. McG. Fraser, R. G	Deputy Asst. Censor	1825 00 1460 00Cousins, John A....	Decoding Clerk..	1104 00Hadley, E. H	1104 00Keating, F. M	<(	1104 00MacDonald, A. H.	<<	1104 00Strople, Harold	"	147 50Smiley, Miss E. St C.	Typist and Stenographer. ...	101 50


PRINTING AND STATIONERY.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-boro):: 1.	Has any money been paid for printing by the Department of Militia and Defence, either in Canada or Overseas, or by the Government, during the year 19J7, to L. Upcott Gill & Son, Limited, 5-5-57 Drury Lane, London, W.C., or to Canada Newspaper Company, Limited, Kings-way House, London, W.C.?
2.	If so, how much, and when were the said payments made?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2. On March 31, 1917, the sum of $605.41 was paid .to Messrs'. Upcott, Gill & Son, Ltd., for printing and stationery by the Chief Paymaster Overseas. There is no record of any payment to Canada Newspaper Company.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT LEASES IN OTTAWA.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	How many buildings have been rented by the Government in the city of Ottawa since January 1, 1910, for the Post Office Department?
2.	Who are the owners of the said buildings?
3.	What rent per annum was paid for these buildings or parts of buildings?
4.	For what time or term are buildings rented?


Hon. Mr. CARVELL:: Description of premises.
Lessors.
22980 square feet in eastern portion of Union Bank building, facing Sparks street.
10160 square feet in portion of Union Bank building at rear of Langevin block.
R. L. & R, Blackburn.
Rooms 608-609 and 611 in Union Bank building.
3rd floor of Hope building corner Sparks and Elgin streets.
Jas Hope & Sons
West offices of the ground floor of The Rideau Club Rideau Club building, Wellington street.
15980 square feet in Robinson Hiram Robinson. building, Queen street.
Rental.	Term of lease.
$ cts.	
22,695 00	5 years to J uly 16,1918.
8,666 67	Premises first occupied January 6, 1912. Present lease is for 3 years and expires January 6, 1920.
1,154 00	August 1, 1914 to July 15, 1918.
2,500 00	Premises first occupied January 29, 1913. Present lease is for 2 years and expires on January 29,1920.
1,800 00	Premises first occupied May 1, 1912. Present lease is for 5 years and expires May 1, 1922.
6,346 28	Premises first occupied September 1, 1912. Present lease is for 3 years and
	expires September 1, 1918.


WOMEN'S CONFERENCE.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Was a conference held at Ottawa during the present year between the President of the Council and certain women delegates invited to be present thereat?
2.	If so, was the cost of holding the said conference defrayed in whole or in part by the Government?
3.	How much was paid by the Government in connection with the said conference?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	A conference was held at Ottawa, February 28th-March 2nd, between the War Committee of the Cabinet and certain representative women from the several provinces.
2.	The expenses of the conference were defrayed by the Government.
3.	$4,427.91.


SPECIAL TRAINS.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Have any special trains been used by the President of the Council since his appointment as a member of the present Government?
2.	If so, how many, and what was their total cost?


Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The Unionist Committee of Ontario provided an engine and caboose for the President of the Council, from Mitchell to Sea-forth, a distance of twelve miles, to keep a speaking engagement during the last election campaign. Apart from this no special train has been used by the President of the Council.
2.	There has been no cost to the country.


CONFERENCE WITH ORGANIZED LABOUR.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Was a Conference held at Ottawa during the present year between Members of the Government and certain representatives of organized labour invited to be present thereat?
2.	If so, was the cost of holding the said Conference defrayed in whole or in part by the Government?
3.	How much, if any, was paid by the Government in connection with the said Conference?


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	$4,427.


TORONTO SECRETARIAL FUND.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many persons, if any, who were previously employed in connection with the Secretarial Fund at Toronto have been or are now in the employ of the Government, either in one of the Departments thereof, or in connection with any Board or Commission appointed by the Governement?
2.	What ate their names, duties and salaries?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The Government has no knowledge or information with regard to the fund alluded to.


REFRIGERATION COMMISSION.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Is there a commission known as the Refrigeration Commission? If so, who are the members of it, and who is chairman?
2.	What are the duties of this Commission?
3.	Who appointed them?


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman woulld state what department of the Government he alludes to in this question, he will receive an answer.
Mr. JAMES STARRATT MARSHALL.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has there been since August, 1914, a person named Jas. Starratt Marshall, of Spa Springs, Annapolis County, in the Active Militia of Canada?
2. If not, when did he leave the service?
3. If so, when did he join the service, and what has been his occupation?
4.	What amount has he received during the period in which he was employed?
5.	Has the Government any information as to whether or not whilst in the service he carried on the work of laundryman either in his public or private capacity?
6.	If in the former capacity, what extra pay did he receive?
Major-General MEWBURN: If the hon. member would give some information as to the unit >in which Mr. Marshall served, a thorough search will be made.


MR. W. C. REAN.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has Mr. W. C. Rean been employed in any capacity in connection with the War Trade Board?
2.	If so, What was the date of his appointment, and what were, or are, his duties, and salary?
3.	What were his occupation, duties, and salary immediately prior to his appointment?
4.	Before coming to Ottawa, was Mr. Rean employed in the Secretarial Fund Office at Toronto or had Ihe any connection with the Secretarial Fund?
5.	Has Mr. Rean received an appointment to go Overseas and engage in Y.M.C.A. work? If so, is the Government to pay any part of his expenses or salary?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes, for a temporary engagement to assist in the work of organizing the office.
2.	February 22, 1918, until April 6, 1918, as assistant secretary at $250 a month.
3.	Prior to his temporary appointment with the War Trade Board, Mr. Rean was temporarily employed in the office of the President of the Council from January 21, 1918, until February 4, 1918, as assistant

private secretary, at the rate of $1,750 per annum.
4.	The Government has no knowledge of the secretarial fund referred to.
5.	The Government has no knowledge of Mr. Rean's present occupation.


ICE CONTRACT AT MULGRAVE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-iborough):: 
SHERBROOKE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoCREA:
1.	What is the total number of men employed in the Sherbrooke Post Office Inspection Office?
2.	What are the names of each employee, their respective salaries, and duties?
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	Dastous, L. E. M., $2,900, inspector; Soles, C. E., $2,400, assistant inspector; Lallier, Joseph, $1,700, field officer, Rural Mail delivery work, inspecting Rural post offices; Mullins,. G. (Miss), $1,300, clerk-incharge of inquiries re missing mail matter; Frechette, R. $900 (on military service); MareChal, M. B. M. (Maes), $600, sten-

ographer and typist; de Lottinville, Maurice, $600, clerical work; Bousquet, P., $3 a day, messenger; Lefebvre, J. P., $3 a day, chauffeur and porter; Downing, J. D., $1,500, temporary clerk, field officer, Rural Mail delivery work; Choquette, J. (Miss), $600, temporary clerk, stenographer and. typist; Dussault, N. T., $1,400, temporary clerk, field officer, rural mail delivery work.


POSTMASTER AT INDIAN POINT.
Mr DUFF:: 1.	What is the name of the Postmaster at Indian Point, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was the said appointment made by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	When was this appointment made?
4.	What information was obtained as to the peculiar qualifications of this man for the appointment?
5.	Is the post office situated in the centre of the district?
6.	Have there been any complaints from the people of the locality with regard to the inconvenience caused by the situation of this post office?
7.	What salary does the Postmaster receive per annum and how much was paid his predecessor?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Mr. Artemas Ernst, Postmaster of Indian Point, who was appointed on the 1st November, 1912, tendered his resignation on the 7th September last. His successor has not yet been appointed.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. See answer to No. 1.
7.	The salary attached to this office is $60 per annum.


POSTMASTER AT DUBLIN SHORE, N.S.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the name of the Postmaster at Dublin Shore, Lunenburg County, N.S. ?
2.	When was this appointment made?
3.	Was it made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, and what are the peculiar qualifications of the appointee which led to his obtaining the position?
4.	Have any complaints been received from the people of the locality to the effect that they were seriously inconvenienced owing to the fact that the post office is situated far from the centre of the district?
5.	What salary does the Postmaster receive? How much was paid to his predecessor?


Hon Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Lemuel J. Bell.
2.	On the 5th January, 1918.
3.	No. The appointment was made before the Civil Service Commission was authorized to make these appointments. The department is not aware that there was anything peculiar about his qualifications.
4.	Representations have been made that the post office is inconveniently situated, and this matter is now under enquiry by the department.

5.	$81 per annum His predecessor re-cieved the same salary.


ROYAL NORTH WEST MOUNTED POLICE-COMMISSIONER PERRY.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Has Commissioner Perry of the Royal North West Mounted Police resigned?
2.	If so, what was the cause of his resignation?
3.	Was there any correspondence between the Commissioner and the Government prior to the resignation? If so, will the papers be laid on the Table of the House?
4.	Has Assistant Commissioner Wilson sent in his resignation? If so, what is his reason for resigning?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The reasons are set forth in the following (telegram from Commissioner Perry:
"While I recognize the necessity of taking all effective members of the Force for overseas service, I maintain that they should have been sent as a unit and in view of the assurance contained in the Prime Minister's letter of 5th July last, that if more cavalry were required a regiment or regiments from the (Mounted Police would be sent, I feel my position as Officer Commanding the Force has been most seriously affected, and therefore in the interest of the public service I should resign. I respectfully request that I may be retired to pension as soon as convenient to the Department. I am prepared to hand over command whenever directed."
Every effort has been made by the Government to arrange for the force going over and proceeding to the front as a unit but the military exigencies have been such that the military authorities in Great Britain have not so far toeen able to arrange it. Their request is for reinforcements far existing units.
3 No.
4.	Yes; no reason given. He has offered to serve in any capacity the Government may desire.


MR. NAZAIRE LEBEL.
Mr. GAUVREATJ:: T. Has Mr. iNa^aire T.eBol, a Preventive officer at St. Arsfine, in the County of Temis-oouata, made a report to the Inland Revenue Department, for each year since 1911?
2. Is it the intention of the Government to dispense with the services of the said officer who is at present incapacitated and whose work is absolutely needless?


Hon. Mr SIFTON:: 1.	Made a report in 1913.
2.	Services dispensed with from February
1st, 1918.	.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the value of intoxicating liquor imported into Canada since December 22, 1917?
2.	What is the value of intoxicating liquor imported into Canada under the regulation made January 19, 1918, permitting the importation of intoxicating liquor purchased prior to January 31, 1918?
MY DECHENE:
1.	What has been the number of clerks employed during each year from 1911 to 1917, in the following Post offices: Victoria, Vancouver, Regina, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec, Fredericton and Halifax?
2.	What sums have been paid as salaries to the clerks of the above offices in each year of the said period?


Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance issued certificates permitting the offer and sale of debentures in pursuance of the Order in Council, dated 22nd December, 1917, in relation thereto?
2.	If so, how many permits were granted or certificates issued ?
3.	To what provincial governments, municipal corporations, school boards or other legally constituted bodies were permits granted or certificates issued?
4.	For what amount were permits granted and certificates issued, in each case?


Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance refused to issue certificates permitting the offer and sale of debentures, in pursuance of the Order in Council, dated 2i2ndi December, 1917, in relation thereto?
2.	'If so, how many permits or certificates have been refused1?
3.	What provincial governments, municipal corporations, school boards or other legally constituted bodies have been refused said permits or certificates, and what reasons, in each case, were given?
4.	For what amount, in each case, was authority asked for?



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.

Mr. LEMIEUX:: For a copy of the correspondence concerning the resignation of Commissioner Perry, C.M.G., as head of Royal Northwest (Mounted Police.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: That Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays, until the end of the Session, over all business except questions by Members and Notioes of Motion for the production of papers.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that we on this side of the House cannot be accused of obstructing the (business of the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not.


Wilfrid Laurier: So, I would be obliged if my right hon. friend would give us another Monday, making the motion commence with the first Monday in May.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances I accede to the request of the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. BUREAU:: When the dehate on the question of titles was: adjourned I understood that a date would be set when that matter would be brought up again. Might I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention to fix a date when this question will come up again?


Robert Laird Borden: We have not had an opportunity yet of fixing a date. I shall take the matter up in due course.


Jacques Bureau: Will a date be fixed?


Robert Laird Borden: I expressed my intention at the time.
Motion .amended to read: " on and after Monday, the twenty-ninth of April."
Motion as amended agreed to.



THE WAR.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called for the resolution respecting Military Service Regulations:
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very important motion, and I would1 expect that, as is usual, a day would be fixed to discuss it. I understand that my hon. friend wishes to proceed now, hut I did not expect the resolution to come up to-day, and I ask if it would be possible to have it postponed until to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: The matter is urgent, but in view of the fact that my right hon. friend has had. but little more than twenty-four hours' notice of it, I do not think his request is unreasonable, and I grant it at once. But I do so in the hope that we may be able to conclude the debate to-morrow if possible.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: What is the motion?


Robert Laird Borden: It is the resolution with regard to military service.


Samuel Hughes: What about the preceding motion regarding the censorship of the official debates?


Robert Laird Borden: It stands.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I can say to my right hon. friend that, on our side of the House the debate will close to-morrow.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION AOT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. C-rothers, Bill No. 48, to amend1 The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1906, w.as read a third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 13, to amend the Salaries Act and the provisions for preserving the Independence of Parliament.
Robert Laird Borden: When subsection 3 of section 1 was under consideration, the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) was good enough to call my attention to what is apparently an oversight in section
3.	The point was that the section as drafted would permit the member filling either of these positions to take office without going back to his constituents. Clearly that was not the intention, and while I am not quite sure that the Act would bear that interpretation, nevertheless my thanks are due to the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention, and I agree at once that the section should be so amended as to be perfectly clear. I have submitted to the member for Kamouraska the amendments which I propose, and they are:
That subsection 3 of section 1 toe amended by striking out the words "accepting or" in the 26th line and substituting the word "now."
The section would then read, in the 25th and 26th lines, "any person now holding any of the said offices."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
I move that the Bill be further amended by adding the following section as section 2 thereof:	-
Nothing in the Dominion Elections Act or in the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 19l>6, chapters 6 and 10 respectively, er in any other statute or law, shall render ineligible any person hereafter accepting and holding any of the said1 offices as Secretary of State for Ebctemal Affairs.
Minister of Immigration and Colonization, Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment and Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, as a member of the House of Commons, or shall disqualify him for sitting or voting therein if he is elected while he holds such office and is not otherwise disqualified.
Amendment agreed to.
I move also that section 2 of the Bill as introduced be section 3.
Amendment agreed to, and section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again In- committee on Bill No. 38, for granting to His Majesty aid for military and naval defence, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.	*
On Section 1.
Jacques Bureau: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia when we were last in committee, some members made inquiries about the detailed expenditure which it was understood, should be contained in the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report. We were informed that this report was being printed and that it would be available within a short time. Some hon. gentlemen on both sides are asking when they may expect this report, so that they may examine the details of the expenditures and in that way be in a position to put intelligent questions to the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: I am under the impression that the details of the expenditures, so far as they are available in a convenient form, are to be found in the Report of the Militia Council, which is before the House, and which has been printed for distribution.


Mr. MURPHY:: My right hon. friend was not in the House when the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) was conducting some stage of the resolution. It was pointed out then in connection with expenditures that it was desirable that details of the amounts paid for publicity and advertising, the moneys which were taken out of the War Fund, should be given. The Acting Minister of Finance undertook to bring down statements of such expenditures under those items as are not contained in the published volume to which the Prime Minister has just referred, and which, as he says, has been distributed. '


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that has been distributed, and it contains details in a general way.


Charles Murphy: But the Acting Minister of Finance undertook to bring down additional details which are not contained in that volume.


Robert Laird Borden: I have, with regard to various departments, some details with which I did not think it worth while to trouble the House. I could give those if that would be of any advantage. I think I already gave the details with regard to one department.


Jacques Bureau: Either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Militia-I do not exactly know which-ftiade a statement of the various amounts which would be appropriated to each department for war purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I have some particulars of the expenditures in the various departments.


Jacques Bureau: I saw a statement of the expenditures in one of the departments, either the Department of Immigration or the Department of the Interior. The amount was small, and the statement just gave a list of names with the amounts paid to each individual. No further information than that was given. All that we knew was that a certain person had received a certain sum of money. That money might have been spent for war purposes, but we do not know whether it was or not. We should like to have that information. We desire to know how the Department of Immigration or the Department of the Interior is being connected with war service.


Samuel Hughes: When the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn) was speaking on this subject some few days ago, I had not the honour of being present while he was taking up the -question of the disbandonment of the 5th Division. In the year 1916, in order to get the Canadian forces properly organized with a view to meeting conditions that we expected to-arise in the future, and that have since materialized, I drew up a memorandum recommending to General Sir Douglas Haig, General Sir William Robertson and Mr. Lloyd George-and I sent a copy of it to the Prime Minister of Canada-that Canada, to have a perfect force, should have two army corps each consisting of three divisions. The usual British army corps is made up of two divisions, each division being made up of four brigades, with odd battalions for pioneer and other purposes, and from time to time various additions to that have been made in the way of machine gun sections- and so forth. Each brigade is made up^of four battalions, each numbering 1,000 men. The British force had not at that time, as the Minister of Militia very properly stated, maintained any fixed standard, but two divisions constituted an army corps. Following that rule, Canada, from the moment we had four divisions organized, should have had two army corps in the field. I submitted my plan and I discussed it with Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Robertson and all the leading officers. My idea was that we would hold, with six div-

isions or two army corps, no more trenches than we did with one army corps or four divisions. Our frontage would be exactly the same, and consequently our losses would be neither more nor less than they are now. In order, however, that the men might get- proper rest, my scheme was that we should have one division in the front trenches, one division in support and one division in reserve, resting. I made plans for six divisions, constituting two army corps. My plan met with the approval of Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Robertson, Mr. Lloyd George and every officer in Europe whom I consulted and whose opinion was worth anything. In fact, my scheme met with so much approval that six or seven or eight months afterwards the German army was remodelled on the identical system that I had the honour of devising beforehand. Later on, the British army, always conservative and slow in the way of taking up anything new, adopted a similar principle, and to-day the principle generally adopted in the British army is to have three divisions constituting an army corps. I shall not enter into the details of the composition of the army corps, but the standard which I had set was not lived up to. I had also planned that in addition to the men in the three divisions in each corps each battalion should have men in rest, and that at Havre we should have a camp prepared for reinforcements which we could send hither and thither as the need might become urgent. I merely point this out to show to the House and the country that the statements made here that the British' army has not adopted the principle of three divisions to a corps and that the German army has not adopted it, are not in accordance with the facts. I do not hold any body here responsible for that because the statements come from the other side. I devised my scheme early in 1916, and the boys would have been much better off if it had been adopted. It would not have taken one man more than the present system because the area held by our forces would not have been any greater. If my scheme had been carried out, we would not have had some of the massacres that we have had at the front. I do not think anybody overseas in the Canadian service considered the matter sufficiently to be able to give an intelligent opinion as to what was really needed, or we certainly should have had two army corps instead of one.


Jacques Bureau: Would that imply a reorganization of the present system?


Samuel Hughes: There are now four divisions. In 1916 I had four divisions in the field and two additional divisions, in all six, all ready to form into two army corps. The scheme was held up on my retirement, but I am in a position to say without fear of contradiction that with the exception of the first division, which was the best, shooting division in the world, the fifth division was the best trained in the world. Upwards of six to eight hundred men in every battalion had received sufficient training to handle a machine gun section, and about eight hundred out of every thousand men were instructors. There were plenty of men to form another division. If that had been done we would have had two corps instead of one, and at the same, time we would have had no more frontage to look after-no more men exposed to fire than now-but there would always have been one division in each corps in rest billets. Let me again emphasize that 1 submitted this proposal to Sir Douglas Haig and the British War Office and received their approval. The Germans have adopted the same system; it is only common sense to have one division in attack, one in support, and one in rest all the time. I had also plans for having a couple of hundred men in each battalion right at hand to fill up gaps, and then there was the training camp at Havre. All these plans have since been carried out in detail with the exception of forming the two corps. The British are also adopting the system of having three divisions to a corps. I want this to be made clear. The statement furnished by the Minister of Militia and Defence is not in accordance with the facts, so far as the British army is concerned, because they have already adopted the policy of three divisions to a corps.


Charles Murphy: The discussion to which I drew the attention of the Prime Minister a few minutes ago took place on the afternoon of Friday the 12th of April, in connection with the explanations given by the Acting Minister of Finance of the expenses connected with the Victory Loan. Referring to a request made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition the Acting Minister of Finance said:
As he evidently desires that this information be submitted prior to the introduction of the War Appropriation Bill, I ask the leave of the House to make a statement which will give him the information he desires.
Arising out of the explanation given, some discussion of details took place, which are reported on page 711 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Pedlow:	Do the items of $16,3,000 and
$207,000 cover the entire cost of the pulhlicity

campaign? On what basis was that allotment negotiated? Was the price paid' for that publicity at the ordinary commercial rate charged for the space used, or was it on a different basis from that usually negotiated in an ordinary commercial transaction?
I need not read the rest except that towards the end I asked this question:
Mr. Murphy:. Will the details the Minister promised to give the house include the names of the firms and papers which received advertisements and the amounts paid?
Mr. A. K. Maclean:	If that is desired.
Mr. Murphy:	It is highly desirable to know
the amount paid to each newspaper.


Robert Laird Borden: You wanted the
names of the newspapers?


Charles Murphy: As I understand it, the Acting Minister of Finance mentioned two amounts-$163,000 and $207,000-and I think he conveyed the impression that they were given to some agents. We wanted the amounts in detail.


Robert Laird Borden: I will speak to him about it. In the meantime is there any other information wanted in regard to any other departments?


Mr. VIEN:: When this Bill was under
discussion some time ago information was obtained from the Government as to the authority of the Overseas Minister of Militia in connection with the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I understand there is a Militia Council in England, acting in an advisory capacity to the overseas minister. Has this council and the Overseas Minister of Militia full authority to appoint officers in the Canadian Expeditionary Force? If not, who has control of the appointments and promotions, and who gives commanders to the various brigades and divisions, even to the army corps? Does the Overseas Minister of Mili-.tia report to the Government by despatch or otherwise as to how our troops were ordered into action, and how they eame out of action? Is the Canadian expeditionary force entirely under his control, and what is its relationship to the War Office? This is a most important matter, be-
4 p.m. cause if Canada is- a nation, as we have often pretended, when we have organized an army of 500,000 men it seems to me we should be proud enough of ourselves as a nation to direct these matters ourselves and to have full reports sent to the Government as to the movements and organization of our army. I quite agree that so far as the higher command is concerned unity of action is essential, and that the troops should be under the supreme command of General Foeh. On
the other hand, I do not think Canada should abdicate her power; she should retain the right to direct and control the organization of the army. What is the power of the Overseas Minister of Militia and of his advisory council as to the appointment of officers, and what information is received from the commanders overseas as to the movements of our troops?


Robert Laird Borden: So far as our position as a nation is concerned, of course the military direction of the Canadian f(frees at the front under the commander of the British forces, and. in common with the British and American forces our troops are under the supreme direction of General Foch. It would be entirely undesirable for us in Ottawa to interfere with military appointments at the front. These appointments are made on the recommendations of the military commanders at the front. The Minister of Overseas Service would naturally have these matters placed before him, but he would be wise enough, I hope, not to attempt to interfere on his own initiative, because he could not possibly have the same knowledge of the fitness of the men recommended as those who are at the front and who know what the service of each man has been, what his qualifications are, and his suitability generally for any position to which he might be appointed. It has already been explained to the House that the general policy at the front is to give promotion from the ranks to non-commissioned officers, and from noncommissioned officers to commissioned officers, and so on. The Government. of this country has the same voice in respect to these matters that the Imperial Government has in respect to its own matters of a similar nature. '


Samuel Hughes: If the Prime Minister had used the phrase " military direction of its forces " at the front, his statement would have been fairly accurate.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what 1 was alluding to.


Samuel Hughes: So far as the appointment of junior officers is concerned, no one interferes with them; I do not suppose any minister would interfere with the recommendations made in the case of these men. But so far as the senior officers are concerned commanding battalions, divisions, brigades or a corps, I certainly feel there is a very great need of supervision of appointments. Let me give an instance of how these appointments have been made.


Robert Laird Borden: I have never heard of any society or clerical influence in regard to senior appointments. I think that General Currie's proposals in regard to senior appointments have usually been accepted here.


Samuel Hughes: That is all right; but they should be carefully reviewed.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, we would be venturing upon very dangerous ground if we should undertake to overrule the commander of the Canadian army 'corps in regard to matters of that kind. There was only one question that I found it necessary to take up with the British authorities when I was in England a year ago, and I took it up with Sir Douglas Haig, with the Secretary of State for War, Lord Derby, and with Mr. Lloyd George himself. I came to the conclusion while I was over there, after conferences with General Currie and General Turner, that the divisional and corps staffs did not have in their personnel a sufficient proportion of Canadians.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: We had men who, in the course of a year and a half or two years experience, had obtained or could have obtained the training which would qualify them for important staff positions. More than that, we had men who, while they were not perhaps qualified to take the higher positions on the staff, might very well have been appointed to junior positions on the divisional staff or corps staff, and in that way might have fitted them-

selves 'for taking higher staff positions. The representations which I made to Sir Douglas Haig, the Secretary of State for War, and the Prime Minister, had effect, as I was informed subsequently, and I believe that in consequence Canadians are now represented much more fully than formerly upon the divisional and corps staffs.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Mr. NICKLE:: In regard to the Canadian force, a question which I desire to ask the Minister of Militia and Defence from curiosity, was stimulated by an article that appeared in the press some little time ago as coming from Ottawa. The article appeared at the time certain representatives of the "Originals," as they were called, the First Contingent, return to Canada. The question under discussion in the article was as to whether or not the power was vested in the Canadian Government to give these men, who had been granted a furlough, a further furlough in Canada, if that was desired. The despatch from Ottawa read:
The Government is not likely to vary the conditions under which furlough was secured for men of the First Division. Resolutions, and also letters from individuals, are being sent here inquiring that as these brave men have done their bit and stood the brunt of very hard service for over three years, they should be allowed to remain at home.
It is conceded that in many cases, sending them back involves real hardship, but when the announcement was made that they were coming it was accompanied' by a warning that they would have to return to service.
It was stated that this was a specific agreement with the British authorities, on the strength of which the respite was secured. If it is broken, then the department says it will be a case of good-bye to leaves of absence for other contingents. A hundred men who had their furlough have already gone back.
An exception is likely to be made in the case of men who are physically unfit. In such cases, the weeding out will probably be done in Canada, rather than on the return to England.
It is the agreement with the British authorities stipulating that the men were to return to service that now is particularly cited as a reason why the repeated applications for discharge cannot be granted.
That despatch would seem to lead one to the conclusion that the Government admitted that they had no authority to withdraw from Europe to Canada any men of the Canadian contingent without the consent of the British Government. II do not want to take a too narrow or academic view of this question but it would seem to suggest the question as to what the position of Canada in this war is. I always had the idea that in this war we occupied a different position from that which Canada has
occupied in any other war. In the South African war we allowed-our men to go but the British Government paid the bill and, they paying the bill, the contractual relation between the soldier and the British Government probably gave them the right to insist upon the retention of any man. But in this war, we are paying the bill. We are paying not only the wages of the soldier but we are paying for his maintenance and equipment in the field. True all the equipment is not being supplied directly from Canada. Some equipment is being supplied by Britain on our account, but the disbursement is being charged against us.
Now to put it briefly, and perhaps epi-grammatically, the point I want to insist on ie this:	that we are there as allies
and not as vassals. I think the Canadian Government should make it perfectly clear to the Canadian people that our men in Europe are under our control, not in relation to matters of promotion, because I quite agree with what the Prime Minister says that it would be ridiculous from three thousand miles away for us to endeavour to determine.who should have promotion, but surely our men are under our control to this extent-that if there should be a disaster, or something should occur that the Canadian Government thought occurred from mismanagement abroad, we, as a Canadian Parliament, would have the right to ask the Canadian Government for an explanation, and the Government would 'be obliged to lay that explanation on the Table of this House.
Sir StAiM HUGHES: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: And I resent a little the position that apparently has been taken, if the memorandum which I have just read is correct, because it seems to imply that we have no fullness of control over the* Canadian army. That I think the Government should insist upon, and I believe the Canadian people will support them in that insistence.
Major-General MEWBURN: In reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston regarding the furlough granted to some men of the First Canadian Contingent, I might say that the matter was taken up last summer to see if some of the men could be brought back. Again last fall, after Sir Edward Kemp went to England, there was some correspondence on the subject. Negotiations went on for some time, and we finally, after a great deal of effort, arranged to get the married men of the

First Contingent, who had families in Canada, three .months furlough in this country. The Australian and New Zealand Governments endeavoured to make the same arrangement, but were not successful. These men were given three months furlough to Canada on the understanding, as any soldier who is granted a furlough knows, that it is his duty as a soldier to return when that furlough expires.


Samuel Hughes: With whom was that arrangement made?
Major-General MEWBURN: The arrangement was made, starting with the Overseas Minister of Militia in London, England. It was taken up by the corps commander in France, and everybody knows that that officer is the supreme authority in the field over the men under him. General Currie took the matter into consideration, and it became a question whether he could afford to allow all these men to leave the front in view of the difficulty of replacing them by experienced soldiers. The idea was that when the first soldiers who had been granted furlough returned, additional men would be given the privilege; it was simply a matter of keeping faith with the men that were left at the front in the hope that it would be possible for them to enjoy a simitar furlough. The War Office had nothing whatever to do with the matter,; it was a question, for the corps commander of the whole British force, of which the Canadian corps is an integral part, to deal with. Well, the condition was as I have described; it was a case to be dealt with by Sir Douglas Haig, who was Commander in Chief of the British forces in France, including not only the British army but the military forces from the Overseas Dominions-what we look upon as the British army. The forces are entirely under Field Marshal Haig's control; he has the right to say whether a man can be allowed to go on furlough, or be given any other privilege, and his power is absolute.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the army commander over the Canadians to-day?
Major-General MEWBURN: Do you mean since General Byng left? Our men are directly under General Currie.


Samuel Hughes: General Currie is only the corps commander, who is- the army commander?
Major-General MEWBURN: I could net state offhand. However, to continue, these men did get leave, and it has been a very big problem to know exactly what to do in the matter. My hon. friend from
fMajor-General Mewburn.]
Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) knows of the [DOT] large number of men that were biought back from the front since 1914, -officers on leave, and men on furlough [DOT] whose leave or furlough was extended from time to time, and of others who were permitted to remain in Canada. In this particular instance it is a very great hardship when these men come out here, these married men, to force them to go ibaek at the expiration of their furlough, but I am glad to say there have been very few cases of men refusing to go back. When these men return to England before their furlough has expired, under our new organization, they are taken into one of the depot battalions in the district to which they go until the expiration of their furlough. A large number of the men of the First Contingent have returned to England before their furlough was up. In fact one of our good soldiers from the Emerald Isle, who went back before his furlough was up, when asked why he went back before he had to go, said he had been in a good many fights in which there was always a policeman to stop him, but in this case there was no policeman, and he desired to get back before the fighting was over. No doubt this is the view of a good many of our men. The Government, of course, has power to say whether these men of the First Contingent shall be discharged, or whether they shall remain and continue on military duty in Canada. We can take that action if we so desire. It is not a question of any action by the War Office, -who have nothing to do with it; it is a matter of keeping faith with the men still at the front, and of having those who received a furlough go back when that furlough expires.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE:: How many men are there altogether.
Major-General MEWBURN:	Altogether
I think about nine hundred, a large number have already gone back.
Mr. I. E. PEiDLOW (South Renfrew): In view of the statement of the Minister of Militia that the General in command of the forces in the field has supreme authority over our men and their movement, this would be an opportune time to call attention. to several incidents which occurred during the recent general election, when a number of colonels and lieutenant-colonels were apparently ordered to come to Canada to conduct political contests. My own. opponent in 'South Renfrew was a lieutenant-colonel in the construction battalion. I heard that offioer himself state

i
on the platform on several occasions that he was ordered home from France, or ordered by cable to report from France in London, and that when he arrived in London he was ordered to return to Canada to enter the contest in South Renfrew. I would like to know from the Minister of Militia upon whose authority Lieutenant Colonel Martin returned from France to London, and by whose authority that officer returned from London to Canada to enter the political contest in South Renfrew? I understand that this is only one case in a hundred of the kind. I understand that many colonels were ordered back from France in order to enter the contest during the last election, in various constituencies throughout the Dominion. Was that in the interest of the army in France? Was it by authority of the Minister of Militia that these colonels were ordered home to enter political contests, or was it by the permission of the general in supreme command of the British army in France?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is
pretty well understood both in this country and in Great Britain that where a man who is serving in the army is called upon to become a candidate in a constituency, he is granted leave of absence for the purpose

	.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I know of no reason why men who have served their country at the front should not be elected to this Parliament.	*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: If there is any good reason why they should not become candidates after they have performed a patriotic duty to their country perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pedlow) will tell us what it is. I think it was entirely proper that men, whether on one side of politics or the other, who might be desired as candidates in any constituency in Canada, and who were serving their country at the front, should be given the opportunity. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to take full responsibility for Colonel Martin, or for any one else, who has been brought back to this country for that purpose.
Sir 'SAM HUGHES:	Colonel Martin
was not ordered back.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I should think he would get leave of absence.


Mr. PEDLOW:: The point I have raised has been missed, I think.


Samuel Hughes: That is the point.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The question I asked was who was responsible for ordering Colonel Martin back from the front, and by whose authority did he return from the front? Was it at his own personal request that he returned, or was it at the request of some one in Canada? My information is that Colonel Martin knew nothing whatever about why he was being called from France until he got to London. I heard him say it himself, that he was ordered from France to London, and until he reached London he did not know why he was wanted there. When he reached London he was ordered back to Canada to enter into the political contest. Now, I have no fault to find with military men entering politics in this country. I think they have every right to do so. But I do want to know by whose authority these men were ordered back from France-


Charles Murphy: When they did not have the disposition to enter the contest themselves.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Col. Martin made the statement on every platform' in the campaign that he knew nothing whatever as to the reason for which he was ordered from France to London until he reached London.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be very much surprised to learn that any coercion was exercised upon him in London for the purpose of forcing him to go to Canada to take part in the election. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt whatever but that leave of absence was. asked for in the ordinary way, and he obtained it, just as any other man would under the same circumstances.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But the right hon. gentleman will make it more clear, if he will state distinctly by whose authority Col. Martin was ordered home. I know myself from his own lips. In my own hearing at a political gathering Colonel Martin stated distinctly that he was ordered from France to report in London. I have a letter from him in my own possession indicating that he knew nothing whatever about his being required to enter the contest here. As a matter of fact, the letter I have from Col. Martin is dated two weeks after his election address was dated and inserted in the papers of this country. My point is this: that Col. Martin was brought back regardless of his wishes or desires in the case. Now, I want to know from those having charge of the Military Service of

the country, by whose authority were these colonels-II. only mention Col. Martin as an instance; there were others-brought home to enter the political contest? The same question will apply to a number of others.
Major-General MEWBURN: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I will state, as Minister of Militia and Defence, that I gave no order to bring Colonel Martin back. I issued no order, or made no request, directly or indirectly, asking any officer to return from the front or from England. I had no knowledge of it. There was no order issued from my department ordering any person back from the front.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to ask the minister by whose authority do these men move?	'	.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: The spirit moves
them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Well, " spirits " have
been moved from the province of Ontario by Order in Council, so we cannot deal with them any more in this section of Canada. But I would like to know by whose authority 'Colonel Martin came back. He protests he had nothing to do with it himself. I believe Colonel Martin when he makes the statement that he did not enter the contest of .his own volition. As a matter of fact, his entry into tlie contest was annuonced two weeks before he knew it himself.
iMr. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, the matter is quite clear-:-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Of course.
Mr. CU'RRIE:	Possibly Colonel Martin
would have had better success in the riding if he had remained abroad. The facts are these: the duty that a man hae to perform is the dfity his. senior officer asks him to perform. From the time of Cromwell, no military authority has the right to prevent any man from attending to his duties as a candidate for Parliament, or as a member of Parliament. That is a matter of privilege. And, no doubt, as soon as Col. Martin was nominated for Parliament, it would naturally, following the ancient British custom, be the duty of his commanding officer, the corps commander, to notify him and tell him that he had to go home, and to order him home. Of course, if he wished to be relieved from that order, he could do so. But he had a perfect right to come here, and no military authority could stop hirn,oncehebecame a candidate. I stand up for the privileges of the members of this

House. I s-ay there are members on the other side of the House who came home to attend to their parliamentary duties, and to run in the elections. There is nothing wrong about that. A man's supreme duty, over and above his duty in the war, is his duty to be here to see that this Parliament carries on the war, to see that it does its, duty to the war. And if Colonel Martin happened to be so unfortunate as to run against the hon. member, and be defeated, I am sorry for him, and also that the people of South Renfrew- did not linow enough' to send a soldier from the trenches to represent them here. -


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In reply to the hon. member from Simcoe, I beg to inform him and the House that we are not dealing with ancient history. Thank Heaven, men , like Cromwell have nothing to do w-ith the management of the military or governmental affairs of the present day. The member for Simcoe made the statement that, if a military man, doing his duty on the field of battle, had been nominated for a constituency in this country, he has a perfect right to' return and enter the contest if he so chooses. I heartily agree with that statement; I have no fault to find w-ith a statement of that kind. But, in this case, the facts are altogether different, as the. hon. member for Simcoe will understand, if he will listen to me intelligently. Colonel Alar-tin was not nominated for the constituency of South Renfrew until three minutes before the closing of the hour for receiving nominations. Nor did Colonel Martin receive the endorsation of the Unionist convention, when that convention was regularly called for the purpose of selecting a candidate to contest the riding. I can assure the hon. member for Simcoe that the people of South Renfrew have no regrets to offer to themselves or to this country for the selection they have made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I can assure the hon. member for Simcoe that neither he nor any other member in this House, especially to the right of the Chairman, need shed crocodile tears over the result. '


Charles Murphy: Perhaps the hon. member will say who did receive the Unionist nomination and what became of him.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If the House will bear with me, I will, perhaps, enlighten hon. gentlemen on the subject of the circumstances surrounding the nomination in South Renfrew.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I am quite willing -that the hon. member should give the facts connected with the candidature of this military officer in the election of South Renfrew. But. anything connected with the civilian candidates who took part in the election I do not think would he quite in order.


Charles Murphy: He is not going to do that; he is going to tell why Colonel Martin did not take part.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not relevant to a discussion of the War Vote.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In view of what has been said on the subject, it is necessary that I should go into the history of that nomination, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall cover the ground as briefly aid as concisely as possible. At the regular convention called for the purpose of selecting a candidate


Robert Laird Borden: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion is not relevant to the consideration of a vote for $500,000,000 to carry on this war.


Wilfrid Laurier: The subject was int|oduced by the member for North Simcoe ~(Mr. Currie).


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that the thing be settled by the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) delivering some of the speches he made on the hustings.


Charles Murphy: I delivered only one. Sir SAM HUGHES: Well, give us that.


Mr. MANION:: Generally speaking, when a man serving at the front goes back to England, on political business or otherwise, he does so not under orders from this side, but after making application to his commanding officer for leave. In the case of Colonel Martin, the officer to whom such application should toe made would toe the Brigadier-General, who would put the matter before the divisional commander or higher officer. I understood from Colonel Martin's own lips that he was at the front a year. I assume that he asked to get leave to go to England. I do not think that the militia on this side should he held responsible for an officer's return in a case of this kind, in view of the fact that application has to he made to the superior officer on the other side for leave.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Colonel Martin did not ask to be returned from the front in order to enter the contest; he was ordered-that
is his statement,-to. report in London, and when he reached London he was ordered to Canada. I think this committee has a right to know who issued these orders.
iMr. EDWARDS: Was he brought over in, bonds?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: His bonds were that he should enter the contest in South Renfrew, and that bond was doubtless negotiated before he left for the front. The member for Fort William (Mr Manion) has said that Colonel Martin was at the front twelve months. I know, as a matter of fact, that not more than four months elapsed from the time he left Canada until he returned.


John Allister Currie: That is more than you
were.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am not of age. I assure the hon. member that I have done as much for the cause of Empire and of our Allies in the present war as toe has done. I take second place to too man within the four walls of this building in that regard. I am not at the front, because the military regulations prevent my being there. I have, done as much as any man in this building in proportion to my ability, and 'a good deal more, both in money and >
in work, than most members of the House.


Robert James Manion: I did not state that Colonel Martin was at the front a year; I said that he himself told me he was at the front a year.


Mr. H. J. MACKIE:: I am posted on the Colonel Martin incident; I have talked it over with him fully and very often. Certain mails and cablegrams were despatched to a party in London, addressed to Colonel Martin.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: By whom were those
cablegrams sent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
'The CHAIRMAN: The member for North Renfrew (IMr. Mackie) has the floor.
Mr. H J. MACKIE:	To save time I
may say that cablegrams were sent to London, .and a friend of Colonel Martin's in London cabled him in France asking him to obtain leave and to go to London, which he did. He was not by any means, ordered.
Sir 'SAM HUGHES: The Minister of Militia has more power than he thinks with relation to the Canadian troops. Under section 177 of the Army Act, soldiers in the Canadian service who are paid by the Dominion of Canada, including those in

the fighting line-excepting the commander in chief in the field-are under the control of the Canadian Government.
Major-General MIBWBURN: I was referring only to the men of the first contingent who were here on leave. The question was, whether we had power to discharge them here, or permit them to remain on this side.
Mr. COCKSHUTT We are voting a large sum of money for war purposes. I do not know where it is coming from but I assume it will be raised by loans. What I am especially interested in, however, is how this money is to be paid out. I represent a constituency that has sent a good many men to the front, and a great many cases of deferred payments have been brought to my attention. I assume that every member of the House has had the same experience. The matter of assigned pay and separation allowance may seem to be one of detail as compared with the large question of the management of our armies, but it is very important that the wives and mothers of the boys who have gone overseas should receive these payments promptly. There would appear to be too much delay in the distribution of assigned pay and separation allowance. I am not holding the minister responsible; he no doubt is making the best of a difficult situation. But I know of many cases in which payments have been delayed three, four, even six months, and I do think that an effort should be made to distribute this money more promptly. The assurance is always given: " the Government of Canada owes you this money, so you will be sure to get it." But that does not pay grocery bills or other liabilities that may accumulate. Moreover, that spirit is altogether too evident in matters dealt with by departments of the Government generally. My idea is that payments made by the Government should be just as promptly attended to as are collections for Government purposes. If the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments demand cash on the spot for goods received, the Government should exercise the same principle in making payments; they should discharge their obligation juet as promptly as the individual is expected to discharge his to the Government. There is a tendency in many of the departments-the Militia is not the only offender in- this respect-to delay payments unduly, and many private individuals suffer from time to time as a result. I speak on behalf of the returned soldiers, men ' 
who are wounded, men who are depending upon their military pay, when I urge that the payments to which I have referred be expedited to the greatest possible extent; that they be distributed whenever they fall <fue. I have no doubt the minister can assure me that improvement will be effected in the near future, as improvement is being made even now to a certain extent.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I not only
say it will be improved, (but I can honestly say that it has been improved 90 per cent during the last two or three months. I made a statement in the House about a week ago with regard to the assigned pay and separation allowance branch, which pays out about $5,000,000 a month in separation allowance and assigned pay. I do not take credit for the improvement that has been effected; I want to give credit where credit is due. There has been a great deal of difficulty in that- branch; many -mistakes were made

there is no use denying it. But I can also say that during the last two or three months there have been very few complaints that the women have not received their cheques promptly.
The officer whom I have in charge there, Major Stiff, at my earnest solicitation, took that position temporarily, so that^he might [DOT]re-organize the department. He-is anxious to get back to his own business. He has been overseas. He is a man of the highest standard in accounting and in business generally. He has surrounded himself with efficient help, and if any hon. gentleman in this House could spare ten or fifteen minutes, or even half an hour, to go through the offices of the separation allowance and assigned pay branch with Major Stiff, it would be an object lesson to him to see what has been and is being accomplished and the enormous quantity of work that is being done. I would appreciate it if any hon. gentleman would take the trouble to go through those offices, because hon. gentlemen receive letters from many of their constituents who have soldier relatives overseas, and we welcome any information in regard to delays. We are there for the purpose of straightening out any complaints. That branch has a big responsibility, as have many others, and I believe if any hon. gentleman would go through it with Major Stiff, he would get an eye opener.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Yesterday, I had occasion to go down to the separation allowance and assigned pay office on behalf of a lady who lives in-the northern part of my constituency and who had not received

her separation allowance cheque for over two months. The probable reason for the delay in her case is that when a soldier*, goes overseas, separation allowance cheques are paid from the Ottawa office, and when the soldier returns from overseas the cheques are paid from the military district in which he is located. I have on two or three occasions visited the separation allowance and assigned pay office, and I have been very greatly impressed, not only with the enormous quantity of work which is being carried on there, but with the earnestness and efficiency evidenced. Yesterday morning, when I called at the office,
I failed to obtain an interview With Major Stiff. His assistant was not in at the time, but a young lady stepped up to the counter. I told her what I wanted, showing her the letter I had received from this person in my constituency, and she took hold of the matter in a very businesslike way. She was a very bright and intelligent young lady. In the afternoon I received a communication from the office showing that they had taken vigorous steps to have the matter rectified.
In regard to this vast amount of money and how it is to be expended, I want to mention just one case as an illustration of the way in which I think money for military purposes is not being properly expended, or is, in a sense, being misappropriated. In the Department of Justice there is an official who acts as purchasing agent for the penitentiaries, and who has been receiving for that work a salary of $3,300 a year. From all I can learn, I believe he is quite an efficient man. I understand, however, that in addition to acting as purchasing agent- for the penitentiaries, he was required to act as purchasing agent for the internment camps.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where is that officer?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know where he is-somewhere in Canada, I presume. His name is Dillon, and he is purchasing agent for 'the penitentiaries. I presume his head office is in the city of Ottawa; I do not know the street number. The hon. member can get the information by applying to headquarters. I do not know that the work of purchasing supplies for the internment campis added very materially to his other work, but if it did, it seems to me the proper way to deal with the matter would be for the Government to inform the House, and if this gentleman is not receiving as large a salary as he should receive, then his salafy should be increased. Instead of that course being pursued, the very roundabout method was adopted of saying: This can be very easily fixed; we want to increase your salary; we shall simply make you a captain and give you a captain's pay. His salary was boosted from $3,300 to over $5,000 by the simple expedient of making him a captain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Captain of what?


William Cameron Edwards: Captain of the Lord knows what, I do not know what.


Mr. POWER:: He must be the only captain who draws as much pay as that. I can assure my hon. friend a captain's pay is not as large as that.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not eighteen hundred and some odd dollars?


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps he is an honorary captain.


William Cameron Edwards: If he holds the rank of honorary captain, one thing is quite certain, that if my hon. friend had been Minister of Militia at the time, Mr. Dillon would not have been given that rank; he would have been made an honorary colonel. My hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) was in the habit of making one, batch of honorary colonels before breakfast and if his food agreed with him, another batch after breakfast.


Samuel Hughes: I was very particular in the matter of selecting men for the rank of honorary colonel.


William Cameron Edwards: I cannot agree with
my hon. friend in that respect. There are many military matters in which I do not think my hon. friend has been particular, and not only in regard to appointing honorary colonels but also some who were neither honorary nor honored. The ex-Minieter of Militia says that he has a high and lofty regard for a certain man wi^o holds the rank of colonel down in the province of Quebec. As to my hon. friend's regard for that colonel-well, the sky is the limit, it is so high. I refer to Colonel Lavergne, and the first article in Colonel Lavergne's political belief is that this country shall do absolutely nothing to help Britain in this or in .any other war. Nevertheless, he was one of the colonels who retained bis rank all the time my hon, friend (Sir Sam Hughes) held the office of Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: Might I rise to a question of privilege? Armand Lavergne was not a colonel all the time that I was

minister. He took his training, and then I made him a colonel. I did not make him an honorary colonel. I may say here again, that I have nothing to retract in regard to what I said about Colonel Lavergne. He has performed all the duties that have been assigned to hi n. He was ready to go voluntarily if certain conditions were .complied with. It is due to Colonel Lavergne that my hon. friend sits on the right side of the Speaker to-day.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend permit me a remark?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order
iMr. EDWARDS: The hon. member who is addressing the committee at the present moment does not owe his position in this House to Colonel Lavergne nor |to the efforts of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton.


Samuel Hughes: I said " on the right side."


William Cameron Edwards: I am not so much concerned as regards the opinion which the hon. member has of Colonel Lavergne, nor do I think the country will be very much concerned about that, because Colonel Lavergne is not the only one of doubtful character who has been championed in this House and out of it by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton. There have been men who have cut large swaths in the business life of this country and who have been anxious to make use of this war to line their pockets, and who have been championed by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton.


Samuel Hughes: Col. J. Wesley Allison-and I am just as proud of him as I
ever was and I am not going back on Lavergne.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend must
have some little conscience left that he catches on so readily to my allusion. However, he has a perfect right to be proud of anybody he likes. Col. J. Wesley Allison was at one time an honorary colonel, but I believe his rank was stripped from him for some reason or another. He was made an honorary colonel by my hon, friend, along with a great many others of like doubtful character and service to this country. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton may be proud of him, and proud to act as champion of Armand Lavergne, who says that his first article of political faith is that this country shall do absolutely nothing in the war. I wish him joy

of his views along that line. As regards Col. Lavergne's desire to get overseas, who * had a cable on him keeping him on this side of the water?	.
Some reference has been made by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) to interference in the handling of men overseas. I would ask those hon. gentlemen who are a little scared that this blessed autonomy of ours which so frequently crops up will be interfered with by something or other done over the water: what in Heaven's name has Great Britain ever done that we cannot trust her? When has she ever tried to put the shackles on this country, that some person is always getting up and saying we must keep the power in our own hands and not let the control be over there. Such a declaration always brings a round of applause from some hon. gentlemen, particularly from those on the other side of the House, who have never distinguished themselves by doing anything for Great Britain or Canada. That is the situation. What have the officers in this country connected with our militia ever done to make us think we could better rely on their judgment than on the judgment of the men who are handling the situation overseas? What has my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) ever done in the past that we should take his opinion on matters overseas, 5 p.m. in preference to the opinion of the men handling the situation over there? Where has he buried hie dead? Where is his private cemetery? If we had a man in Canada, including my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton, big enough in a military sense to go overseas and make his bigness felt, not only England but every one of the Allied nations would be only too glad to place him jn supreme command, and the men of England and the men of France would take their orders from him without any fear of losing their autonomy. I am sick and tired of this cheeseparing in regard to what they do over in England and at the front in regard to our Canadian troops. England and France appreciate every effort that has been made by this country in the war, and they . have no idea other than to be absolutely fair and just to the men who left our shores to help them in the fight. And it ill becomes us in this House to say anything which in the least savours of a reflection upon those across the water who (have-charge of the conduct of this war, and especially in connection with their treatment of our Canadian troops.


John Allister Currie: To revert to the subject
of the returned soldier, I know a number, in fact, virtually all, of the married men remaining of the First Division who are home on furlough; there are about 800 of them altogether. These men who have served in the trenches for over three years have been allowed to come back and see their wives and children, but I understand in a number of cases the ships they came over on were delayed in England on account of submarines to such an extent that some of the men have only had a week at home. I would appeal to the minister to extend the leave of all these men in this country by thirty days, and also to-give them a medical board before they go back, so that we shall be sure we are not sending cripples to the front. They should at least 'be allowed a full month at home with their wives and families. There are not so many of them that it wmuld cause any great difficulty. I know I am asking this in the face of a great battle in which our men may become engaged, but I understand a number of these returned men were in Irllets in England for a few days or weeks before they left. So I think I might ask the minister to soften his heart a little, and if he does, I .am sure the cause of the allies will not suffer, because every one of these men has his heart in the war and is anxious to go back. I think it is only fair they should be given the full leave they have been deprived of by the submarine menace.
Major - General MEWBURN Arrangements have already been made for giving these men a medical board before returning, and an effort has already been made to have extended the furlough of those who were delayed in coming across.


Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: The other evening I promised that when the militia estimates were under consideration I would make a statement as to the duties of the Director of Public Information and the work he is carrying on. As his salary will be paid out of the war appropriation, this is probably a suitable time to make the statement. The work of the Director of Public Information, on the limited scale applicable to Canada, is similar in character to that being carried on by the Bureau of Public Information in the United States, and to the Ministry of Information in Great Britain. As the hon. members of the House are aware, in all the countries at war there are departments that deal with dissemination of information relating to the war among their own people, as well as blanches of the service dealing with propaganda abroad, and the idea back of the creation of this directorship of public information in Canada was exactly the same.
If we are to sustain the spirit of the people; if through the long and trying years of this struggle we are to retain their continued interest and enthusiasm in supporting the war effort of the country, we must endeavour to supply them with the fullest possible information in connection with the conduct of the war. One of the primary objects in creating this branch of the public service was to supply still fuller information to the people of Canada in reference tc the progress of the war and Canada's participation in it. There has also been placed under the charge of the Director of Public Information the publication of the Canadian Daily Record for our troops overseas. This paper is edited and conducted by returned officers who have served at the front.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the head of this department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Nichols.


Samuel Hughes: Late of the Montreal Daily Mail?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. Capt. Wallace is in actual charge of the publication of the Daily Record.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not our hon. friend from West York?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, he is a newspaper
man who has served overseas and is now back in Canada. The information is cabled over and the Daily Record is published for the information of the men in the trenches. News which would interest the men at the front is being supplied every day. I am informed that in so far as the supplying of home nows is concerned., the Daily Record is recognized as being the best publication going to any of the troops overseas, The arrangements for the publication of the Daily Record and its supervision were placed under the direction of, the Director of Public Information in January or February of this year. I am sure the members of the House will all agree that it is a wise thing that the men overseas should be kept in touch with what is going on in Canada, that they should have the news from Canada and that the home ties should be maintained through such a publication.


Samuel Hughes: How many words
are sent daily?


Newton Wesley Rowell: From 1,000 to 1,500 words of the general news, of Canada are cabled daily.	.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Is this the Record
from which were omitted the names of certain soldiers who were candidates in the last election?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no knowledge of
that matter. The supervision of the Record came under the charge of the Director of Public Information in January or February of the present year, some time after the election, and 1 have no knowledge of conditions prior to that time. The paper is printed in London and is despatched to the soldiers overseas. I suppose most of the members have seen this paper; it is a small publication of four pagesr. The Director of Public Information ie also responsible for seeing that news which the Government receives in connection with the war and which can properly be made public reaches the press of the country.
Mr. ROSiS: I understand that this Record was published before January. Under whose charge was it published before that time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The news was being supplied by officers of the militia; I presume under the Militia Department. It was published in London, the information being sent from Canada. In addition, the Director of Public Information is responsible for seeing that news of important decisions of the Government, particularly relating to the war, reaches the public press. In the ordinary course, information as to the important acts of the Government, in the great majority of cases, is communicated direct to the press either by the Prime Minister or the ministers in Charge of the different departments. But, it is the duty of the Director of Public Information to keep in touch with the various departments and tp see that their important acts are communicated to the press. One of the difficulties of aJll ministers, and of departmental officers, is that there as such a pressure upon their time and attention, especially during a period of stress like this, that not sufficient attention is given to communicating to the public news of importance. The public is entitled to the fullest possible information as to what is being done by the Government, in order that it may be kept in touch with the situation. That is an important phase of the work which must be developed as time goes on.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are the advertisements which appear in the Record paid for?
flMr. Rowel 1. ]


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot say as to that. It is published in England. All we are responsible for here is sending over the news. .


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are you responsible for the advertisements published in it? For a period of about three weeks previous to the election, the Daily Record was plastered with advertisements asking the soldiers to vote against the friends of the Kaiser. Were these paid for, and, if so, by whom?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Record was not under the control of the Director of Public Information at that time, and I have no knowledge of the matters to which my hon. friend 'has referred.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Under whose control was it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was published in England.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Power) if he has, any objection to the advertisement to which he has referred?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have an objection to the manner in which the words were uised, and I have a grave1 objection to pointing out the people on this side of the House as being friends of the Kaiser. I have, as well, a particular objection to the members of the Government, who were candidates at that time, treating their opponents as such.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is there a complete file of that publication in the reading room of the House? If not, I think it would be wise to keep a complete file of the paper so that it would be available for reference, and so that we could check up the matters appearing an it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will make inquiries as to the point about which the hon. gentleman asks. I do not know whether there is a file or not. I have no doubt there is a file in the department of the publication since .it came under the charge of the Director of Public Information.
I propose now to speak of the propaganda wmk of the Director of Public Information. The members of the House would not expect me to go into matters of detail in connection with the question of propaganda outside our own country. Yet, I am sure, they will recognize that there are coadi-tions under which it might be desirable that Canada's war efforts, and what we are doing in this country, should be made known outside of Canada. We are one of the allied nations and it is important that

the facts in connection with our participation in the war should be kept before other peoples as well as our own. That is becoming increasingly important in connection with our relations with our neighbours to the south. This is a matter which comes under the charge of the Director of Public Information. He is in touch with the American Committee of Public Information and they are rendering help and assistance to each other. He is also in touch with the British 'Ministry of Information and arrangements have been made for co-operation between the British Ministry of Information and the Director of Public Information here. They are placing at our disposal much of the literature which has been published there insofar as we desire to use it in Canada. Many pamphlets, of very great value, dealing with certain war conditions in Europe have been placed at our disposal for use and distribution in Canada. That arrangement was made only recently.
There is another aspect of the work of the department to which I would like to draw attention and that is what is known 'as the War Lecture Bureau, or what might be described as oral propaganda. I am sure we realize the invaluable service which the press of Canada has rendered during this war in placing before the people of Canada the facts in connection with the war and in sustaining the spirit of the people during the whole course of the struggle.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it in recognition of the splendid services of the press of this country in stimulating recruiting that hundreds of dollars have been paid out to Le Devoir for Government advertising?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The advertisements that have been printed in the newspaper to which my hon. friend refers do not come under the cognizance of my department, and, therefore, I cannot give my hon. friend the information he desires.
I was going on to .say that we all recognize the value of the press, but nothing will fully take the place of the oral appeal, the living voice in appeal, to the people in connection with the war, and in communicating to them the facts bearing on the war. That has been one of the most important developments in the work of the Bureau of Public Information in the United States, and of the Ministry of Information in Great Britain. In both those countries they have organized volunteer speakers, who discuss the varying issues and phases of the war before the people in order that the whole
nation may, so far as is practicable, be kept in the most vital touch, not only with the war situation, but with the efforts of the nation itself in the prosecution of the war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the personnel of the Bureau?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It consists of a travelling secretary, who is organizing these voluntary groups or associations in the various cities and towns. The workers are all volunteers throughout the cities, towns and rural sections of Canada. There is also an official who assists in the office with the work of this bureau, as weE as with the press work.


Samuel Hughes: What are the names of the officers who assist in the work here?
I may as well confess that I am suspicious of the entire outfit.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot help my hon. friend's suspicions; I can only state the . facts.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to get their names.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Frank Yeigh, of Toronto, is the organizing secretary of the War Lecture Bureau throughout the country, and Mr. LeSueur is .associated with Mr. Nichols in the office. He assists not only in the work of the War Lecture Bureau, but also in the work for the press.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he a son of the former secretary of the Post Office Department, the late Mr. LeSueur?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know the position of Mr. LeSueur's father, but this gentleman was identified with Y.M.C.A. work before he entered upon his present duties.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think he is the son of the late Mr. LeSueur of the Post Office Department, who died a year or so ago, and who was a member of the Royal Society of Canada.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot say as to that, I would be very glad to give my hon. friend the information if I had it.
The procedure adopted in connection with the War Lecture Bureau is to distribute a weekly bulletin containing information and material for speakers. This information goes to the clergymen of all denominations throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It goes to public school inspectors, to school teachers, and to all volunteer speakers in connection with the War Lecture Bureau's work. I understand

that one hundred and fifty localities have been organized throughout Canada with speakers who undertake to give short talks, on the themes suggested for them, in moving picture shows,- theatres, Canadian clubs, and societies of all sorts; the object being to reach the people in this way with the living voice through pulpit, school, theatre and club.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask, is this work along the same lines as that of the committee of one hundred sanctimonious gentlemen organized in Ontario as a general committee, With branches in every county in the province? Is this work along the same lines, and is if to be utilized for political purposes?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, my hon. friend is quite in error. This bureau has nothing whatever to do with the committee to which he refers. Its work is just as I have explained. Perhaps I could not better define the work than by reading what President Falconer, of Toronto University, who is chairman of the advisory committee, has said. In a communication which I received from him in reference to the work, he states:	-
Since the beginning of December leaflets have been issued at frequent and fairly regular intervals dealing with themes which we thought would stimulate the mind of the people and give them useful information in regard1 to the war. These leaflets have gone to all the clergy of Canada, and to a large number of teaohers.
I have already stated that in some 150 localities (between the Atlantic and the Pacific, these local committees have been organized in the object of securing volunteer speakers who attend at the places which I have mentioned where they have the opportunity of addressing what they describe as really great audiences.
Sir SAM HLTGiHES: Can they get audiences to turn out to hear this sort of stuff?	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They do apparently,
surprised as the hon. gentleman may he, and apparently the audiences enjoy it; I have a great many letters to that effect. However, this is what president Falconer says:
The experience of these months has demonstrated that there is a wide field of usefulness for such work. We know that both the army at -the front and the Government at home depend to a great extent upon the moral quality of the country. That quality is undoubtedly good, but under the severe strain which we are suffering at present endurance may flag unless it is stimulated. Courage and patience are needed in these critical months. The people must be informed and stimulated by

telling them facts that will strengthen their resolution by keeping before them regularly the purposes of the war, by cheering them as to tlie" accounts of its progress, or in times of darkness by buoying them up with hope, and by setting before them the plans of the Government which will contribute to the winning of the war. The hearts of the people must be kept high. Of course the debt that is owed to the newspapers is enormous, but there is need also of the spoken utterance, of the direct appeal to the people supported and authorized by the Government. We know what President Wilson has done in the Unitedi States and that Britain has appointed a Director of Propaganda. To this there are two sides, the press and organized public address.
President Falconer, and other men of like outstanding 'position in Canada, are freely giving voluntarily of their time and' their ability to carry on this propaganda at home in order that the spirit of the -Canadian people may be sustained clear and strong through these days of stress and struggle.
In order that my hon. friend may have some idea of the weekly bulletins which are sent out, let one draw attention to the last number issued' in which the subject is headed, " A Lesson from the Napoleonic Wars." If any hon. gentleman wish to read this 'bulletin I shall be glad to have them furnished with copies. 1 venture to think they will not find anywhere a better summary of the critical situation which existed during the 'Napoleonic wars, and of the position which 'Great Britain had to face at that time, vastly more serious than that which she faces to-day*. A message of courage an'di cheer such as this bulletin contains must necessarily be very helpful at the present time, and will reach thousands of people throughout -Canada in a direct and effective way through the volunteer speakers of the War Lecture Bureau.
This particular article was prepared by one of the best kno.wn professors of history in Canada who is glad to give his time and ability to this work.
The work of this department commands the confidence and support of patriotic citizens all over the country, who are deeply interested in the success of Canada in the war and* in sustaining the spirit of the Canadian -people. My hon. friend wishes to know how it is appreciated by the clergy. All over Canada, the clergy of all denominations have expressed appreciation of these statements sent to them, giving them information in connection with the war and subjects bearing directly upon the war. I have here page after page of letters which have been received from clergymen all over Canada, expressing "their appreciation of these bulletins-. Among the thousands of letters. I have one from Rev. Charles E.

Coughlin, of Assumption College, Sandwich, Ontario, who wrote to the Bureau the following letter:
May I ,-State that I am firmly convinced of [the [necessity of prosecuting the war with undiminished vigour. This conviction is based not only on patriotic premises but also on the religious principles which I as a Catholic Priest approve. Whenever I have an opportunity to address my fellow citizens or-co-religionists, be assured that I shall endeavour to inspire them with the "Win-the-War" spirit.
We also have letters from men like Principal Dyde, of Robertson College, Edmonton, who says:
You address willing ears. X am willing to do all in my power in pulpit and platform and will place myself at the disposal of any committee or council which is, or may be formed. This is without reserve.
If my hon. friends are interested, I have pages of extracts from letters from the foremost clergymen of all denominations from the Atlantic to the Pacific, thanking the bureau for sending them these weekly publications which they say contain valuable information. Man after man says that it should have been established before, that it helps them in presenting the facts to their congregations, Many clergymen living in out-of-the-way sections of the country, away from metropolitan centres, where the large papers do not circulate so freely, say that the information contained in these statements is of great value and that they use it Sunday after Sunday in presenting to their congregations the war situation and the demand upon our energies and resources which each day makes more urgent. I will not trouble the House with reading these communications unless my hon. friends wish [DOT] to have some of their contents presented to them.


Mr. CANNON:: Are those publications translated into French and circulated also in the province of Quebec?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are.


Lucien Cannon: By whom, may I ask?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Devlin):: I promised to -see the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburto-n next.


Samuel Hughes: I was on my feet
when the hon. member who has just taken his seat concluded,, to dispose of another issue; and as I may not have the -privilege of being present to-night until late, I will take the occasion now. I want to say a few words regarding the position in which Colonel Armand Lavergne stands before the people of Canada. I hold no brief for Armand Lavergne. But I have had 'Arm-and Lavergne's speeches reported when- other gentlemen did not; I have had him interviewed when other gentlemen have not. Armand Lavergne's speeches and actions have been accepted by the party to which I had the honour to belong in the election of 1911.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: And through the
exertion-s of Arm-and Lavergne and others of his ilk the Liberal Conservative party came into power, for the welfare of the country. I shall not enter into- further details now. Armand Lavergne is- an impulsive young fellow, the same as my good friend from Frontenao (Mr. Edwards), and as your humble servant, On- occasions, possibly, a little balance would do any one of us no harm. I have- had reported Armand Lavergne's speech that I understand was made in Quebec on. a certain occasion, with
[DOT]896

the o-bject of taking it up with the department if I could possibly find that he was using language that could foe construed by any lawyer into being treasonable. I have not failed-and as to this the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will bear me out-to urge that, if there was any possibility of reaching him under the law, it should be done. So far as I am concerned, I have never yet found an occasion when he has uttered one treasonable word or one word that could foe construed as any worse than lots of language that has been published in the Toronto Globe and other standard publications of that kind. I am devoid of prejudice in this matter. Because Armand Lavergne is a Frenchman is no reason why he should, not have full justice. I have seen any number of these young French lads go over to the front and do splendid work there. And the trouble is not, as I view it-and I can speak ing frankly and fairly-because the French Canadian people are opposed to this war, but it is' chiefly because of the influence of the ultramontane wing of the Roman church in the province of Quebec-not the old, broad, tolerant, Bleu or the progressive, steadfast Liberal, or the radical wing- that the idea has been disseminated, largely through the influence of Bourassa t-o whom every one bows, which have held up enlistments on the present occasion. I think that is^the po-sition. I have no corner to turn on the subject. And if my hon. friend from Frontenac has the evidence that he claims he has, his duty is cleaT, and complaint should- foe lodged against Armand Lavergne, and he should foe arrested under the law and brought up for treason. So far as any personal references of the hon. gentleman to my asociation with Colonel J. Wesley Allison are concerned, I may say that history is already turning, the lane is being turned, and to-day J. Wesley Allison stands higher in the opinion of the British Government than do any of his detractors. He is consulted to-day by the British Government; he is of more assistance to-day to the British Government than all the gentlemen who have maligned him in this country or in the Empire.
He is of more importance in the eyes of the British officers to-day than are these gentlemen, or than any of them ever will be. The wheel of fortune, therefore, is taking a turn. I should not be surprised to see J. Wesley Allison a baronet if he keeps on.
As to the statement of my good friend the President of the Council, I will take the liberty of replying to it. In the first place,
TSir Sam Hughe*. 1
I understand that the gentleman whom he has chosen for Director of Public Information is a half-brother to the Minister of Finance, and is the same gentleman who edited the Montreal Daily Mail and the Montreal Evening News, two papers which were started with the definite object of booming the Finance Minister to be Prime Minister of Canada, getting rid of a gentleman who, they claimed, had no backbone, and incidentally maligning your humble servant on any and every occasion. I could imagine from the line on which he conducted the paper that the gentleman in question could not expect to commend himself to a great many of the people of this country who held other views than those to which he gave utterance. I object to the principle with which my hon. friend has associated himself. I do not especially know the gentleman concerned, so I will not deal with that aspect of the matter. The thing is in harmony, however, with an organization which has been engineered, I understand, largely by the hon. gentleman himself-a very good organization, but it does not work-to go into the counties. For instance, I understand that the organization was to have a committee of a certain number of men-one hundred, I think-to work for a little time when people do not get their eyes open. People are connected in the city of Toronto with those in various other parts of the province, and when the button is touched, politics and all else swing into the line laid down by my good hon. friend. It was tried in my county, but it did not work. The people of that county were too well posted; we had preceded our friends with literature of another [DOT] kind. All this solicitude may be good for the poor, innocent, ignorant people of the Dominion of Canada, but I have this faith and experience, that the good people living in the remote parts of the country are just as well posted on the causes of this war and how to carry it on as is the hon. gentleman who presides at the head of the Council, or many others of us who * may think that we know it all and that these people do not know anything. There was one of those gentlemen who cape into my riding. We took him out to the back part of the county to practise a little, and get his hand in, and he came back utterly amazed to think that 'the farmers could teach him many lessons in politics. The same thing may foe found all throughout Canada. This attempted solicitude, this paternalism, this hypnotism, this chloroforming that is going on throughout Canada among the great masses of the people is.

to my mind, absolute nonsense. The people are fully alive to the 'situation-those who could be impressed by this sort of thing,- and those who are not impressed must be reached by the legislation which we are bringing up to-morrow, bringing them out by compulsion. I have listened, of course, with great pleasure, to the complimentary remarks made by clergymen. I can easily realize how clergymen in the country districts would gladly get this stuff and unload it on their congregations on Sunday. It would save them the trouble of preparing a sermon, and would therefore be a very handy thing to have. However, so far as the practical use of it is concerned, it does not run in my line of practicability.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the answer given to-day by the President of the Council to the objections which I urged the other evening against the appointment of Mr. Nichols. Much as we are indebted to the President of the Council for the elaborate explanation he has given, I still submit that a better choice could have been made; indeed, that the post was not needed at all. It is, shall I say a libel?-it is a libel on the press of this country to say that people in the faraway districts are not well informed, and that there must be a central bureau in Ottawa to impart to them information about the war. Mr. Chairman, I am a reader of the press; I was a member of the press in my younger days. 1 read the press of the United States. I read some of the papers published in England and in France, and that of the various provinces of Canada. I daresay that there are no better informed papers than those published in the large centres of Canada, and in the rural districts as well. On the question of the war, surely you can open any paper published in the rural sections of Canada and get just as much information as you will get in the daily press.	From	that point of view,
therefore, I do not think the appointment was needed. As regards the personality of Mr. Nichols, I have this to say: Mr. Nichols never impressed me as a successful man in his own business. It is a well-known fact that he killed two newspapers in Montreal because he could not gather the support of the Conservative party in Montreal by reason of his attempting to destroy my hon. friend the then 'Minister ot Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). He was also,
I must tell my hon. friend, mixed up in a very questionable business, when with his business partner he attempted to exnro-57	'	'
priate for this Government that hotel in Montreal known as the Carslake hotel. He asked the Government something like $600,000 or $700,000 for this building, which really was not needed by the Government, because the Post Office Department had a lot at a stone's throw from the Carslake hotel-a lot which was vacant, and had been purchased when Sir William Mulock was Postmaster General. Nevertheless, by his intrigues, he succeeded in landing that Carslake hotel on the Public Works Department. He was ready to get something like $700,000 from the Government, but when the expropriation proceedings took place in Montreal it was found that the whole building and the whole lot were not worth more than $150,000 or $200,000. I read the other day the sheet which my hon. friend held in his hands a moment ago. What is said tuere about Napoleon and Wellington and the battle of Waterloo as compared with the present struggle-why, it has been published time and again since the beginning of the war. The Prime Minister two years ago, in his speech delivered in this House, used exactly the'same parallel. You can find it in any third-class school history. In any back concession third-class school you will find that history of Waterloo and Wellington and Blucher and all the details about how many men were gathered there, and so on. Surely my hon. friend will not try to convince me that this is a chef d'oeuvre. I believe that to incur this expenditure is a pure waste of money, when the people of this country are straining every nerve to pay their tax bills, their income tax, and their customs dues. It is quite right to vote the money needed fox the carrying on of the war, but when it comes to creating fat offices for men who have been failures in their business, that is another matter. I am told by the ex-Minister of Militia that not only is this organization for giving information to the public on the question of the war, but that it is really nothing else but politics.


Samuel Hughes: Might I correct the hon. member? I did not say that. I asked if it was in harmony with a kindred organization formed in the province of Ontario some years ago whereby my hon. friend would get in touch with the better elements of the country along certain lines, and then when he wanted to use them politically all he had to do was to push the button and the thing would go. I want to know the names of the men on the committee formed by the hon. gentleman.	[DOT]



iMbr. iLEiMIBTJX: The hon. minister can explain that himself. One aspect of the question which does not please me at all is that of the publication of the Record. In view of the huge amounts we shall, during this week, be called upon to vote, how can you expect, Sir-and I appeal especially to the Prime Minister-to have national unity in this country, when you ask the taxpayers of Canada, Liberals and Conservatives, to vote money for publications in which one-half of the people of Canada are being libelled and slandered? After the last election I received from my son, who was at Witley Camp, a bundle of those Records containing the vilest statements about my right hon. leader and about the French Canadian generally. Do you believe, Sir, that the publication of that Record is a national necessity? The elections are over. The Record did its work in the trenches in the last campaign. Drop it, for Heaven's sake; we do not want it any more. If you want to have the respect, the backing, of the country for the huge sums, which you are asking us to vote and for the stringent measures which you are taking in order to make the Military Service Act more effective, for decency's sake do not ask the people who are being slandered and libelled to say " amen " to such nonsense.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like very much to. see the issues of the Record to which my hon. friend refers, and which, according to his conception, contained vile slanders upon the Tight hon. leader of the Opposition and upon French Canadians. They have never been brought to my attention. So far as this newspaper is concerned, I am not aware that any public money of Canada is paid out for its publication, except that which is expended in sending messages containing news from Canada for the men at the front. When the hon. gentleman talks about abolishing the Record, I should like to tell him that according to my information every man in the Canadian forces at the front would protest against the idea of abolishing the Record, because it is the chief means they have of getting home news from day to day. I think those who have served at the front will beaT me out in that.
In regard to a question which was asked, I think, by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), with respect to a list which appeared in the Daily Record of the candidates at the last election, I may 
isay that that subject was brought to my attention some time ago by the War Veterans' Association, I think, and I made inquiry concerning it. The inquiry was made by the director of public information at my request. I sent for him and asked him to investigate. He has given me this memorandum in reply, and it is proper that the House .should know it. This is a memorandum from Captain William Wallace, M.C., Officer in Charge for Canada, Canadian Daily Record, regarding publication of nomination list in the Canadian Daily Record:
On November 14, 1917, I received a cable from the Canadian War Records Office, London, asking me to see that a complete list of nomi-ations throughout Canada was sent overseas and to indicate the time it would1 be available so they could (prepare for an enlarged issue.
I replied stating the Government was required by law to send a list of nominations overseas and that I was informed that the General Returning Officer would cable the list to Colonel Pumey, c/o High Commissioner's Office, about November 20.
I suggested the list oould' be obtained from Ool. Purney, my idea being to save cable tolls from this office. On November 15th I received a cable saying this arrangement would be satisfactory and that the Canadian War Records Office would arrange to get the list from Col. Purney.
Therefore, no official list of nominations was sent from this office.
When the question of the omission of certain names from the nomination list published in the Canadian Daily Record was brought up by the newspapers here, I cabled the Canadian War Records Office on February 27, 1918, asking if any explanation could be given why the names of McCormack, (Parkdale) ; Cock-burn, (East York) ; (McLaren, (West Hamilton) ; and Sutherland, (North Oxford), were not included in the nomination list published in the Canadian Daily Record on November 27th.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT:: Was the name of Mr. Harry Cookshutt, of Brant, in the list?


Robert Laird Borden: I am reading the memorandum. If my hon. friend will be good enough to withhold any questions until *I get through with the memorandum I shall be pleased' to answer them.


William Foster Cockshutt: The Prime Minister is reading the names.


Robert Laird Borden: I am reading the names, and1 it would be well to have the whole thing in consecutive order:
The London office replied that the nomination list published in the issue of November 27ith was exactly as received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, through the courtesy of Col. Purney in London. The reply also stated that a second nomination list containing additional names was .published in a special edition on November 29th and that this list was received through the same channel. The cable also pointed out -that the distribution of

the second list published on November 29th was exactly the same as the distribution of the first list published on November 27th.
On March 1st another cable was despatched from this office in order to ascertain positively if the names of the four soldier candidates were published on November 29th and stating that copies of this issue had not been received in this office. Replying on March 5th, the Canadian War Records Office started the names of McCormack, (Parkdale) ; Cockburn, (Bast York) ; McLaren, (West Hamilton) ; and Sutherland^ (North Oxford), were included in the issue of the Canadian Daily Record for November 29th.
The London office also stated that through an oversight, copies of this special1 edition had not been mailed to Canada, but the distribution among the troops Overseas had been the same as the edition of November 27th containing the previous list.
I may state that copies of the issue of November 29th have not yet arrived but should be received within a week.
(Sgd.) William Wallace,
Captain.
Since then this letter has been received by Captain Wallace from Captain J. Harold Watkins:
Canadian War Records Office,
14 Clifford St., Bond Street. London, W.I.
March 1st, 1918.
To Captain William Wallace, M.C.,
Department of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa.
Dear Captain Wallace:
We received a cable from you yesterday with reference to certain omissions from the first list of nominations published in the Canadian Daily Record of Novembtr 27th,	1917 I
cabled you in reply as fallows:
"Reference 5445 list published November 27 exactly as received. from Clerk of Crown in Chancery through courtesy Col. Purney here (stop) Second list containing additional names published in special edition November 29 received through same channels (stop) Distribution of second list exactly same as distribution first list."
We received the list that was published on November 27th from Colonel Purney who was in charge of the election here, and I understand that he received it direct from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Two days later he sent us a revised list and we issued a special revised Nomination Edition of the Canadian Daily Record, which was dated Thursday, November 29th, and which contained all the names you mention.
The distribution was the same in each case, so that everyone who read the first list also [DOT] had the opportunity to read the revised list.
I send you herewith a dozen copies of the November 29th issue in case you would like to send them to the newspapers who have taken up the matter with you.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) J. Harold Watkins, Captain,
For officer 1/c Canadian War Records.
My ihon. friend from {Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has asked me about the name
57 J	.
of one of the candidates in the county of Brant. The candidates in that county were, John Harold (Paris), Blackwell Doran (Burford! township), and Henry Cockshutt (Brantford.) Whait appears, to have happened is this:	Under the Military Voters
Act the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government were required to give certain recognition to candidates. Apparently the list which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery first telegraphed over contained only the names which were so recognized, and then he immediately afterwards telegraphed all the names. The first list was published on November 27th. The second list, which had exactly the same distribution, was published on November 29th.
Mr. OOCKS'HUTT:	When did the second list circulate, and to what extent?


Robert Laird Borden: The communications which I have read state that the distribution of the second list was exactly the same as the distribution of the list of November 27th.


William Foster Cockshutt: At what time was it distributed? 'Probably after the elections were over.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not indicate the date on which the issue of November 27th was sent out, nor the date on which the issue of November 29th was sent out, but I suppose we.might very well reach the conclusion that they would hardly prepare these issues and then store them somewhere without sending them to the men at the front. I assume that in both cases the issues were sent out as soon as printed, and I do not 'know of any reason which would lead me to a contrary conclusion.
Sir SA!M HUGHES: Is Mr. Cockshutt's name in the list of November 27th?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it is in the list of November 29th.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: At six o'clock
I was giving some explanation in regard to the issues of the Canada War Record of 27th and 29th November. I have nothing to add in regard to that. But, there are one or two words which I would like to say in regard to the Director of Public Information. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has found some fault with

his appointment for the Teason that he alleges he wae connected in some way with the purchase of a property in Montreal, the value of -which was not fixed by the Government but was fixed by the Exchequer Court. II am perfectly confident-II have Mr. Nichols' word for it-that he had no more interest in that property than had the hon. member for Maisonneuve and that he had no more to do with fixing the value than had that hon. gentleman.
Some comment was also made on the fact that he is a relative of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I happened to know something of the way in which Mr. Nichols was appointed. My hon. friend the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) brought to my attention, and to the attention of his colleagues, the proposal for the establishment of a directorship of public information. He has set out the reasons this afternoon on account of Which he thought that proposal would be a valuable one in the public interest. He mentioned to me the name of Mr. Nichole and I am in a position to state that the Minister of Finance had no more to do with the appointment of Mr. Nichols than any hon. gentleman in this. House. Mr. 'Nichols was not appointed in any way on account of his relationship, nor did the Minister of Finance know anything at all about it until the matter was proposed in Council by the President of the Privy Council. I think it is only right and just to Mr. Nichols, and to the Minister of Finance as well, to make that public statement in this House.
Further, as to the editorial policy of newspapers in Montreal with -which Mr. Nichols is said to have been connected, I am not in a position to epeak or to give any opinion upon that policy. Ae a matter of fact, I do not have time to read newspapers at all except an occasional bunch of clippings that is handed to me by one of my secretaries. But I do positively assert that I am as confident as I am of my own existence that the Minister of Finance had no more to do with the editorial policy of any of these papers in Montreal than any hon. gentleman who is listening to me in this House.


Mr. ROBB:: While the Prime Minister is discussing this question, would he have any objection to telling the House and the country who were consulted previous to the appointment of Mr. Nichols? Last week, during the debate, the President of the Privy council (Mr. Rowell), stated that before appointing Mr. Nichols he had consulted

the best newspaper men in Canada, and that upon their recommendation he had appointed Mr. Nichols because that gentleman was known as a competent newspaper man. I understand that a great many of the best newspaper men in Canada say they were not consulted. Who were the newspaper men who were consulted?


Robert Laird Borden: Inasmuch as I was not the person consulting them, I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend the information. We were assured by the President of the Privy Council that he had made the necessary inquiry and he was 30 advised.


Mr. FORTIER:: This Bill is to provide for a military expenditure of $500,000,000. I would like to know what portion of the total amount is to cover the expenses in excess of the war appropriation of 1917 and also the amount that is required for the military operations of this year. 'I understand that with the amount required for this year the Government is taking into consideration additional expenditures to be incurred by the amendments contemplated to the Military Service Act, 1917, which appear in the Government's notice of motion on the Orders of the Day the debate upon which has been adjourned until to-morrow. I maintain that this is not the proper time to discuss in Committee of the House the Bill providing for the appropriation of that large amount. We see by these proposed resolutions that the Government intends to make some amendments to the Military Service Act. It follows that the expenses of the current year will be increased if these resolutions are adopted by Parliament. I hope they will not be adopted by Parliament, but if they are adopted there is no doubt that the appropriation for next year will have to be increased accordingly. I should say that inasmuch as the appropriation of $500,000,000 is for the putting into operation of conscription, I am against it. I have been elected against conscription and I am against all forms of conscription. I would expect that the Government would defer the consideration of this Bill until the proposed amendments to the Military Service Act. now before the House, are taken into consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fortier) will look at page 601 of unrevised Hansard he will find the estimate upon which this appropriation is based. I gave' it a week ago to-day, but as the hon. gentleman has probably not had his attention called to it, I will read it

again. It is based' on the total force of 500,000 men from Canada, as follows:
First Draft, Military Service Act.. ..	100,000
Home Defence Force	  10,000
In England	 150,000
In France	 140,000
Discharged after service at the front
Killed, died of wounds, etc	 100,000
500,000


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: The right hon. gentleman has not answered the question that I asked. I would like to know from the Government what proportion of the $500,000,000 is to cover the expenses incurred under the War Appropriation of 1917.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman will look at the statement that I read in the House, page 597 of unrevised Hansard, he will see that the accounts up to the present time, as far as they can be furnished to us by the Finance Department, show a total of $306,488,814.63 from which it would appear that no portion of this sum will be needed to meet the expenditure of the last fiscal year. 'If. however, the accounts when they come in should swell the total to more than $500,000,000 this Bill provides that any balance may be paid out of it.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Is it contemplated to provide out of the $500,000,000 for the additional cost of carrying out the military lew as it is supposed to be amended this session?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman probably is aware that the Military Service Act provides for raising a total force of one hundred thousand men. The estimate that I have already given takes into account the one hundred thousand men to be raised under the Military Service Act.


Jacques Bureau: Has the Government any idea as to how the account of Canada with Great Britain stands to-day? I understand that we are paying for certain things on behalf of the British Government which are being manufactured or produced in and shipped from this country. I understand we are paying in Canada for certain things that ought to be paid by Great Britain. We may not be actually advancing the money because there is a somewhat similar financial process being followed on the other side in our interest. Has any balance been struck between the British Government and the Dominion Government, and does the balance stand to the credit or the debit of the British Government?


Robert Laird Borden: Early in the war the British Government made a loan, not a very large loan, to Canada. Upon the accounts as they stand at present I believe the balance is in favour of Canada, but I am not sure of the exact amount. What happens is this: the British Government pays accounts for us in connection with the maintenance of our troops at the front, provides supplies and so forth, which I suppose would run up to something like $200,000,000 a year, or very nearly that. On the other hand, we provide in this country credits for tihe British Government in payment for munitions, food stuffs, and supplies of various kinds, and those, of course, are charged against the British Government, just as the amounts that they advance are charged against us. Upon the whole, since the beginning of the war, the balance is something in favour of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: I understood from a statement made the other day, that the British Government was paying for our troops in France at the rate of six shillings a day per man, and that that covered munitions, equipment and everything. Is the British Government paying for our troops in England and is there, as in the case of the troops in France, a stated per capita amount which the British Government is advancing on our account?


Robert Laird Borden: The arrangement to which I have alluded applies only to the tioops in France.


Jacques Bureau: And the six shillings covers everything?


Robert Laird Borden: The six shillings
covers everything, but I again remind my hon. friend that the other Dominions of the Empire have agreed to increase that to something over nine shillings, I think. We have not yet given our formal consent, but it is very likely that in all fairness we shall be obliged to do so, because of the tremendous increase in the use of shells and munitions of all kinds which has come about since that arrangement was entered into. I would like also to remind the hon. gentleman that the accounts have not yet been adjusted. When I state my belief that the balance is in favour of Canada, I make that statement subject to the final adjustment of accounts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like the Prime Minister to take his pencil and make a calculation, because I have some figures that require explanation. I see that the expenditure during the first year of the war, 1914-1915, on account of naval service was

$3,096,125. During the second year, 19151916, the expenditure in round figures was $3,274,000, and in the third year, 1916-1917, the expenditure was approximately $3,806,000, whereas last year, up to April the 8th, the expenditure on account of naval service reached a total of over $10,000,000 in round figures. There seems to be quite an increase there, and the committee is entitled to an explanation of why there is such a difference. I am simply speaking of the expenditure on the naval service, I shall have other questions to submit Jater as to the expenditure under other heads.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's question is a very reasonable one, and I will give an explanation of it as far as it is possible to do so in the public interest. In the autumn of 1916, I think it was, the Government of Canada was called upon very suddenly by the Admiralty to take certain precautions in connection with the theatened submarine menace against the coasts of this country. We consulted with them, and steps were taken with very great promptness, and in the most effective way possible, by the then Minister of Naval Affairs, Mr. Hazen. Those steps involved a very considerable outlay at once in the provision of trawlers, patrol boats and other armed vessels, in order that the merchant marine of Canada might be protected so far as possible from any attack by submarines near our coasts. I do not know that I can go into the matter more fully at the moment, but I am confident that the minister in charge of the Naval Service will be very glad indeed to give the hon. gentleman privately much fuller information than it would be prudent to publicly disclose in this House. The expenditures of last year are grouped in an account which I shall he glad to send over to the hon. gentleman if he cares to look at it. It is not desirable, I think, that l should do more or give some information the publication of which is undesirable, Altogether, these expenditures amount to $10,662,981.02.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The expenditure in the
Department of Indian Affairs in 1914-15, the first year of the war was $81.72; in 1915-16. $5,688.83; in 1916-17, $5,836.93; this year, up to April 8, $50,000. Might I ask the reason for that increase? I have other items to inquire aJbout, but I would like to get the explanations seriatim.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see the explanation as to the Department of In-
[Mr. Lemieux.l	.
d-ian Affairs among .my papers. Perhaps my hon. friend will go on with other items.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take the Department
of the Secretary of State. The first year of the war the expenditure was, in. round figures, $16,000; in the second year, $21,000; in the third year, $54,000; and the last year, $66,354.32.


Robert Laird Borden: The estimate o^ the amount required for the coming year is $60,000. The expenditure last year was as follows:
Office of the Chief Press Censor for Canada.
Salaries at Ottawa	 $11,937	97
Assistant Censors outside of
Ottawa	
1,701	00Travelling expenses	
1,025	75Printing and stationery	1,601	35Newspapers and books	
169	48Translations	
828	10Sundries, including postage, telegrams, telephone conversations, cartage, etc	
1,079	40Total for Branch	
$18,343 05
Registrar's Branch-
Salaries of substitutes for employees on active service. .. .	$1,223 86
Extra clerical assistance		1,283 04
Total for Branch	 $ 2,506 90
War Charities Act Branch-
Salaries	 $1,068 77
Printing, stationery, travelling expenses, advertising, other contingencies	 2,947 25
Total for Branch	 $4,016 02
For the Department generally, the details are-
Salaries of substitutes other than in the Registrar's Branch, for employees on
active service	
$2,320	58Extra clerical assistance	4,228	80
Visit of Marshall Joffre and M.
Viviani	 8,511	62
Investigations of suspected
alien enemy businesses		' 9,988 49
Printing and stationery	
31,355	40Travelling expenses and sundries	
895	19Total	
$57,300 08Grand total	
$82,166 05
'The estimates for the coming year is $60,000. Printing and stationery is to be cut down by $29,000, and some of the other items slightly increased.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I find that under the
heading of Agriculture, the first year of the war shows an expenditure of nothing; the second year, $5,000 in round figures; the third year, $12,000; and the last fiscal

year to April 8, $21,579.22. Will my right hon. friend explain that?


Robert Laird Borden: I did read all
these details a week ago to-day, but I will read them again:
Exemption representatives	
$14,415	38Bacon-Hog campaign	
25,898	51Salaries of substitutes	
16,644	76Representatives at Reave-of-Absence Boards	
6,042	4'5Total	
$63,001 10
The Estimate for the coming year is considerably larger. The campaign for increased food production will cost $280,000, according to the estimate. It involves certain advances to provincial governments for work that they are to undertake. Salaries for substitutes are set down at $17,000; representatives at Leave-of-Absence Boards, $20,000, making a total of $317,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the heading
Marine, nothing was spent in the first year of the waT; in the second year about $1,500; in the third year, $2,000; and last year, $267,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend like to have the explanation of that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not all the details, but my right hon. friend might- explain the reason for the swelling of the expenditure to that extent.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the expenditure is really more than is- given through the Department of Finance at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is up to April 8.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but I explained when I presented these statements to the House that they came from the Department of Finance, and that the statement from, the department actually concerned might be larger. According to the statement from the Marine Department, which I have in my hand, the expenditure is as follows:
Extra clerks, $2,267.98.
Equipment of lake vessels for overseas trade. Under (Order in Council of 1st June, 1917, the expenditure of $405,800 was authorized, of which it is estimated that $300,000 will be spent, $201,632.01 of the above amount having already been invoiced.
Shipbuilding program -as per Order in Council of 24th December, 1917, of which $25,000,000 was to be spent during the year 1918, and of which there has already been
spent $267,030; making a total expenditure for the fiscal year of $569,297.98.
lyTIr. LEMIEUX: I find that the Military ' Hospitals Commission in 1916-17 cost $1,378,000, in round figures, while last year the cost was over $9,000,000. What is the explanation of the increase?


Robert Laird Borden: It is due to the fact that more soldiers are returning from the front.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many new hospitals are to be built?


Robert Laird Borden: The Invalided
Soldiers' Commission may have to extend its operations to the provision of sanit-oria for a certain class of patients, and, on the other hand, the Department of Militia and Defence, which has taken over the hospitals for active treatment, will probably have to provide additional accommodation as the men begin to return in increasing numbers. The Minister of Militia and Defence will be in a position to give full information on that subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
National Service Commission which cost $111,759.89 in 1916-17 and $117,771.07 last year-was Ithe commission presided over by our late colleague, (Mr. R. B. Bennett. Is that commission still in existence, or has it been abolished?


Robert Laird Borden: It was abolished except so far as taking care of the -records is concerned. That is not attended with any expense ;to -the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are there many employees?


Robert Laird Borden: There are no
employees.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under whose management is it?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not under any one's management at present; it is not carrying on active operations. About 1,750,000 cards were received. They were tabulated to some extent and certain use (was made of them. They were placed at the disposal of the military authorities; they were also made use of for the	purpose of finding
men for different employments throughout the country as they were required. The work of that commission will be superseded by the registration which we hope to take next summer and which has a very much wider scope. It is proposed to keep the new registration up to date from time to time,

under regulations *which will shortly be laid on the Table.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the explanation of the amount of $22,718.30 undeT the heading: "Immigration and Colonization?"


Robert Laird Borden: It is almost entirely in payment of substitutes for those who have gone to the front. There is included an amount required for expenses of officials in connection with the enforcing of Order in Council No. 1433. This amount is used in paying travelling expenses, meals, board, etc., of inspectors on trains, and other sundry expenses. This Order in Council was the one which prohibited men of military age from leaving the country. A further amount of $8,000 is mentioned under the head of printing and stationery- that is, for printing the different permit forms and any stationery required by the officers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is an item of $399,266.89 under the heading: " Railways and Canals, reconstruction of Halifax." Was that for the emergency call when the Halifax disaster took .place?


Robert Laird Borden: It was for reconstruction to repair damage occasioned by the Halifax explosion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Newsprint Commission, $22,003.86. Is thiat matter settled?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it as not settled. The commissioner has not made his final report as yet.


James Hamilton Ross: There has been presented during the war the greatest opportunity the department ever had, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, to encourage the horse industry in this country. If I am correctly informed, the department has not taken advantage of this opportunity. I believe that horses are being purchased for Great Britain in the United States, and have been going through Canada in thousands. I wish to call attention to the fact that m 1916-17 there was spent by the Militia Department on war account, according to the public accounts, the very large sum of $298,000,000. I put a question on the Order Paper as to what amount of money had been .spent in the purchase of remounts for the Militia Department during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, and the answer was $261,042.73. I further inquired what amount was spent in the purchase of remounts elsewhere, and where they were purchased, to which the reply was " nil." In the public accounts for 1917, under

the heading of " Details of War Expenditure by Militia Department" from April 1, 1916, to March 31, 1917, I find an item:	Purchases of remounts, expenses of purchasers, etc., $3,440,761.64. I should like some explanation of that discrepancy and also some statement of policy.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already given that explanation a good many times, not only in this Parliament, but in the late Parliament. I gave it two years ago for the first time, and 1 have given it on several occasions since. When I was in England in 1915 it was arranged that all remount purchases for the Canadian Expeditionary Force should be made- iby the British Government. They had a very competent staff engaged both in Canada and in the United States for that purpose. Further than that, unless we arranged the matter in that way, we would be obliged to keep up remount stations at various points in Great Britain and also at various points in France; whereas, if the Temount stations, from which we would get our horses, both in Great Britain and France were under one control, a very great expense would1 be saved to this country. The British Government agreed that they would put in the horses to us at bare cost. In fact, in their charges against the horses which they supplied to us- they did not include what might he called overhead charges, which would necesarily have been included by this country if we had embarked upon a policy of having separate remount stations of our own both in Great Britain and France. Therefore, the expenditure to which my hon. friend calls attention is expenditure which has been made by the British Government for horses purchased in that way by a commission acting for both parties. The other item to which he alluded, namely, $261,042.73 is for horses used in the various camps in Canada and not for horses used overseas. I am informed by the deputy minister that 2,876 horses were purchased for the purpose of those camps.
With respect to- the opportunities in Canada for the sale of horses; I have had very frequent correspondence with the British Remount Commission. From- time to time since 1915 I have not failed to urge upon them directly and also through the British Government that there were good opportunities for the purchase of horses in this country, and that those opportunities should be taken advantage of by the British Remount Commission, and on every occasion on which I have taken uR the matter with

the Remount Commission they have given what semed to me to be a satisfactory explanation when they did not happen to be purchasing in Canada at that time.


Jacques Bureau: I was asking, when the other questions were put, what arrangement existed1 as to the balancing of accounts between Great Britain and Canada. I see that the overseas forces which are now in England are paid for by Canada. The Prime Minister, the other day in making an explanation, said that the expenditure overseas was under the supervision of the Auditor General. Has the Auditor General a staff overseas auditing those accounts *which are paid by the Overseas Minister of Militia? If so, when is a return made to the Minister of Militia .at Ottawa so that he may control the expenditure which is voted for war purposes or for supplying the troops which we have in England-that is, in addition to the balance which we have to strike with Great Britain with reference to the troops, that we have in France? The current accounts of the Minister of Overseas Military Forces, I understand, are controlled by the Auditor General. The ultimate control comes to Ottawa, and I suppose that the Minister of Militia, .as I said the other day when i was expressing my astonishment at this duplication, is responsible to the House for that. Can we have an explanation of the system that is followed?-how these amounts are controlled overseas, how the return of this expenditure is made, and to whom it is made?


Robert Laird Borden: Just the same as in any other department. The accounts are audited overseas by the Auditor General. I do not think he has any staff in Great Britain at the present time; that is, for the Teason that he does think it necessary. When I stpoke to him a few days ago, he said that his officer had returned from England; that his officer was not there during the winter, and he did not consider it necessary to keep him there. That is a matter which we leave to his own judgment. He had an absolutely free hand to have whatever staff was necessary, according to his best judgment, to make a thorough and complete audit of all the expenditures overseas. The statements come forward from that department just the same as from other departments, and I believe, besides that, a monthly statement comes to the Department of Militia and Defence as well as to the Auditor General.


Jacques Bureau: I do not say this in the way of criticism, except that I cannot get
through my head this double Ministry of Militia, particularly in regard to the Overseas Minister. What is the approximate amount that has been handled and expended by the Minister of Overseas Military Forces?


Robert Laird Borden: The expenditure overseas from 4th August, 1914, to 31st of March, 1917, amounted to $171,137,853.86. That, of course, did not include the expenditure in France to which I have already alluded and which is made by the British Government on behalf of the Canadian Government.
iMr. FIELDING:	Perhaps the information about which I am going to inquire has already been given, and if it is in Hansard,
I do not wish to have the right hon. gentleman repeat it. I presume this appropriation, which is necessarily a very broad one, included expenditures in connection with the mission at Washington?


Robert Laird Borden: It would be included in this appropriation.


Mr. FIELDING:: The mission at Washington is one of the many new things which have been created during the war, and the public would like to have some information concerning it. I would, therefore, suggest that, at a convenient date, not necessarily at the present time, the right hon. gentleman might give us some information as to the number of persons composing the mission, their salaries and the nature of the duties they are called upon to perform. .Some part of their duties may have a bearing upon military matters and, of course, the information in regard to that cannot be given. I put my question with' that reservation. I am sure the subject would be an interesting one.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon friend perhaps did not observe that some time ago I placed upon the Table an Order in Council which gives the principal part of the information to which he alludes. Mr. Lloyd Harris, is the Chairman. There are at the present time only three other gentlemen upon the board, namely, Mr. Rolph, of Toronto, Mr. Macmaster, and Mr. Scott, of Montreal. They are all serving without any salary whatever, though of course they have a clerical staff, and there will be some expense incurred for renlt, which unfortunately is very high in Washington at present. The duties are defined in a general way in the Order in Council, a copy of which I shall be very glad to

send to my hon. friend. II shall be very glad after that, to go a little more into detail, as to the particular purposes which this War Mission is carrying out. They have very important duties to 'perform,. Those duties are more directly concerned with communication between the very numerous commissions which have been established, in Washington, and Iwhich have to do in a very intimate way with the trade relations between this country and the United States as they are affected by the war, the import and export of articles, the restriction of importations to articles of an essential character, the utilization of industries of both countries for purposes that are essential for the war and not for other purposes, and a great many other matters which I shall be glad to explain at some later date.
'Mr. COCKSHUTT: When the committee rose at six o'clock the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir 'Robert Borden) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) had given us a statement with reference to the Director of Public In-9 p.m. formation, and had discussed among other matters the sending overseas of the lists of the candidates who were running in the recent elections. Now, lest the Prime Minister should deem that his answer was entirely satisfactory in that regard I feel compelled to say a few words. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the List was sent over by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, a gentleman whom I have not the honour of being acquainted with, but an officer of the Crown, I suppose. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sent over imperfect information, according to the Prime Minister's own. statement; that is, .he suppressed the names of a considerable number of the candidates who were then properly in the field for the Dominion election; I understood the Prime Minister to say that the leader of the Opposition and himself had initialled certain candidates who were running in the interests of either one or the other, and that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery transmitted only the names that had been so initialled.


Robert Laird Borden: I said I presumed it had occurred in that way. I have not seen the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on this subject, hut apparently the names that were telegraphed over in the first instance were of candidates mentioned as having been recognized by either the leader of the Opposition or myself.
TSir Robert Borden.]


William Foster Cockshutt: If the Prime Minister is not aware of .it, I can tell him that [DOT]there were other names in the list that were initialled neither by the leader of the Opposition nor by himself, and these names appeared in the first list.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware of that.


William Foster Cockshutt: But it .is correct, because I know that the name of the candidate in .my Tiding who was running against me was on the list. There were three candidates drl that riding, and the names of both my opponents appeared in this first official Hist, as well as my own. This is war time, land I am not disposed to raise any trouble, or give this Government any trouble that can be avoided, but the element of fairness cannot be overlooked even in a war-time election; and I must say that the Prime Minister's explanation so far as those names are concerned, is not satisfactory to me. Other names went over that were not so initialled. I can give the name of one, and I believe there were five or sax others. To say that the list was reprinted and sent over two days later does not cover the ground at all. This document, which I understand the President of the Privy Council is responsible for, is the official mouthpiece of the Government for the soldiers at the front. It was sent out containing certain names. We are told it was sent out in the first place on 27th November, and that after the mistakes were pointed out, it was reprinted and another copy sent on 29/th November; but we do not know when that copy .sent out on the 29th reached the front, or whether it ever reached the front. What we do know is that the soldiers began to vote on or about 1st December, although the election was not until the 17th, and I believe in imy heart that there were a lot of soldiers who never knew what candidates were running in that election. I feel that that was the case, and I say it was not necessary for the purposes of Union Government, of which I am a strong friend and backer, even though I make this criticism, that the names of .their candidates should be known. The soldier ballot had four divisions .in it-one for the Government candidate, one for the opposition candidate, one for labour, and one for an independent candidate.


Mr. PROULX:: I think there were five
divisions.


William Foster Cockshutt: In the fifth space the name of the candidate was to be written,

or else he got no vote at all. So the soldier voted tor o*r against the Government, but where a candidate's niame was suppressed the soldier,, of course, had no opportunity of knowing that this man was running at all. I do not tike to accuse 'the powers that be of doing anything unfair or unjust, and in war time when we are fighting with our back to the- wall and our boys are dying by the thousands at the front it is no time to raise trouble. I want to back the Government for all I am worth in all war-time measures, but I do say that I think they were derelict in their duty. I did not even hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that he had given the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a crack over the knuckles for omitting the names of these candidates-names which I believe were deliberately omitted by some one. If that is the case it is a serious thing. It is all right for the Government and the Opposition to endorse their candidates, but in a democratic country, where a man is properly nominated and is of sufficient standing in the community to get the nomination, I think no Government and no Opposition has the right to suppress that man's name as a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons. I do not want to go into this matter very fully, and I do not want any of my friends to take any particular notice of it, because a member of my family was one of those concerned, but I do say that this kind of thing would only pass in the strenuous times through which we.are passing; that is the only ground on which we can keep quiet about a thing like that. It is the strenuous times in which we live that closes my mouth tonight, but I think it is up to me to let the Prime Minister know-yes, and the President of the Privy Council too, because I believe he was privy to the matter-that I thought at that time before this action was taken that it was going to turn out just about the way it has, that certain men were marked for slaughter, and that is how it did turn out. Whether this was a deal between the gentlemen I am not in a position to isay, because I am not in the inner circle, I am only a back-bencher. But I feel it my duty to say to the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council that if it were not that winning the war demands our every exertion, I could not support them on this occasion. The Prime Minister may have other reasons up his sleeve which he did not adduce why these names were omitted. He may tell me as soon as I sit down that I am talking
entirely aside from the facts, but I thought it my duty to say that in my judgment his explanation given in regard to the lists of candidates sent overseas was entirely inadequate to the situation, and will not be at all satisfactory to the gentlemen whose names were suppressed from the official lists.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not follow my hon. friend's advice, however much inclined I might be to do so. I shall merely tell him that I was not in Ottawa at the time. If he supposed that during that election I had nothing else to do but follow around the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and see that all his telegrams were correct, then. I can only say he has a very imperfect appreciation of the burdens that were laid on one at the head of public affairs in this country, when he was called upon at the same time to carry on as best he could the. (work in connection with the greatest war that humanity lias ever known and also to carry on an election campaign. If the hon. gentleman intends to suggest- and I do not know whether or not he did intend to suggest-that I was privy to any unfairness towards him, or any member of his family, or any one else, I want to give him the strongest denial that parliamentary usage will permit.


William Foster Cockshutt: Did the right hon.
gentleman write a letter asking a certain gentleman to run and afterwards turn him down?


Robert Laird Borden: Yee, I did in
this sense, that I suggested to him, at the request of an hon. gentleman, a member of the Senate, just .about the time the Union Government was formed, that he might run. That gentleman wrote to me afterwards and said that he would retire if I aeked him. I asked him to retire and he did not do. it.


William Foster Cockshutt: That gentleman
offered to retire in favour of a certain other gentleman, as the Prime Minister very well knows, but not in favour of the one who was crushing him out of the field where he had been properly placed. The Prime Minister, if he wanted that letter read here, would find it very necessary to give me the direct statement that he has given just now. The letter was fairly and squarely written and it contained that statement. Whether the Prime Minister did it unknowingly or whether he did it with the intention, of asking him finally to retire., I cannot say, but it seems to me that we have not been

played fair with. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) has just raised .another question which involves more or less the same matter. One gentleman who was concerned in this matter has been rewarded with the chairmanship of a commission at Washington. How that comes about I cannot say, but that has been revealed to- us.
I have been a friend of the right hon. gentleman all my political life; during all his political life I have supported him. in every way; I have supported in every possible. way the winning of the war, and I take no back seat, although I am a back bencher, even to the Prime Minister him-seslf in regard to the heartiness in which I have endeavoured to help win this war. The Prime Minister, knowing what my family has, done in this matter, should cast no reflection on me in that respect, as I rather think he did. He seemed to say: You think I have nothing to do- but help to win elections. _ I made no such assertion. I say that in my judgment those names were suppressed by somebody-I do not know by whom-and the clerk of the Crown in Chancery, if he were in any way responsible, should have received a crack Over the knuckles for sending out an imperfect list.
I have not heard the Prime Minister say one word of disapproval, or whether he disapproves of an imperfect list being sent out. He has not the right to read me a lecture, even although I am a back-bencher; I am a pretty old hand in the political game. I was in it before he was. I ran my first campaign over thirty years ago. Although I do not often speak in this House, and although my views may not carry very much weight, even with the Prime Minister-I am aware of that-I still have my views and they are held, just as strongly as are those of the Prime Minister. In so far as the winning of the war is concerned, 1 believe that my heart is in it just as much as his is. Our object is to win the war and that was the object with which we went into the war-time election, but even a war-time election should, in my judgment, be characterized by all the elements of fairness.


Robert Laird Borden: It was just that suggestion on the part of the hon. gentleman that I did resent because he seemed to imply that there had been some intentional unfairness on my part through which these gentlemen's names were not included in the first telegram. I repeat that I resent as strongly as I can any unfair sug-
gestion from him or any one else in this House. I have told him-he is at liberty to take my statement or not as he sees fit- that I was not in Ottawa at the time and knew nothing until months afterward about any names being omitted from the list. I repeat that I was far too busily engaged at that time to follow up the details of any such matter as this. The task of selecting candidates in the various constituencies of this country who should be recognized by the Government was an invidious and distasteful one. Few hon. gentlemen can realize how invidious and distasteful it would be. I did the best I could with it. I appointed a committee in each of the provinces composed of men who previously had been opposed to each other in political affairs, and I asked them to make the best selections they could. As far as I remember, I foljowed their judgment in every case; I do not recollect any case in which I departed from it. Whether I might have done better by giving more personal attention to the matter I do not know. I do know that I did what I thought was right and what I thought was- best in the interest of the country and without any desire or intention of being unfair to any man, whether he was recognized or not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: As the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has mentioned my name in connection with this matter, as well as that of the Prime Minister, I wish to state just as clearly and emphatically as the Prime Minister has stated that I had absolutely no knowledge of the matter until weeks after the election. The first I learned of it was from a statement which I saw in the press some time after the election that these names had been omitted from the list. I, like the Prime Minister, had been absent from Ottawa, and I never had any communication of any kind with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. He is not in my department and I had no communication with him. On learning of this report after the election I asked for an explanation from the general returning officer and I got one similar to that which the Prime Minister has given the House this afternoon. I had no knowledge about it in any shape or form, direct or indirect, until long after the election.


William Foster Cockshutt: Does the minister approve or disapprove of the action of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in omitting those names?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I absolutely disapprove of any names being omitted. I am absolutely sure that they were omitted by mistake although I have no personal knowledge of it. Every one would disapprove of any names being omitted. Every one should have a fair show; the names should all be made public.


Robert Laird Borden: I omitted to say the same thing. I regard it as most unfortunate that the names were omitted and if it were owing to any intentional neglect on the part of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery he would be subject to the severest reprimand and probably something more than that.
Mr. MO WAT; I desire to say a few words to the committee in regard to the effect of this omission. I will confine myself to that. It appears that owing to the information telegraphed by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certain names were omitted. That was corrected two days afterwards. The two issues o.f the Record were on the 27th and 29th November. If there was ahy objection to that action, or if there was any injustice, some complaint would have been made from France or England regarding it by the friends of the candidates whose names were omitted. But was that done? No, it was not. It was not until two months after 27th November that the matter was mentioned at all. And how did it come to be mentioned at all? It was mentioned by a newspaper in Toronto which had taken a very strong stand on behalf of what it called the "soldier candidates." The Prime Minister said this afternoon that he had received some complaints with regard to the matter from the Great War Veterans, but I desire to correct him to some extent in that regard. The Great War Veterans as a body, wisely it seems to me, decided to take no part in party politics; their interests, they thought, required that they should stand neutral; but an ambitious gentleman in Toronto who runs a newspaper had different views. He has always been very distinctly antagonistic and hostile to the Union Government. Holding such views and having no chance with the Opposition he could not satisfy his inordinate ambition to become a political leader unless he had some sort of a party. The only party he could think of to get was the Great War Veterans. Now the resolution of the Great War Veterans to take no part in politics stood as a bar to their becoming followers of any body, himself or any body else.
Therefore, the gentleman in question got an employee of his own newspaper, who [DOT] happens to be the secretary of a local branch of the Great War Veterans, to have the resolution of the main body sitting here in , Ottawa rescinded, so that the Toronto branch of the Great War Veterans' Association should be able to engage in party politics in this contest. The Great War Veterans area fine body of men as a whole. They are men who went to serve their country, and some of them have come back maimed or nervous as a result of shell shock. The trouble is that being nervous and somewhat sentimental they art apt to be misled, and in this ease they were misled, it seems to me, not by one of their own number, not by a soldier, but by a person who wished to use them for his own purposes. Perhaps I am a little discursive, but I wish to point opt that the effect of this mistake in not publishing these names in the first number of The Record cannot have had any real or practical effect. In the first place, as I say, no attention was called to it for months after 27th November, and furthermore, during the election the same band of civilians who wished to intrude and make a sort of a third party as part of their election campaign, said to the people:	"We have
sent over cables to the soldiers at the front." They did send many cables and in one election of which 1 have knowledge they said they spent something over $200 upon cable tolls. " Therefore," they said " don't be troubled by the fact of endorsation by the Union Government, but vote for our candidate and you will find that a vast number of soldiers at the front will join with you and he will be elected." Well, with the expenditure of $200 in the case of one candidate, one would have thought that the soldiers at the front would have been informed of the exact state of affairs. What do we find? According to the election returns, a copy of which we got a few days ago from Mr. O'Connor, in the particular constituency I refer to the endorsee of the Government got 3,300 overseas votes. How many do you suppose were cast for the soldier candidate, to whom not only the particular issue of The Record had reference, but in whose interest there had been an expenditure of $200 in sending cablegrams to soldiers at the front. As against 3,300 votes for the Unionist candidate, the soldier candidate only received 13 votes in the whole of France and in England, so the omission referred to cannot have had much to do with the result.
There is another constituency, represented by my hon. friend the member for

East York (Mr. Foster). That hon. gentleman was subjected to vicious attack. I make no complaint whatever of any attack made upon me in the election. If my opponents consider such attacks are fair politics, all right. I make no complaint, whatever, especially as I won by a jolly good* majority. But in the case of my hon. friend from East "York as vitriolic and acidulous an attack was made upon him as was ever known in Canadian politics, and he was deprecated in every form as a miserable civilian running against this nominee of the new party that I have referred to. Well, the result in bis case, where antagonistic cablegrams were also sent over to the front, was more extraordinary than in the ease of the other constituency I have mentioned; because, while my hon. friend received more than 2,700 votes in England and in France, the soldier candidate who ran against him, did not get one single vote. So it was a case of 2,700 votes to nothing. The point of my remarks is this,: despite the mistake made-I am sure it was a mistake, because nobody could be a party to actually misleading the electors over there-the actual fact is that the soldiers were not misinformed, they knew who was running, but they deliberately marked their ballots for the Government because they knew that would suit their purpose far better than any other course they could take.
[Mr. REDMAN: I cannot but regard it as unfortunate that the hon. member who has just taken his seat should have seized this Opportunity to ask for the sympathy of the House in regard to the election which he ran last year. I oannot but resent the statements which he has made in regard to the Great War Veterans, and, as I take it, the soldiers generally. It strikes me that his remarks were in very bad taste. The fact that a soldier ran against him in that election should not give him any Teason to come here and single out that soldier, or the Great War Veterans, for comments in this House. He has stated that the soldiers who have returned from overseas are sentimental and nervous. Doubtless the hon. gentleman is an authority on this subject, and when he states that the soldiers returning from overseas are sentimental and nervous, possibly the hon. gentleman knows what he is talking about, and possibly he does not. However, I do Tesent very much the hon. gentleman making any statements of the kind. It does seem to me that if the Great

War Veterans' Association, or any of their members wish to run a candidate in this country, or to exercise their rights as citizens, they are perfectly free to do so.
' Mr. SUTHERLAND: When this matter first came up a few hours ago the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) was making a statement with regard to the Director of Public Information. I asked him then as to who was responsible for the omission of the names of certain soldier candidate's in the last election from the, Canadian Daily Records sent to the soldiers, but I little thought at the time that my question was going to create the debate that has taken place. I regret very much, indeed, that the time of the House should be taken up with a matter that now can do no earthly good, because this is war time, and we have men at the front who are making greater sacrifices possibly than any one who have remained in Canada, no matter how hard such persons have laboured.
I intend, therefore, totouchupon one phase of the question that appeals to me, and that is on behalf of a certain soldier candidate in the last election; who was the first man to volunteer in the county of Oxford, who went overseas with the First Contingent, who raised two battalions in the country, was twice wounded, came home, and returned to the front crippled but determined to go. He was nominated as a candidate when he was at home on sick leave, and told the people that, if his election depended upon his returning to Canada while the war was on, he did not want to be elected. Now, for some strange reason, this candidate's name was omitted from the official list sent out by the Government in this official organ which we are asked to support in this vote which is now before the House; and, so far as I am aware, there is no disposition on the part of the Government to fix the responsibility where it properly belongs and to see that the guilty suffer for their misdeeds in this regard; at least, we had no expression of that kind from the Government to my knowledge. Men who are absent at the front fighting for us are not in a position to take up their cause in this House or in the country, or have not shown any disposition, or made any request, that the matter should be brought to the attention of the House, and, so far as I am aware, no complaint has been received from those men with regard to that matter. Now, the President of the Privy Council has just made a further statement that he knew

nothing whatever with regard to this matter, and I accept his word. He says that he was busily engaged at the time, and he does not know anything with regard, to the matter. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) brings the War Veterans into this debate, endeavouring to, make it appear that they renounced their rights during the last election. The War Veterans an Oxford county called an open convention to nominate a candidate, and I believe there were some six hundred people present to nominate a Unionist candidate. On the other side, his opponent was selected by the executive of the Liberal Party, and endorsed by the Government as the Unionist candidate in opposition to the man who had been nominated in an open convention called for that purpose. There is a feeling abroad in the country among returned soldiers that this Government is not in sympathy with the soldiers, that they are not doing certain things that they ought to do with regard to the returned soldiers. When you find things of this kind happening right under your eyes, I do not feel that it is my duty to sit still and allow statements of that kind to go unchallenged. Further, I believe that there was a deliberate effort on the part of some one to see that certain soldier candidates were not elected, and who ever is guilty-and there is certainly some guilty party-must be punished or else professions of being in sympathy with the soldier and with winning this war will stand for little. The men who are doing these things are entitled to consideration. When the campaign was nearing its close, certain correspondence was published with regard to one of these soldier candidates, in an endeavour to make it appear that he was not endorsed by the Government or as favouring Union Government. iBut his opponent, who had been selected by the executive of the Liberal party, was endorsed by the Government as the Unionist candidate. What do we find? On the 5th day of November, a letter from the secretary of the President of the Privy Council was published shedding more light on this matter, and making it practically impossible for that candidate to be elected in that constituency. I am going to read the letter; it has been published, and no denial has been made with reference to it to my knowledge. The Prime 'Minister has told us of his efforts, and of the work that was entailed upon him in endorsing candidates. I have not the slightest doubt of that. I appreciate the tremendous responsibilities that press upon the head of a Government, particularly during war time.
It is beyond my comprehension how he could do as much work as he did: consequently, he must have had to delegate a great deal of his work to others. I do not think for one moment he was responsible or that he would do anything of that nature. But I want to point out that the soldier candidate to whom I have referred did not receive a fair deal in the last election, and that a letter was sent to the secretary of the Conservative Association for the North Riding of Oxford, asking that the nominee of that party should be withdrawn. I understand that he was communicated with and offered to withdraw in order thct the Thggident of the Council (Mr. Rowell) might be elected for that constituency which he represented in the legislature. He offered to stand aside and allow that hon. gentleman to run in that riding. Later on,-he was nominated at this open convention. In the meantime, however, a letter was published in the press which had considerable effect upon his prospects of being elected. Now, I must read the letter, because I am going to read one that was sent out afterwards. This is written from Uxbridge on November 26, 1917:
Dear Mr. West,
I had hoped to apeak in North Oxford but the time at my disposal would not permit. Under the circumstances I think it my duty to ask my friends in the North Riding of Oxford to support loyally and effectively Mr. E. W. Nesbitt, the candidate named hy the Government under the Military Voters' Act. His support of compulsory military service and of the proposals for a Union Government has been all that could he desired. We are asking Liberals in a great many ridings of Ontario to support Conservative Union candidates. It is equally the duty of Conservatives to support Liberal Union candidates in the ridings for which, under arangement with my Liberal colleagues, a Liberal Union candidate has been, selected.
Believe me,
Yours faithfully,



R. L. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
I can quite understand, with the multitudinous duties resting upon his shoulders, how the Prime Minister was anxious to give way in matters of this kind in order to arrive at some mutual arrangement by which the difficulties could be overcome. The party who received the letter did not make it public apparently, although I understand that he acknowledged it. Shortly afterwards, when the campaign was nearing a close, he received from the private secretary of Hon. Mr. Rowell a letter as follows, a copy of which was also^ sent tto the press of the constituency:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Wesley West,
Secretary, Conservative Association, Woodstock, Ont.
Dear Sir,-
I am directed by Mr. Howell, who is in Northern Ontario, to say that before leaving for the Maritime Provinces on Sunday, Sir Robert Borden furnished Mr. Rowell with a copy of his letter to you regarding the North Oxford situation-
Sir Robert's intention was that this letter should be made public by you, and it is Sir Robert's desire that this should be done.
Yours very truly,
MAIN JOHNSON, Private Secretary.
'This letter was sent out by the private secretary of the President of the Council. The private secretary states that the Prime Minister intended that the letter should be made public. Then the private secretary evidently gives it to the press, because it is published in the papers;, that is where I first saw it. I think that in view of his connection with this matter the President of the Council should ascertain who was guilty of omitting these names from the published list.
It may be said that this circumstance did not have any effect on the election results, hut I contend that it is a remarkable coincidence-the efforts to make it impossible for this soldier at the front to get the votes of those at home who were favourable to Union Government, and also of the soldiers overseas, by omitting his name from- the records. You may say that the list was published on the 27th, and that a supplementary list was published on. the 29th. But the men overseas would naturally be anxious to know who. the candidates were; they would look over the first list, and would not take the trouble to go over the second and see whether any names had been added or omitted. The first would be the one that would receive their attention; we do not know when the second was circulated.. I am sorry indeed that I have to refer to these things in this way; it was not my intention to have done so. In the course of half a dozen words I asked a simple question, and I do not consider that I received the answer to which I was entitled. The minister may not have been responsible for the acts of this Director of Public Information at that time, but somebody was certainly responsible, and that is what I want to emphasize. I do not wish to make trouble for the Government, but I must insist upon my rights in this House and upon the right of those who are not here to see that justice is done. I submit that the guilty party in this case should be punished.
Mr. NESBITT:: I regret exceedingly that my name has been drawn into this discussion. Ajbovie all things I always try not to appear personally in a public way any more than I can possibly help. I have nothing whatever to say against my opponent; he had as much right to run as I had. He was first the candidate of the Conservative party. My hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) said that I was nominated and brought out by the Liberal executive. It is true that I was nominated some two years ago by the Liberal party in the north riding of Oxford. In the last Parliament I took a certain position, with respect to the Military Service Bill, and when the elections were brought on last fall I called the executive of the Liberal Asociation together and made a statement to them of the position that I had taken^ in that respect. I told them that, on account of the .position I had taken, it was absolutely impossible for me to take any other course during the coming campaign than that of endorsing the Union Government. The executive of the Liberal Association were kind enough to say that they thought I had taken the proper course, and that they would endorse it and support me during the coming campaign-an offer which I very gratefully accepted. That was on Saturday. That evening the Conservative Association called a meeting of their so-called executive and pretended to accept the resignation of my opponent as Conservative candidate and to nominate him as Conservative-Unionist candidate. On Sunday afternoon they got hold of the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association-remember, I have nothing to say against the Great War Veterans' Association, or against the great war veterans-. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) interrupts me. I want to tell him that it is not because he suggested anything that I say this, and we can settle it right now, or outside if he likes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not want any insinuations from him at all. On Sunday afternoon the Conservative clique in Woodstock got hold of the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association-who, by the way, has never been at the front-and got him to call a meeting of his executive that afternoon and nominate my opponent as their candidate. That Sunday night the same Conservative clique in Woodstock called another meeting of their so-called executive, withdrew the resolution they had passed nominating my opponent as the Conserva-

tive-Unionist candidate, and endorsed the Great War Veterans' candidate. It was a little trickery on the part of the Conservative clique in Woodstock, that was all; and it was so recognized 'by a great many of the Conservatives in the north riding of Oxford. As to the men in France and England not knowing that my opponent was running, let me say that my opponent had been in France, had been wounded and was home. He spent six months at home canvassing against me on the pay of this Government. He was not a cripple any more than I was, . or half as much as I was, so far as that is concerned. He went back to England, not to France, and he was in England at the time the election was on. I have no doubt that he was doing the best he could for himself in England, and I do not blame him for that; that is his privilege. But I have letter after letter from men who were in France and England, saying that his name was posted on the bulletins and that they did know that he was running at the time. So I contend that those who voted for the Union Government or for me personally, as the case might be, knew that my opponent was running, and knew that he was a soldier and at that time in England.	*


John Allister Currie: Is it a fact that the hon. member ('Mr. Nesbitt) w'rote a letter to the German voters in his riding canvassing them in the election, and repudiating Union Government and the War-time Elections Act?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a fact that I wrote letters to some constituents in my riding, but not by any means repudiating the Unio^ Government, I was opposed to the War-time Elections Act, and I w-as opposed to it during the whole of the last session.
I would be absolutely hypocritical if I said that I was not opposed to it, because I did oppose it on the floor of* the House as energetically as I could, and everybody knows it. I may tell jthe member tfotr North Simcoe (Mr. Ourrie) that I voted for the Military Service Act, and he knows it.


Mr. ANDREWS:: The daily bulletins
sent to the troops in the field from home are very highly appreciated by all ranks, and to discontinue 'them would be an unnecessary hardship. I suggest that these bulletins should be speeded up, if anything, and that they should be delivered regularly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I disagree with my hon. friend. I will take the case of Sir Allen
Aylesworth's son, who is in the trenches. In one issue of that sheet a cable from the President of the Council in Canada is published, with the following heading:
Sir Allen Aylesworth's son. Your Old man Has Gone Back on You.


Newton Wesley Rowell: May I ask my hon. friend the date of that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The 27th of November.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend knows that I stated in the House this afternoon that the publication of the Record was not transferred to my jurisdiction until January or February of this year. Until that time I had no more to do with it than my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend, this afternoon, assumed the responsibility for the publication of this sheet.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did from the time it came under any jurisdiction.


Jacques Bureau: Somebody was responsible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of interest to this little family squabble, and I notice that some of my hon. friends are very touchy when their names are not mentioned in that Record. For instance, my hon. friend from Brantford, Mr. Cockshutt, was incensed because his1 brother's name was not published in the Record, and there is some other squabble in regard to Oxford County. Well, if my hon, friends get angry because their names are not mentioned, what about Sir Allen Aylesworth's son who is in the trenches and who sees his father's name branded as it was in that paper in which it was cabled from Canada?
Sir Allen Aylesworth's son. Your old man has gone back on you.
It tells the fake story that a sergeant said to the audience at a political meeting:
Think of it. Picture Sir Allen's son' over there in the midst of it all. See him in the trenches holding a field telephone to his ear-
A nastier way to Ihear it.
-asking why reinforcements have not come up to him, when he needs them so sorely. Then comes the answer: Aylesworth, your old- man has gone hack on you.
A ministerial, an official publication, distributed amongst our boys in the trenches'


Charles Murphy: To win the war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir Allen Aylesworth, one of Canada's most prominent men, has given hds only son to fight in the trenches, and his son has to read that literature.


Ernest Lapointe: And we have to pay for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from
Winnipeg says: Speed up, speed up; it is too bad they do not receive this Record soon enough. I do not wish to be too per<-sonal, but I desire to nail a lie published in that sheet during tlhe last election, which was read by my son and1 forwarded to me:
Fighting officer's nomination. Hon. R. Lemie-ux's petition for rejection is discussed. Daily Record Cablegram, Quebec, Wednesday.
A despatch from Perce, Gaspe, announces that the petition of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, for the rejection of the nomination of 'Major L. P. Gauthier, the Unionist candidate, because he is at the front, was dismissed by Judge Tessier. There will be a straight tight in this constituency between the two principal parties.
That, Mr. Chairman, is nothing 'but a lie. That 'article was sent by Canada, paid for by Canada, paid for by your humble servant as well as by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).


Jacques Bureau: What is the date?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, just in time, the 29th of November. I said this afternoon that the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who pays just as much as the Prime Minister for the publication of this sheet in England, who contributes his share as a taxpayer, had been slandered and libelled by that sheet during the whole election campaign. What do I read on November 29th?:
A victory for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, therefore, would mean that Canada would, have to drop out of the war.
This is a lie. Sir Wilfrid Laurier never appealed to his fellowmen on those lines.
Many of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's supporters have gone so far in apposition to it as to pledge themselves, if elected, to disband 100,000 men who have already been called up under the new scheme. That is to say, they have undertaken to wreck the Canadian Army Corps at the most critical moment of the war.
I am in earnest about this. Let by-gones be by-gones. Are we going to pay in the future for such literature to be distributed amongst our boys at the front? At this critical moment, when the right hon. gentleman is making a supreme appeal to this country to unite to win the war, are we going to be called upon to pay for such literature as this? You will never get united effort, national unity, if you go on with such a publication. This is- a deliberate insult to one-half of the people of Canada. The Liberals are represented as traitors', quitters, slackers, as desirous of wrecking the army. I have some confidence in my hon. friend
C'Mr. Lemieux.]
the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Roweil). I have no confidence in this Record, and much confidence as I may have in my hon. friend, I do not believe that he is a recording angel himself.


John Allister Currie: Before this very interesting debate is ended, I desire to make a few observations:	The hon. member for North
Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) stated to the House that, during the election, he did not repudiate the Union Government. I hold in my hand a letter which my hon. friend issued to his constituents in a certain section of his riding, that is, in Tavistock. I do not think he will deny this letter:
Dear Sir, I am taking the liberty of writing you to say that I would: like you to give me your support on election day, Monday the 17th, and get as many others of your neighbours to do as you can. I have, as you know, represented the Riding for the past nine years, and, I hope, satisfactorily to you all. I have been a consistent follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and still consider him the foremost statesman in Oanad'a.
Not a word there about the leader of the Union Government.
I have never differed with him except on one question and have been a strong opponent of the new War-time Elections Act-
That is the very Act that helped to elect him. This is the beautiful part of the letter:
-which aimed to disfranchise a certain number of my German friends, and if elected will use my best efforts to have the same repealed, as I look upon them as among our very best citizens.
That is to say, the German element in the West are our best citizens.
I also was a strong opponent of the Canadian Northern Bill, and', idf elected, will endeavour also to have that rectified.
We shall doubtless hear from him about that later on.	.
I hope, therefore, that I can count on you for your hearty support and assistance in any way you can. Hoping to hear from you favourably, I am,
Yours very truly,
E. W. Nesbitt.
That is the letter that was sent to one part of the riding. A very touching appeal was sent by the same hon. gentleman to the men in the trenches. I have not that letter here, but I have a copy of it also and no doubt it told very much in his favour over there, because he said he was in favour of the war, he was against the German element in Canada and all that kind of thing. This

is neither the time nor the place to bring up these questions, but after all is said and done, this Government has won and is in power notwithstanding those who are lukewarm behind it, and who were saying nice things about their German friends. I want to say one word in conclusion in reference to the Great War Veterans. Everybody knows that the Great War Veterans' Associations before the election, were manned largely by officers in the employ of the Government.
Any man who became president of the Great War Veterans' Association was given a job on the Hospitals Commission or something of that kind; however, the association has its heart in the right place and is probably more anxious to win the war than any other organization in this country. The action which that organization took before the election was that it would not as a body support any particular party, but would leave to local organizations perfect liberty to exercise their own judgment in selecting candidates. The Great War Veterans' Association selected candidates in a number of constituencies. They had a candidate in the Toronto riding represented by the hon. gentleman who has spoken this evening, and I might say that that is one of the strongest Tory ridings in Canada. I know, and everybody in that city knows very well, that if that gentleman had not had the en-dorsation of the Union Government and the support of the Conservative machine behind him he had no more chance of winning than a snowball. The Great War Veterans' Association opposed him simply because there was a man in the field who had served his country in the trenches, and had not gone around in clothes masquerading as a soldier, and they had a perfect right to do that. As far as I am concerned, if it is ever my duty to vote for any one in an election I am going to vote for the man who fought in the trenches, regardless of what party label he wears, and that is the right thing for those who have seen service to do in my estimation. If this war meant anything in the last election, it was
10 p.m. a call by the Government of the day to the people of this country to support the men in the trenches, and I think the action taken in Ontario in some cases smacked very much of old-time ward machine politics.
Now, about the Toronto Telegram, the widest-read journal in Ontario. The editor of that paper, a great journal-
The' CHAIRMAN: I think I must rule that out of order. What we are discussing is clause 1 of the War-Appropriation; Bill, and not the journalistic doings in the last election.


John Allister Currie: I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the question before us, but the hon. member for Toronto has attacked the editor of the Toronto Telegram on account of his attitude in the last election, and the connection between that and the subject before us is so close that I did not think I was out of order in discussing the matter. However, I do not wish to go into any lengthy remarks, and will only say that I have noticed that the editor of the Toronto Telegram is quite capable of taking care of himself on every occasion, either on the platform or in the columns of his paper.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to interrupt this entertainment but before this act came on I was doing business with the Prime Minister. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has just read from a publication which is distributed in the trenches and paid for by the people of Canada, and he seemed to charge the President of the Privy Council with responsibility for this publication. The President of the Privy Council denied that he was responsible, and said that the publication in question was issued on 29th November, whereas he only took office as manager of the paper on 1st January. The other evening when the Prime Minister was making a statement about the appropriation for 1918-19 he seemed astonished because I took exception to certain matters in connection with the Overseas Minister of Overseas Military Forces who is three thousand miles away from us, and he invoked solidarity-II think that was>
the word, whether a minister was in France, India or China, it did not matter, as the ministers were all jointly and severally responsible for everything that happened in any department. Consequently, it seems strange to-night that the President of the Privy Council now he is confronted with the misdeeds of his confreres, should say that he did not become responsible until the 1st January, because only the otheT day we put through a Bill at the request of the Prime Minister which appointed the President of the Privy Council to his present position in the Government, dating from the month of October last. I mention this just to show how this question of solidarity works.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is in enor. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve said that this document emanated from the office of the President of the Council, and d said that was incorrect-as the publication had not come under my jurisdiction until a later date.


Jacques Bureau: Is that the excuse that my hon. friend is making?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I was simply correcting my hon. friend from Maisonneuve on a statement of fact, and was saying he had not correctly stated the matter.


Jacques Bureau: The statement that my hon. friend now makes is that the responsibility was thrown on him. He says he was not President of the Privy Council at that time.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have to correct my hon. friend again. The hon. member for Maisonneuve read a statement which he said emanated from the office of the President o' the Council; as a matter of fact, he said it had been sent from that office. That was not correct, as the paper was not under my jurisdiction at that time. It was purely a question of fact I was correcting.


Jacques Bureau: Under whose jurisdiction was the publication? Who was the assignor when my hon. friend became assignee of this job ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I explained this afternoon that what is done in Canada is the telegraphing over to the other side of Canadian news. That has (been done by an officer who has served overseas, and ia now here in Canada in charge of that work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is his name?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Captain Wallace. He was in the Department of Militia prior to his coming under the Director of Public Information.


Samuel Hughes: In what capacity
in the Department of Militia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He was looking after
the sending over of information; I do not know whether he was directly under the Minister of Militia or not, when he was employed in connection with the Canadian War Records in the Old Country. I do not know the arrangement -under which he was operating prior to coming under the Director of Public Information.


Jacques Bureau: That does not answer
my question. The hon. gentleman is in control of this publication now, or at all

events, whoever edits the paper is under his jurisdiction.	[DOT]


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The Director of Public Information reports to me; he is an official under the charge of the President of the Council. Captain Wallace who transmits the news to this publication to England is now under the Director of Public Information. ,


Jacques Bureau: And the Director of Public Information is under the jurisdiction of the President of the Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I want to get this clear
in my mind, as I do not want the President of the Council shirking his responsibility.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not want to shirk
anything.


Jacques Bureau: I want to know who
handed this Bureau of Information over to him-, and by what process it was handed over.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bureau of Information was not handed over. The officer in charge of this publication came from the Department of Militia, but I do not know what position he occupied in that department.


Jacques Bureau: That is immaterial. The point I was making was that if solidarity should 'be invoked by the Prime Minister in one case* it should apply in every case, and the President of the Council is just as -much responsible as any other member of the 'Government for allowing these statements to go abroad.


Mr. JACOBS:: A little more so.


Jacques Bureau: Perhaps. He is a great
inspirer, I am told, and his inspiration may have filtered through to the Department of Militia; however, if this family quarrel is adjourned I will now renew my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Victory Loan of last November and all things in connection with it oome under the Department of Finance?


Robert Laird Borden: Before answering the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) I would like to say one or two words in reply to certain observations made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). He seems to make a great deal out of very little. Here is an item of which he quoted only -a part in the Canadian Daily Record of November 27. It.-simply gives an -account, whioh has been published in the Canadian -press, of an incident that took

place at a political meeting at Beaverton. That is all there is about it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is pleasant news
for the son of Sir Allen Ayleeworth.


Robert Laird Borden: Whether it
concerns the son of Sir Allen Ayles-worth or any one else, it is an item of public news which is -proper to be made known to the men in the trenches as it as proper to he made known to the people of Canada generally. I do not know that telegrams describing what has transpired at public meetings in Canada are to be censored from the standpoint of any individual in the trenches. I would regard that as rather an: extraordinary proposal. My hon. friend gave another quotation, in regard to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I never saw it; yet I venture to think that nothing more would be found in regard to that than I have found in regard to the item on which he lays so much stress. It has now been placed in my hands and I find it is simply an advertisement in the Canadian Daily Record publishing an article from the London Daily Mlail. It is upon these two extracts that my hon. friend would endeavour to build up a case for attacking this newspaper. I have already explained-some hon. gentlemen do not seem to understand it-that the Canadian Government does not pay out anything in connection with the Canadian Daily Record except for the news transmitted at the cost of this country overseas for the information and benefit of the men in the trenches. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House will begrudge the very moderate expenditure of public money for enabling these men to know what is transpiring in the country they have left in order that they may fight for its continued existence.
Let no hon. gentleman imagine from what has transpired here this evening that the candidates who had served this country at the front were overlooked. I have examined the list just now and I find that about twenty men, most of whom, I am glad to say, are sitting in this House and who saw service either at the front or here in Canada or in the United Kingdom, were recognized as candidates on behalf of the Union Government at the last election.
In regard to the question which has been put to me by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), the method of procedure under the War Appropriation Act is this: it is not a vote to any particular department. I have explained this at every session of Parliament since the war began. My hon. friend has overlooked it. I have [DOT]explained it altogether about fifteen or twenty times from first to last. This is not a vote to any department of the Government; it is a vote to the Government as a whole, and therefore no portion of it can he expended by any department except under Order in Council. When any particular sum of money is appropriated to a department out of the war appropriation, that department has power to utilize those funds to that amount and no more, subject to the audit of the Auditor General and to all the precautions in regard to the expenditure of public moneys that would prevail if that particular sum of money had been voted to the department in question by Parliament in the first instance. That is the only way it can be carried out, and that is the way it is carried out. We have felt that where so large a sum of money is voted to the Government as a whole we should take rather extraordinary precautions to see that we understand the purpose for which it is to be expended, and that the accounts are properly and carefully audited. .


Samuel Hughes: Lest there should be some misunderstanding in the minds of hon. gentlemen regarding the Daily Record, I will give the history of it. Early in the war it was found, as the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) has told the House', the boys were anxious for news from Canada. Accordingly we arranged to send over, I think it was one hundred wordis a day. We got a grant for one hundred words daily, and we sent that to the boys of each corps along the whole line. There was no advertising, and it was just in "flimsy." We extended it to three hundred words later, and it was under the charge of the Department of Militia and Defence. We put it under the management of two of the best newspaper men we could get-and they are all good. I may say here that the newspaper men of both political parties have played the game like gentlemen from the drop of the hat during this war, and that they have given us every legitimate assistance that they could give. One of these men was Mr. Grange and the other was Mr. Wallis. They were men who would be satisfactory to every hon. gentleman on either side of this House. We sent this news over continuously day after day,

but it was on flimsy. Later on it was printed. I do not know anything about it since that, but I think it is desirable that it should be continued, because I can back up what the hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) said as to the great service it is to the boys at the front. They need it badly. I have no doubt it will be kept free, and that no side issues will be allowed to crawl into it.
With regard to the other question spoken of by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Bowel), I have no hesitation in saying thalt I am teetotally opposed to employing any gentleman (in the capacity of a sort of newsvendor to the ignorant people of this country, because we have none of the class that can be moved by iany such process as that. It is nothing buit an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada foT a lot of these fellows to go around preaching to the people, telling them to do this, and to do that, and to read Napoleon. The selection of a man who has shown himself so prejudiced and so unworthy of public confidence as this gentleman who has been selected by the President of the Privy Council, is a mistake of the first magnitude. As to the others in the department, I know nothing concerning them at all. They .may be all right or all wrong. But if they belong to the type I have indicated, all I *can say is that I have never yet seen men of that type do anything to build up the country. As far -as I am concerned, I am totally opposed to the action of the President of the Privy Council in establishing this department at considerable expense to the country. I have no hesitation in saying-(and my belief has not been changed in the slightest degree by anything that has been said to-day-that the organization of that department composed of these gentlemen, has not for its object the education of the people along lines connected with the winning of the war, but has for its object the education of the people along the lines that will be convenient for certain gentlemen in case they want to use them politically later on.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In regard to the history of this sheet, the Canadian Daily Record, at one time overseas, I received that paper, or rather a collection of typewritten sheets, which I read with considerable pleasure. Because, after all, the home papers arrive, as a rule, two ot three weeks late. This sheet, I understand, was instituted at the time that my hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) was in charge, and consisted of about one hundred words.

tSir SAM HUGHES: It was suggested by the notorious character, Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook, who had the .interests of the beys at heart then the same as now.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 
Robert Laird Borden: Was not the article which the hon. gentleman first read an advertisement?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It was an advertisement and I stated it to be such.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We have never had any statement as to whether any moneys have been turned in to the Canadian Government, or to the Canadian War Record Office, for advertisements printed in this paper during the period of the election.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact the Canadian Government does not expend any money upon the publication of the Canadian War Record at all. The only money that it does expend is in sending telegraphic news messages, and, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has said as to the character of the paper I am under the impression that he has not made a very careful study of its columns, or he would not have committed himself quite so absolutely as he did. For example on the very page from which my hon. friend, the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) quoted I find this:
Denies all knowledge.
Sir Wilfrid makes reply to Premier on recruiting.
(Daily Record Cablegram.)
Ottawa, Monday.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier has issued a statement replying to the Premier's speech at Sydney, when Sir Robert said he had asked the Opposition to co-operate in regard to recruiting.
In his reply, Sir Wilfrid Laurier says he has no knowledge whatever of these invitations.
A correction, according to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's. ideas, of a statement I had made at Sydney. I would suppose that any hon.. gentleman looking at a page of the paper-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Would the Prime Minister like to have a photograph of that paragraph, as well as of the paper, shown to anybody in this House? If a photograph were taken of it it would surely be shown that it was an imputation with respect to the honesty of the right hon. leader of the Opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I must confess that I can hardly enter into the state of mind which would attribute any such imputation as that to the article that I have just read. I shall not discuss it; hon. gentlemen can see it for themselves, as they have heard it for themselves. According to my limited powers of understanding, I should say it could not by any possibility whatever convey any such imputation as the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Jacques Bureau: The Prime Minister said just now that we should not begrudge the money we are spending for that publica-

tion. It is the same old game. When we get up, and there has been a family quarrel, I am surprised that they do not yell " Quebec." We on this side of the House do not begrudge any expenditure foT the soldiers. If you want to have unity, and have us join hands with you in everything, it is high time that these imputations should stop, and when anybody on the other side is in a hole it is sufficient that he cry out: " Oh, well, you have to cry, because this is an expenditure for war purposes." Nobody on the other side can complain that we have embarrassed the Government in any way since the beginning of the session, even when they brought in bad measures, or measures that would be obnoxious to any man who desired to keep this a democratic country if it was not a time of war. We do not want to have any trouble, and it is for that reason that'we object to these imputations that have been made against us for the last year or more. As my hon. friend has said, the Canadian Daily Record has contained some shameful posters and literature, which was published in the Ontario- papers, and the title " Union Publication Committee," telephone such a number, and such an address, appeared on the sheet. Now, I have no objection to sending this publication to the trenches. The Prime Minister says it does not cost a cent to send it. I say go on and spend money on it, and let the boys in the trenches know what is going on in this country. It is not the spending of $200 more a week or a month that will cripple this country. The object is to keep them in contact with their people. I suppose its not costing the public anything is the excuse for making it a political sheet to be sent to the trenches. We are onto the game, and we won't stand for it, and are determined that these imputations shall go on no longer. The Prime Minister told me that this amount of $500,000,000 is appropriated to the Government as a whole. That being so, I want to see the report of the whole Government as to that Victory Loan. The reason is this: On page 597 of unrevised Hansard, the Prime Minister made the statement that the war expenditure for the Finance Department for the fiscal year 1914-15 was $149,630.09; in 1915-16, $72,000; in 1916-17, $54,000; in 1917-18, $6,000. Now, before 31st March last, the Victory Loan was floated, and my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) told us- the other 
night that the cost of floating that loan was about three millions of dollars.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Five millions.


Jacques Bureau: And might increase to five millions. My hon. friend is here to correct me. He said that the cost so far was about three millions, but that when all his friends were satisfied it would amount to five millions. I Would like to know from the Prime Minister where this five millions representing the commission paid for the raising of the Victory Loan of $300,000,000 is going to be charged.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the advertising.


Jacques Bureau: I thought I understood that covered all the expenditure incurred in the raising of the Victory Loan.
Mr. A. K. MlAGLEAiN:	On the occasion
to which my hon. friend refers, I gave to the House all the information that was available in connection with the cost of the last Victory 'Loan. The expenditures in that connection, so far as known, amount to $3,620,395. But I said there were additional expenditures to be accounted for, and I am very sorry they are not yet available. But they will be available in a few days when 'I shall be able to lay on the table of the House a complete statement of the expenditure. It will approximate nearly five million dollars, but the total cost of the loan will amount to one and one-quarter per cent, which is an exceedingly low rate.


Jacques Bureau: I am not criticising that; I did not rise in a spirit of criticism. I wanted to find out how it is that, according to the Prime Minister's statement, the expenditure for the Finance Department for the fiscal year 1917-18 is $6,024.02, when we know that the floating of this loan is costing the country over four million dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that has . any connection with the loan. I am not very familiar with the administration of the Department of Finance but my impression is that, with respect to all loans floated in this country, the cost is deducted from the proceeds of the loan. Perhaps the Acting Minister of Finance can say if that is the case?
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That has been the practice, I think, in the past. My hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queens can give the House more information on that point than I can. [DOT]

'Mr. FIELDING:	I have not followed
the argument just now. Speaking generally, the hon. gentleman's statement of practice is correct.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to
afford the information that the hon. gentleman desires, if I o.an give it to him.
I did not understand his question. Would he repeat it?


Jacques Bureau: The Department of Finance has raised a loan of $500,000,000, if I understand it aright, iby means of a Victory Loan from the people. This loan has cost a certain amount to the country. My method of keeping books would be to charge the cost of that loan somewhere. Now, if you are going to ;pay $5,000,000, you won't get $500,000,000; you will only get $495,000,000. I understand from the Prime Minister that the country will be credited ith only $495,000,000, is that correct?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: $398,000,000 is
the proceeds of the loan.
M.r. BUREAU:	I am using $500,000,000
for the sake of argument. There is a discrepancy in the amount realized of $5,000,000. There has been realized1 from the loan $495,000,000 and there have actually been issued bonds or certificates to the amount of $500,000,000. Am I correct in that statement?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Yes, hut what is wrong about it?


Jacques Bureau: Nothing is wrong with
*it. But if the Finance Department have been handling this loan, where is the cost of floating it shown? The Prime Minister says that this is a loan which is made to the Government as a whole. Is it distributed' among the various departments? Do I understand that the Militia Department, for instance, get $200,000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend
misunderstood the Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: I was talking
about the appropriation, not about the loan.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All war appropriations are made on behalf of the Government. Ordinarily our estimates appropriate money to the different departments for different purposes, and each department has control over the money voted. But in the case of war expenditures, the appropriation is made by the Government, and the Government is responsible, not the department actually making the expenditure. I informed the House the
other day as fully as I could of the exact cost of the Victory Loan. I am sorry that complete and exact details of the expenditure are not available; I hope, however, that they will be available next week, when I shall lay them on the Table. The Victory Loan was in charge of a committee whose headquarters were at Toronto, and the expenditures were incurred by that committee. We must Tely upon them to submit all the details to the Department of Finance. We are promised the particulars this ' week.


Jacques Bureau: That will be in the public accounts?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The cost of the loan will be deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds.


Jacques Bureau: There will be that discrepancy between the two sides of the books.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hooks of the department will show the total receipts and the total cost of making the loan.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman said that there was a committee in Toronto. What committee was that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some members of the committee were from Montreal and other parts of Canada, I believe. I am sorry that I cannot inform my hon. friend as to the membership of the committee.


Samuel Hughes: Will my hon. friend get that information?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In the return which my hon. friend promises to bring down, will he give details of the various items of expenditure under the different headings- newspaper advertising, and so on?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The information I propose to lay on the Table will disclose the exact amount paid for publicity, and the amount paid to each newspaper in Canada.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will it contain the
amount paid for publicity through the newspapers as distinguished from publicity through other means?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: I listened with great
attention to the statement made by the President of the Council this afternoon with regard to his scheme of propaganda throughout Canada and his explanation of the publication in different books and maga-

zines of the reasons for the war and the aims of the Allies. I was not, however, in any way convinced that this country ought to spend so large an amount as the cost of the scheme proposed by the President of the Council would involve. I submit that if the press, not only of the province of Quebec but of all the other provinces as well, were allowed to state exactly the views of the people of the country the people would be thoroughly acquainted with our aims in this war and the objects which we wish to attain. The President of the Council told us that he had appointed as head of the Bureau of Public Information a gentleman by the name of Nichols. I do not wish to repeat what the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said, but if what he said is true-and it has not been contradicted either by the President of the Council or by any member on the other side-Mr. Nichols certainly is not competent to be placed in such a position as that which has been assigned to him by the minister. Mr. Nichols edited two newspapers in Montreal; what happened to those newspapers? Well, they attacked the exMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) for what purpose I do not know.


Samuel Hughes: I know, though.


Lucien Cannon: The ex-Minister of Militia thinks he knows. I hope that after I have finished these few remarks, he will explain why he knows.


Samuel Hughes: I did.


Lucien Cannon: 
Samuel Hughes: Might I correct the hon. member? It was assumed -by Canadians-, the Canadian High Commissioner and others, that we had nothing to say in the matter. When- I laid the matter before the British Government, 1 did so- very clearly, and Viscount Kitchener, Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Robertson, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bon-ar Law and others recognized our position exactly as I laid it down.


Lucien Cannon: I understand from what the hon. member s-ays that our official representative in England, our High Commissioner at London, was under the impression that we had absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of our army the moment it landed in England?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Our Minister of Militia at that time maintained the contrary. What was the result? The Commissioner is still there, and the minister is out.


Samuel Hughes: Happy, though.


Lucien Cannon: Happy to be out. Maybe the ex-minister is happy, but if the exminister contended for the maintenance of our autonomy, I may say that I am not happy that he is out, because the stand taken by him is the stand that should be taken by every true and sincere Canadian. We are subjects of the British Empire, it is true. I would be the last man- to- forget th-at I am a British subject; I would be the last man to preach, in my province or in my constituency any disloyalty towards the British Crown; but on the other hand, I would be the last man to say that I am the slave of England or of Downing street.


Mr. HAY:: What about the American forces in England and France at the present time?


Lucien Cannon: The American forces have been placed by their Government at the disposal of General Foch as Commander-inChief of the Allied forces, but our Government never had anything to do as to our
troops once they went overseas. That is the difference.
I was astounded, I was amazed this afternoon when the Minister of Militia declared that he did not even know who was the army commander of the Canadian corps at present. Where do we stand? We are no longer in 1760. We are no longer at the stage when this Canada of ours was merely a small colony which a few thousands of people were trying to open up to colonization and civilization. This Canada -is a country and the Canadian people are a nation. We are not a Crown colony. What is our status? When you take a country like Montenegro, which has contributed to the Allied forces in this war a force of about 10,000 men, whenever there is a military conference in Paris or in London the representatives of Montenegro are called in to give their opinion. And at such conferences, where is our -Canadian representative? When England decided to declare war on Germany and Austria, was the Prime Minister of this country consulted? Did the Prime Minister of this country receive a cable from the Imperial authorities? If he did, I should like him to let me know. We were not consulted as to the declaration of war.


Robert Laird Borden: I may tell the hon. gentleman that we were in constant communication with the Imperial authorities for days -before war broke out.


Lucien Cannon: Constant communication with the Imperial authorities possibly, but if the Prime Minister wants to be sincere he will admit he never was consulted as to whether this Empire -should declare war on Germany or not.


John Allister Currie: This Parliament did take action.
Mr. 'CANNON: It was never consulted as to the declaration of war.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.


Lucien Cannon: I know what I am talking -about.
Mr. CLfRRIE: No, you do not.


Lucien Cannon: I 'do not wish to carry on a discussion with the hon. member along these lines. Ignorance is no argument, and he can keep his to himself.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I think that a great deal of useless discussion would be avoided if the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), who now has the floor, would

bring his remarks a little nearer to the Bill under consideration.


Lucien Cannon: I will task the Chairman to read the clause now under consideration.


Georges Henri Boivin: " This Act may be cited as The War Appropriation Act, 1918."


Lucien Cannon: The preamble 'has not been adopted, has it?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, lit has not. According to the rules of the House, consideration of the preamble has been postponed until the Clauses have been considered.


Lucien Cannon: Therefore, all clauses are subject to the preamble, which reads as follows


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I have just stated that the discussion on the preamble has been postponed until the clauses have been considered. If the hon. member does not wish to submit to my ruling he can appeal to the House.


Lucien Cannon: I how to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I understand that according to the rules I can state my position.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that according to the rules, the hon. member cannot state his opinion after the Chairman has made 'his ruling, and the only recourse is an appeal to the House without discussion'.


Lucien Cannon: What is the Chairman's ruling?


Georges Henri Boivin: It is that we are discussing the short title of this Bill, and that the remarks now being made by the hon. member for Dorchester are not in order, *as they do not relate to the clause now under discussion.


Lucien Cannon: 
Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Once again,
and for the last time, I call the hon. gentleman to order. He is now discussing the principle of this Bill-discussion which might more properly have taken place on the second reading. In any event, it certainly is not in order on the clause under consideration,


Lucien Cannon: With all respect for the Chairman of this committee I wish to


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.
Mr. 'CANNON:	On the second reading
of this Bill it was distinctly understood-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Thomas Vien: May I ask the Prime Minister if it was not distinctly understood that we could discuss the principle of the Bill in committee just as on the second reading?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not so understand.


Thomas Vien: There was something of that kind understood.


Robert Laird Borden: We will look
it up and see what it was. I remember that I said I would give a great deal of information in committee which I might otherwise have given on the second reading.


Thomas Vien: The Bill was given its
second reading to rush matters, but on the distinct understanding that we could discuss its principle in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware of that.


Thomas Vien: That is what we gathered'
from the Prime Minister's remarks the other day.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision. The honourable the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) this afternoon gave us a statement as to the great scheme he had to open up the minds of the people of Canada as to the object of the country in this war. If we are to believe the remarks made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and which were not contradicted, if the Government wish to carry on a propaganda of the same character as that which was carried on in England during the election and if the Liberals of Canada are to be represented in these official papers as the Kaiser's friends I do not think it would be fair for any gentleman on the other side of the Hbuse, not even for the President of the Privy Council, to ask us to pay for papers that are libelling us all the time. The President of the Privy Council says that his sole object is to unite the population of this country and to increase our strength in fighting Germany. As far as that is concerned, we are always unanimous.


William Cameron Edwards: In theory.


Lucien Cannon: In theory and in practice.


William Cameron Edwards: Not to any alarming extent.


Lucien Cannon: We may differ as to means ' and methods but I think our spirit is the same. I think that our ideas are in common and that on both sides we wish to win the war and to prosecute it with the greatest possible vigour. I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that this propaganda that is being carried on has certain dangers. Why should the people of this country who are divided in their political views be called
upon to pay the expenses of publications, lectures and meetings when the views expressed in these publications, lectures and meetings may not be in the interest of unity or of the country generally? As far as the President 'of the Privy Council is concerned, I have not the pleasure or the honour of knowing him personally, but I have known him casually through reports published in the papers and through speeches made in the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   GANNON@: If any hon. member wishes to interrupt me I would ask him to rise. These publications may be good, but judging by those which have been issued in the past, I do not think it would be fair or just to the people of this country to ask them to pay for them. In England, in France, and among our overseas troops, these publications have been issued absolutely for political purposes. If the Unionist party wishes to promote its aims and to improve its chances of being elected, should1 not the Unionist party pay its party and election expenses instead of the Government bearing these expenses? It is not fair, just or equitable. I notice in memorandum No. 3, which is being distributed to the members, a statement published on page 60. This statement contains one item to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is an item as to the Ross rifles. According to that statement, we have spent $8,360,358.32 for the period covered by the memorandum. What has become of those Ross rifles? The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam. Hughes), I understand, was a firm supporter of the Ross rifle. He was a very convinced believer in the qualities of the Ross rifle as a war weapon. Last year, without any warning, the workers who were employed at the Ross rifle factory in Quebec received notice that their services were no longer required.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman know if there is any truth in the rumour that for the purpose of carrying on the war they are trying to manufacture a *annon in Quebec that will shoot three thousand miles?
APr. OANNpN:	I do not know if such
a gun is to be manufactured, but if it were I think it would be very useful to the hon. member because he does not fire very far.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman undertake to raise a battalion to operate such, a gun from his constituency?


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member may think he is very funny. If he is of that opinion I am not going to disabuse his mind of the idea, because when a man wishes to be funny I like him to enjoy his own jokes. But 1 wish to tell the hon. gentleman that we on this side are not here to make jokes. We are not here to laugh, but to discuss as seriously as we can the problems -which are submitted to us, and we are thoroughly in earnest in our resolution to do so. If the hon. member does not agree with me I am very sorry for him. I do not wish to be funny, I desire to be serious and I hope he will adopt the same attitude. I was remarking to the Prime Minister that the Ross rifle factory in Quebec is closed. The closing of that factory was a real calamity, because it deprived thousands of labourers of employment and forced them to leave our city and to go elsewhere to seek for work. I would like , the Government to give us an explanation as to why the Ross rifle factory was closed, because the explanations offered by the Government at the time were incomplete and unsatisfactory. The people of Quebec are asking why that factory should have been closed after the Government had made such a large expenditure as they did. in connection with the manufacture and purchase of Ross rifles. I will not take up time in unduly discussing this matter, but I sincerely hope that the Government, before this discussion closes, will vouchsafe a satisfactory answer on the subject.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: If the hon. gentleman would apply to the former member for Edmonton. Mr. Oliver, he would get all the information possible on that subject.
Mr. CANNON": That is indeed a very bright suggestion on the hon. gentleman's part.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: May I inquire if the military publication known as "Knouts and Lashes" is published by the department?


Robert Laird Borden: I never heard of it before.


Joseph Archambault: Does the Government grant any subvention to that publication?


Robert Laird Borden: Not that I am aware of.


Thomas Vien: This afternoon I asked for some information from the Prime Minister as to the management of the Department

of Militia Overseas. I did not want at the time to interrupt the trend of the discussion that was immediately afterwards started' by other speakers on other subjects, and which served to divert attention from the point which I raised, but I now wish to press for an answer, because the point involved is most important. If we wish to continue to consider ourselves as a nation we must deal with our army as a nation does. The Prime Minister told us that in the direction of military operations the Canadian commander in the field had to receive orders from the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies. In that arrangement we all concur, but in our expeditionary force there are regiments, brigades, divisions and army corps. We have staffs for the regiments, and also brigade and division and army staffs, and we have the army council advising the Minister of Militia Overseas. But it seems to me, and the same idea occurs to a great many members of this House as well as to a large number of our people, that such being the case, promotions in and appointments to the Canadian Expeditionary Force could be easily followed, could be easily recommended, and easily kept under the control of the Minister of Militia Overseas, who should be required to report these matters to the Canadian Government for the information of the House. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he told us that the military operations were under the control of the War Office and the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies, but he did not advise us as to how the appointments or promotions in the regiments, or on the brigade, division and army corps staffs were made. Neither did he answer the other question I asked, which was whether the commander of our army in the field reports	either to	the Minister ofMilitia Overseas, or directly to the Government, how our troops are ordered into action and how they	come	out.	Thisinformation I also deem to be of importance. Field	Marshall	Haig,	the	commander of the British troops in the field, now acts under the supreme command of General	Foch,	but	that
does not prevent the former from sending despatches to his Government as to how the troops go into action and how they come out. I, therefore, wish for informationxon those points: First, as to the appointment of officers and as to their displacement; secondly, as to the orders given to our troops to go into action or to come out of it, and whether the commander in the field

has any orders to report to the Government by despatches in that respect.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already explained, and I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not grasp my statement, that in so far as appointments and promotions at the front are concerned, they are carried out practically by the military commanders in the brigades, the divisions and the army corps. We do not interfere at all, and I think the public would regard us as practically insane if we did in this instance attempt to do so. In the case of the higher commands word is sent to us, but naturally we feel that those who are in command of the troops understand better the qualifications, the experience and the ability of the men selected for a particular post.


Thomas Vien: Who appoints the higher commands?


Robert Laird Borden: In the case of a brigade, there would be a recommendation from the commander which would, I presume, require the approval of the divisional commander and the commander of the corps. In the case of a division, the divisional commander would make his recommendation to the commander of the corps. It all goes in that way. Inasmuch as the commander of the corps is responsible in the last analysis, why, naturally his approval must be secured. And then in the case of important commands-


Samuel Hughes: We cannot hear a
word.


Robert Laird Borden: I was saying
that the commander of the corps must approve, as I understand, because he is, in the highest degree, responsible. As to important commands, we have been consulted over here. But we have never attempted to over-ride the recommendations made from the front.


Samuel Hughes: While what the
Prime Minister says in practice may be true, surely the Prime Minister does not for a second dispute that he and his Cabinet have the final say in the appointment.


Robert Laird Borden: Absolutely, we
have, and I have said so repeatedly.


Samuel Hughes: It is quite possible for a gentleman living in Otta-wa to know quite as much about the capacity of these officers as a gentleman thirty miles in the rear of the fighting line.	*


Mr.   D@: I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Militia if French-speaking recruits will be sent to the trenches as a unit; that is, will they be merged into French regiments like the 22nd Battalion? I understand that the 150th Regiment was broken up in England. It was commanded by Colonel Barre, a good officer, who has received the medal of the Legion d'Honneur.
I want to impress upon the Minister of Militia that in my judgment it is important that French Canadians should be kept together. Last week the minister said that he regretted very much that owing to the necessities of the situation a certain regiment which came from a certain province had to be disbanded, and that it would have been better for the spirit of the corps if it had remained together. I think that special steps should be taken to see that French Canadians, a great number of whom do not understand English, shall be commanded by officers who can speak French. Sometimes orders may be given of extreme importance, and it would seem to me that these instructions should be given by officers who can give the necessary explanation in their language. I would strongly and energetically urge that French Canadians should not be merged with English regiments, because they will have sufficient hardships to endure without the added difficulty of language.


Mr. MORPHY:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Mr.   D@: I am just finishing; I won't be long. I noticed in a Montreal paper a statement by Colonel Mignault, who has been to the front, and is, I presume, well known to the Militia Department, in which he argues along this line, that the French Canadians should be kept together as a unit.
Major-General MEWBURN: I think I said some days ago in the House that the whole organization is on the territorial principle, that in England they have some regiments linked up with those overseas. Any recruits coming from Military Districts No. 4 and No. 5, taking in Montreal and Quebec, go over and are put into the reserve battalions, and from these they are gradually sent over as reinforcements to the units in the fighting line coming from their home districts. There- are several regiments at the front known as Quebec regiments. I won't say that they are filled completely with French Canadians, because, I think, in some instances, that they were unable to keep up their reinforcements. But the I3th, 14th, 22nd, 24th, 5th, and the 87th are all known as Quebec regi-

ments coming from the province of Quebec, and the reserve units in England take care of these men, and they go from there to the line regiments in the front.


Mr.   D@: Will the hon. minister promise the House to put himself into communication with the Imperial authorities to see that French Canadians shall be kept together as much as possible? It is not an evasive answer that I wish to have.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Probably the Minister of Militia would allow me to answer the hon. gentleman's question. We all know that the 22nd Battalion, which has covered itself with so much glory at the front, is entirely a French Canadian battalion.


Samuel Hughes: Not entirely.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: II think so. As the French Canadians go from Montreal to England and as the Minister of Militia has pointed out, they are put into what is known in England as the 10th Reserve Battalion under Colonel DesRbsiers. They are all French Canadians there; I was in that camp and saw them. So I wish to assure my hon. friend that the French Canadians at the front are kept together ir*. the 22nd Battalion and officered by French Canadians.


Thomas Vien: The right hon. Prime Minister answered the first question. He will perhaps be able to -tell me whether the Government received any despatch from the commander of the troops in the field as to how they were ordered into action, and how they came out?


Robert Laird Borden: The Officer Commanding the corps in the field reports to us through the Minister of the Overseas Service. We receive very frequent reports. As far as ordering them into action or out of action is concerned, of course, the Government sitting here, in Ottawa has nothing to do with ordering them into action any more than the people in the War Office have to do with directing General's Haig's movements. These things must be done by the military commanders at the front.


Thomas Vien: My right hon. fnend said a minute ago that before the war broke out the Government was in constant consultation-


Avard Longley Davidson: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to call your attention to the fact that speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly rele-
[Major-General Mewburn.]
vant to the item under consideration. It seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite have flagrantly violated that rule this evening.


Georges Henri Boivin: With the unanimous consent of the committee, and also of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia, it was understood that all questions relating to the administration of the forces and all expenditures connected with this Bill should be discussed in committee. I do not think that the hon. member has wandered far enough away from that aspect of the matter under consideration to warrant my calling him to order.


Thomas Vien: I assure my hon. friend that I do not want to delay the procedure unnecessarily. I simply wish to obtain from the Prime Minister such information as will enable us to appreciate how things are managed.


Robert Laird Borden: For about a week, or perhaps more, before the war broke out the Government of the United Kingdom were in constant communication with us. I was away from Ottawa-I left, I think, on 23rd July-and these communications, the purport of which was transmitted to me, were of such a character that on July 30th I came to the conclusion that I should return to Ottawa. I arrived on the morning of August 1st, and went over the communications which had been received. A great many more came during the next three or four days, until war broke out. We were kept constantly advised. On 1st August I took upon myself the responsibility of advising the Government of the United Kingdom that if war did unfortunately break out. this country would stand with the Mother 'Country and the other dominions of the Empire to the end. I further sent them a confidential telegram, which has since been made public, stating that I believed we could send a division over almost immediately. -The question whether or not Parliament and the country would stand behind that declaration came up in the first instance at the session of Parliament which opened on 18th August. On that occasion this country, through the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled, decided that the course which I bad taken was the proper one and they would stand behind it without a dissenting voice.


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister has left out a very important point-

that Britain did not ask Canada to support her. The action of Canada was purely voluntary.


Robert Laird Borden: I certainly desired to be so understood. The telegram which I sent on 1st August was not in response to any appeal; it was a voluntary offer which I made on behalf of the people of Canada, and which was afterwards ratified by this Parliament.


Thomas Vien: ;I asked for this information because I understood the Prime Minister to inform the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) that for over-a week before the war broke out he had been in constant consultation with the Imperial Government. I gather from what the Prime Minister says that the Government was in constant consultation 'with the Imperial authorities so far as our participation in the war was concerned, but not so far as the declaration of war itself was concerned.
Last year the Ross rifle factory was closed down. I was not in the House at the time, but I understood from a declaration made [DOT]by the acting Prime Minister of that time, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that the Ross rifle factory had been closed down on account of the rifle having been discarded, and that the Ross rifle factory would be transformed into a factory for the manufacture of Lee-Enfield rifles. What has been done with the Ross rifle factory, and what steps have been taken to convert it into a Lee-Enfield rifle factory?


Robert Laird Borden: No arrangements have been made to convert the Ross rifle into Lee-Enfield rifle. Speaking without any expert knowledge, I doubt very much whether that would be possible. The troops were being armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle, and it was not considered desirable to proceed with the manufacture of more Ross rifles. The best disposition possible was made of those on hand.


Thomas Vien: What has been done with the machinery that was in the Ross rifle factory?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Some parts
of the machinery that were non required for the manufacture of rifles have been sold; I could not give the exact quantity. I understand it is not the intention of the Government to continue the manufacture of Ross rifles. Some scraps of machinery and material that were not further required have been sold.
Mr. LAViIGUEUR:	At what price was
the Ross rifle factory appropriated by the Government?
Major-General MEWBURN: An Order in Council fixed a maximum price on the expropriation of $3,000,000.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Is it the intention of the Government to manufacture Lee-Enfield rifles in the Roes rifle factory?


Robert Laird Borden: We had a great deal of correspondence with the British Government as to what rifle would eventually be used throughout the Empire. It was recognized at the Imperial War Conference, that it was desirable 'that all troops of the Empire should be equipped and armed, as far as possible, in the same way. It is still quite uncertain what type of rifle will eventually be used. One 'thing is certain: that at the end of this war there will be a very much greater stock of rifles on hand than the Empire will require for peace purposes. Under these circumstances i't is obvious that we coiuild come to no con-elusion as to the manufacture of any particular type of rifle in this country in tile immediate future.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any proposal to turn the Rose rifle factory into a plant for the manufacture of machine guns for a foreign Government?
Major-General MEWBURN:	There was
a suggestion in that regard, and some negotiations took place, but nothing came of them.


Thomas Vien: Are the details of expenditure in connection with the expropriation of the Ross rifle factory published officially?


Robert Laird Borden: They are available in statements that have been made in the Houee.


Thomas Vien: I do not think any statement was laid on the Table so far as the expenditure incurred is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: There was in the memorandum alluded to a statement as to the expenditure during that particular year.


Thomas Vien: I understand the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) told us the other day that he expected the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report to be available in a few days, or, at least, that he could tell us shortly when it would be available. Can the minister tell us now when we may expect the fourth volume which contains a great deal of information and details as to the expenditure? Tho House will not find our inquiries too ex-



tended or obnoxious, because $500,000,000 was voted last year and have been expended, and as insufficient reports have been laid on the Table of the House, I think our inquiry is justified.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree that the hon. gentleman's demands are proper. I am sorry I cannot give him any further information this evening, but I shall do so to-morrow afternoon.
Mr. JOS. READ: I just want to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the very great danger to which they have been exposing the Empire by not sticking to the truth, especially in those publications. Take for instance, that publication that is still under discussion. In that sheet which my hon. friends had circulating amongst our boys, it was stated that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the right hon. leader of the Opposition, won the election, it would mean that Canada intended to quit. Did ever any hon. gentleman opposite think of what moral effect such a statement would produce not only upon our boys at the front, but upon the Imperial forces? Supposing Sir Wilfrid Laurier had won the election, what a state those people would have been in. Hon. members opposite must remember that the morale of an army is of as much importance as its ability to fight, and yet at the risk of lowering the morale of our army, my hon. friends, in order to win the election, go to the extreme method of publishing an absolute falsehood. My hon. friends want to be careful what they do.


Thomas Vien: I would suggest to the Prime Minister that in view of the fact that we have not the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report, and in view of the fact that the report of the Military Service Council was distributed only to-day, the consideration of the clause under discussion should be postponed until another day, and that the committee should rise and report progress. There is not immediate urgency, and we shall not by any means unfairly delay the discussion of these matters, but it is only fair that, before the title of the Bill is carried, we should he put in possession of the documents and details.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite see the relevancy of the report of the Military Service Council to the appropriation under discussion. The report of the Militia Council, I am informed, was laid upon the table of the House about a week ago. Perhaps my hon. friend is confusing the one with the other. There are

two distinct reports. One is the report of the Militia Council, which does contain a great deal of information relative to the appropriation that is now being asked for. The other is the report of the Military Service Council, an absolutely different thing, which has to do with the enforcement of the Military Service Act. According to my apprehension, that has very little relation to the appropriation that is now being asked for. I was not aware that the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report -was not brought down. If the fourth volume contains his report respecting the Department of Militia and Defence, that, of course, is very relevant to the subject under discussion.


Thomas Vien: It contains all the expenditure overseas, and especially the latest expenditure. The expenditure made by the Military Service Council comes under the War Appropriation Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it does,
but the report deals with methods, not with expenditures, and therefore, notwithstanding the suggestion of my hon. friend, I venture to impress upon him that it really has very little relation to this appropriation. The other two reports which he has mentioned have very direct relation to the appropriation.


Thomas Vien: In view of the fact that the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report, containing important details and information, is not available, I would suggest that the committee rise and report progress.


Robert Laird Borden: We had better pass this section. We have been at it for two days, and as it consists of only one line, if we should take as much time for every other line in the Bill, we would get through with this appropriation by next September. I hope we shall get through a little earlier than that. I should like to say further that when my hon. friend suggests there is not some urgency about this matter, he is not thoroughly well advised. Since the 31st day of March, we have not had any money to carry on this war, and while it is perfectly true, I suppose, that bills and accounts have not yet come in to any great extent, we may expect them to come in very soon, and until this measure is passed, there will be no money with which to meet them. Therefore, while I do not desire in any way to restrict discussion, but rather to invite it, I hope hon. gentlemen will not be under the impression that there is no urgency in connection with this measure.


Mr. PARENT:: Will the Minister of Militia be good enough to tell the committee what procedure must be taken to enter the Royal Fiying Corps?
Major-General MEWBURN: Applications are made to the Officer Commanding the Royal Flying Corps in the Royal Bank Building, Toronto. General Hoare is the Officer Commanding, and when he is travelling between Texas and the Canadian camps, applications may be made to. the Officer Commanding the Royal Flying Corps at Toronto, where the headquarters is.


Georges Parent: My reason for mentioning this matter to the minister is that I have had occasion to hear of a couple of cases of young men in the city of Quebec who wanted to apply for a commission in* that particular corps and who were not able to succeed for one reason or another. The men are fully qualified in the way of education, physical capacity and so on.
Major-General MEWBURN: The Royal Flying Corps is not under our jurisdiction; it is under the Imperial War Department. They have their head office at Toronto. They have several camps in this country; they will be opening up at Camp Borden next month or probably the end of this month. If the hon. member finds any difficulty in getting information, I shall be glad to give him all information possible.


Georges Parent: Has the minister nothing tc do with the corps?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Nothing
whatever. The appointments are all made through the officers of the Flying Corps around here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To my personal knowledge the -branch of the Aviation Corps in Montreal is- under the charge of Mr. Light-all, and he has done excellent work in Montreal. I have sent many young men to him myself, and after examination at his office, where an Imperial officer is present, these young men are enlisted. I was surprised to see how rapidly it could be done.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I presume
my hon. friend is referring to young men who want a commission in the Flying Corps. The Flying Corps have offices all over the country-in Montreal, in the West, and in. the United States-and applications are received through any of these offices. I was speaking of the headquarters of the Flying Corps in Toronto.
59J


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that the minister get some of his officers to ascertain just where these offices are, and have the information published in the newspapers so that these young men would know where to apply.
Major-General MEWBURN:	We pass
these applications right along.


Samuel Hughes: Let the newspapers publish the information so the boys will have the data.


Georges Parent: I think the minister said the Government had nothing to do with the Royal Flying Corps, but I find on page- 61 of Memorandum No. 3 that the flying officers are paid at the rate of ?6-I do not know whether that is per day or not-and an allowance. Apparently this money is paid by the country, so the Government must have something to do with the Royal Flying Corps.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman probably did not hear the explanation which I made. There was some allowance made by this country to officers who went into the Flying Corps and lost pay on that account.


Georges Parent: My only object in bringing forward this matter is to facilitate the enlisting of men in the Flying Corps. For some reason at the present time there is a great deal of red tape to. be gone through. I think if the minister would look into this matter it would help considerably.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I shall do
so with pleasure. I know the Flying Corps are only too glad to get recruits, and I am surprised to hear there is any red tape in the matter. .


Lucien Cannon: I asked the Prime Minister some time ago to state the reasons why the Ross rifle factory was closed. I do not know whether he forgot about the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I certainly could not have forgotten about it, because I gave the reasons, but .perhaps my hon. friend did not hear them. I explained that the Ross rifle was not now used, that the men were armed with another rifle, and therefore it would not be in the public interest to continue manufacturing the .Ross rifle.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before passing clause 1, I should like to remind the committee that it w.as on this clause that all these questions concerning expenditure were asked. If any hon. members have any

further questions of that nature to ask, I think it would be a proper time to ask for the information before this clause passes.


Thomas Vien: I understood from the Prime Minister's statement that further questions could be asked when the full volume of the Auditor . General's Report was available.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me relieve my hon. friend's anxiety -at once. If the Chairman has no objection, I see no reason why we should not continue this discussion, in so far as it is relevant, on any other clause of the Bill. There is no reason why information could not be given on any other clause. But I hope it will not be found necessary to have a discussion of quite so comprehensive a scope on the other clauses. I would suggest that the discussion be a little more relevant, but so far as relevant information is concerned, there will not be the slightest objection to giving it on any clause of the Bill, or even on the preamble, which we have not yet reached.


Thomas Vien: The Prime Minister will render us this justice: That so far as relevancy is concerned, this side of the House has kept to the point as closely as hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not intending to draw any comparison whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 12 midnight.
Friday, April 19, 1918.